HGV Versus Cyclist Road Rage

Professor Moriarty

Weepsie wrote: »

Hold on. You can't claim that your law breaking doesn't endanger others, and then claim the others definitely does.

Anyway, this has turned into another mess of a thread and you and a few other posters are a part of the reason why. It was about the HGV and the cyclist. Go have a debate via pm ffs.

It's the degree of endangerment that's being discussed. I think you missed that point. Unless you equate breaking a red light at 200kmph with a motorist going 105kmph for a few seconds on a dual carriageway. But you're not that stupid.

Are you an undercover mod?

Weepsie

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's the degree of endangerment that's being discussed. I think you missed that point. Unless you equate breaking a red light at 200kmph with a motorist going 105kmph for a few seconds on a dual carriageway. But you're not that stupid.

Are you an undercover mod?

You didn't care a jot about the degree of endangerment until you were caught out about your own law breaking.

And the degree of endangerments for the offences you list is a lot lower than you seem to think.

An unexpected deacceleration on a dual carraigeway can be hazardous, even if it's only by a small amount.

Go on, move the goal posts again.

Professor Moriarty

Weepsie wrote: »

You didn't care a jot about the degree of endangerment until you were caught out about your own law breaking.

And the degree of endangerments for the offences you list is a lot lower than you seem to think.

An unexpected deacceleration on a dual carraigeway can be hazardous, even if it's only by a small amount.

Go on, move the goal posts again.

This is fun. How do you know i don't do care about the danger to the cyclist? How do you know I 'unexpectedly' decelerate from 105kmph to 100kmph?

Weepsie

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is fun. How do you know i don't do care about the danger to the cyclist? How do you know I 'unexpectedly' decelerate from 105kmph to 100kmph?

And again, there you are trying to deflect.

Your words "when I notice, I slow down" you also gave those figures not me.

You never condemned the driver, condemning only the cyclists. Your posts give the impression that you only care about laws when cyclists, or rather people on bikes break them. Zero leeway, yet we should expect leeway for you. I've made my mind up through your various posts. As I said, I don't think your alone, and there are as bad on the other side of the argument too. You dress it up as I want the laws to be obeyed by all, but it's nothing more than faux concern to thinly veil your disregard and dislike of cyclists.

I've already said, I think this thread should be locked, and I'm not helping by dragging this on with you. You've previous form in this spurious nonsense posting too, so I'm out.

Professor Moriarty

Weepsie wrote: »

And again, there you are trying to deflect.

Your words "when I notice, I slow down" you also gave those figures not me.

You never condemned the driver, condemning only the cyclists. Your posts give the impression that you only care about laws when cyclists, or rather people on bikes break them. Zero leeway, yet we should expect leeway for you. I've made my mind up through your various posts. As I said, I don't think your alone, and there are as bad on the other side of the argument too. You dress it up as I want the laws to be obeyed by all, but it's nothing more than faux concern to thinly veil your disregard and dislike of cyclists.

I've already said, I think this thread should be locked, and I'm not helping by dragging this on with you. You've previous form in this spurious nonsense posting too, so I'm out.

Wow! Previous form???? I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I've been on cycling forums maybe once or twice before.

Actually I don't hate cyclists and give them as much leeway as possible and drive with all due consideration for them. Personally, I think Irish roads aren't safe for cyclists but it's a free country. However, I'd like to see roads made safer for cyclists primarily for their own sake and because it would stop them cycling on the pavement.

I'm just trying to have a balanced discussion. My central point, which nobody seems to want to engage with, is that the cyclist should not have smashed the mirror and that all road users should obey all laws. I can't understand why that's a problem.

Anyway, if you're off, bye.

Rave.ef

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's why I mentioned an extra banksman too. If you're unable to take your equipment out onto the public road without putting people's lives at risk, you need to take whatever steps are necessary to fix this.

I wouldn't be against the idea of a banks man, be nice to have someone else to talk to during the day other then yourself😂 but it's not feesiable for most company's.
On putting people's lives at risk is the wrong way to look at it. People have to look out for themselfs and each other regardless if your a cyclist hgv driver or a yummy mummy in a suv going to Lidl.
Always give room even if you think the driver can see you. Who knows might have a load of new bikes to deliver🀣

Carlos Orange

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

However, I'd like to see roads made safer for cyclists primarily for their own sake and because it would stop them cycling on the pavement.

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

Professor Moriarty

psinno wrote: »

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

Well, they should be prosecuted. I saw a cyclist clatter into a woman on the pavement recently (abroad as it happens) and I thought the husband was going to kill the cyclist. If you think about it, the cyclist could have just pedalled off having possibly seriously hurt the woman (she seemed very shaken but was still standing). No number plate or way of identifying him. It's fine and innocent until a toddler steps out.

cython

psinno wrote: »

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists society just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements flout the law whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

FYP. Drove between Dublin 15 and Dublin 8 today, and saw as much of this carry on from drivers as cyclists, so it's not a shortcoming that is unique to cyclists. Chief among the drivers being the clown who decided to make this a two-lane slip from St John's Road onto SCR, and cut off the queue of traffic on his left

Professor Moriarty

cython wrote: »

FYP. Drove between Dublin 15 and Dublin 8 today, and saw as much of this carry on from drivers as cyclists, so it's not a shortcoming that is unique to cyclists. Chief among the drivers being the clown who decided to make this a two-lane slip from St John's Road onto SCR, and cut off the queue of traffic on his left

Yup. It's not like cyclists and motorists are different species. There are ferocious gob****es in both camps and some with a foot in both.

