Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Came off the bike...need to rant!

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    fat bloke
    Registered Users Posts: 5,861 ✭✭✭fat bloke


    Seems like a lot of those pedestrians who stepped over you were in a hurry home so they could post on this thread. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #63
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,485 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    gozunda wrote: »

    I received no assistance whatsover even though I did not cause "my own misfortune" - so do explain why was there no assistance in this instance even though there was no 'reduced sympathy'?

    What do suggest were the 'reasons' people did not help?

    Maybe they didn't like your face?

    Why do you not get one simple fact, that your incident and the incident in the OP were different incidents and so could quite easily have different reasons for the non-assistance? There are hundreds of possibilities after all, maybe they didn't like your face, maybe they were shell shocked, maybe they were a blind school out for a walk, maybe they were zombies, maybe they were dicks, maybe they only existed in your own mind, who the hell knows or cares.

    Your logic that the reasons people didn't help the OP need to be the same reasons you didn't get any help is quite bizarre. Maybe the OP got no help because those that saw it happen thought he caused his own misfortune. Maybe you got no help because those that saw it happen didn't like your face. Both of those statements could be perfectly true. If you are still struggling with this then I don't know what else to say to you.


  • Options
    #64
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Maybe they didn't like your face?

    Why do you not get one simple fact, that your incident and the incident in the OP were different incidents and so could quite easily have different reasons for the non-assistance? There are hundreds of possibilities after all, maybe they didn't like your face, maybe they were shell shocked, maybe they were a blind school out for a walk, maybe they were zombies, maybe they were dicks, maybe they only existed in your own mind, who the hell knows or cares.

    Your logic that the reasons people didn't help the OP need to be the same reasons you didn't get any help is quite bizarre. Maybe the OP got no help because those that saw it happen thought he caused his own misfortune. Maybe you got no help because those that saw it happen didn't like your face. Both of those statements could be perfectly true. If you are still struggling with this then I don't know what else to say to you.

    Ok so when you don't like a question you get nasty and personal - that's nice. Why are still asking rhetorical questions as an answer?

    You will note that I did not say the reasons had to be the same if you actually read what was written.

    You made a general statement so back it up and answer the question asked ie if your generalised statement is not applicable - how does your generalised statement remain valid?

    I clearly stated that reasons people fail to help are not necessarily obvious in my experience . Thus compares with your rightous statement that places your evidently flawed value system at the centre of other peoples decision making processes. Quite hilarious tbh.


  • Options
    #65
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,485 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    gozunda wrote: »
    Quite hilarious tbh.

    Well I'm certainly laughing. Best to leave it there I think.


  • Options
    #66
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,510 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    car doing 50km/h though an orange as too close to stop when it changes, no one bats an eyelid.

    Cyclist doing 30km/h in the same circumstances and we end up with them being completely in the wrong... :rolleyes:
    AmboMan wrote: »
    Thats not why we have amber lights, if you are travelling at a speed that does not allow you time to stop safely at a junction you are at fault.

    light changes to orange when you are 2 metres from it, what do you do?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Unknown Soldier
    Registered Users Posts: 2,124 ✭✭✭Unknown Soldier


    Very sorry to hear about your accident, OP. People these days!

    Did no one even stop to Instagram you?

    What's the world coming to!


  • Options
    #68
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,364