AndrewJRenko

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I've never broken a red light. Getting up to 105km on a 100 km road for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat. So leave me out of it.

That's an interesting change in criteria and emphasis from "all road users should respect all laws" to "for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat". This really seems to expose your hypocrisy, that we hear outrage from you about cyclists on pavements and breaking red lights (which has killed zero people in the last 15 years in Ireland) while speeding (which is a significant factor in many road deaths each year) is not 'a major threat'. Do you really not see the issue here?
And just for curiosity, if you've never broken a red light, have you ever driven through an amber light where you could have stopped safely?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But it's a bit rich to hear about outrage from cyclists when I constantly see cyclists pedalling on footpaths. That seriously endangers children and old people who might step out onto the path.

Cyclists who break lights (a norm now) are endangering themselves and are in danger of causing an accident if a motorist has to swerve suddenly.

I'm curious as to why you treat cyclists as a collective group? Why do you get outraged about SOME cyclists not wanting to get killed on the road, while SOME cyclists break red lights? What is this collective responsibility all about? Should we take the same approach with motorists, and say all bets are off on all safety initiatives as long as we have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits?
And if you think cyclists breaking red lights is the norm, check out the results of the Luas Red Light camera which will tell exactly who normally breaks red lights;
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rave.ef wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea of a banks man, be nice to have someone else to talk to during the day other then yourself😂 but it's not feesiable for most company's.
On putting people's lives at risk is the wrong way to look at it. People have to look out for themselfs and each other regardless if your a cyclist hgv driver or a yummy mummy in a suv going to Lidl.
Always give room even if you think the driver can see you. Who knows might have a load of new bikes to deliver🀣

Sorry, but you don't get away with ignoring safety risks by saying 'it's not feasible'. The legislation is very clear on the responsibilities of employers and business operators. And do you expect people with sight loss, people with intellectual disabilities and primary school children to 'look out for themselves' around HGVs?

psinno wrote: »

Making roads safer for cyclists won't stop cyclists cycling on the pavement.
A section of cyclists just do whatever is most expedient for them at any given moment and they will cycle on pavements whenever they feel doing so benefits them.

Probably won't stop motorists driving on pavements either, probably won't stop motorists killing 1 pedestrian each week on our roads.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, they should be prosecuted. I saw a cyclist clatter into a woman on the pavement recently (abroad as it happens) and I thought the husband was going to kill the cyclist. If you think about it, the cyclist could have just pedalled off having possibly seriously hurt the woman (she seemed very shaken but was still standing). No number plate or way of identifying him. It's fine and innocent until a toddler steps out.

I saw a guy on a skateboard clatter into somebody on the pavement recently - should they have registration numbers? I saw a mum with a buggy scrape against a car recently - should they have registration numbers? Do we need registration numbers for every possible, potential risk, or should we focus on the actual, real problems on the road that are killing and maiming people every day?

Professor Moriarty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's an interesting change in criteria and emphasis from "all road users should respect all laws" to "for a few seconds doesn't usually constitute a major threat". This really seems to expose your hypocrisy, that we hear outrage from you about cyclists on pavements and breaking red lights (which has killed zero people in the last 15 years in Ireland) while speeding (which is a significant factor in many road deaths each year) is not 'a major threat'. Do you really not see the issue here?
And just for curiosity, if you've never broken a red light, have you ever driven through an amber light where you could have stopped safely?

So finding yourself over the limit by 5 kmph on a dual carriageway and slowing down gently is a major threat? Don't be silly now. Regarding my 'we hear outrage', again you're being silly. Or maybe disingenuous. Please feel free to post any examples of my 'outrage'. Incidentally, I find it very revealing when a poster uses 'we'.

Going though an amber 'safely' is arbitrary. I simply try to obey the law.

I'm curious as to why you treat cyclists as a collective group? Why do you get outraged about SOME cyclists not wanting to get killed on the road, while SOME cyclists break red lights? What is this collective responsibility all about? Should we take the same approach with motorists, and say all bets are off on all safety initiatives as long as we have 82% of motorists breaking speed limits?

Again with the exaggeration. If you take a deep breath and read your post, you will see who is "outraged"
From a previous post of mine: "Actually I don't hate cyclists and give them as much leeway as possible and drive with all due consideration for them. Personally, I think Irish roads aren't safe for cyclists but it's a free country. However, I'd like to see roads made safer for cyclists primarily for their own sake and because it would stop them cycling on the pavement."

Would you be happy if all motorists adopted my position?

And if you think cyclists breaking red lights is the norm, check out the results of the Luas Red Light camera which will tell exactly who normally breaks red lights;

I believe you. Personally, I see motorists and cyclist breaking red lights regularly. More cyclists but that isn't as dangerous.

http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

I saw a guy on a skateboard clatter into somebody on the pavement recently - should they have registration numbers? I saw a mum with a buggy scrape against a car recently - should they have registration numbers? Do we need registration numbers for every possible, potential risk, or should we focus on the actual, real problems on the road that are killing and maiming people every day?

Good point. I think the best way to sort that one out is more policing of illegal pavement users. While focusing primarily on road users, of course.

Beasty

Well it's lasted nearly 3 days, which does surprise me. However it's moved so far off topic, with one or two posters who really should, but clearly don't, know better just looking to have arguments - think it's time to "retire" this one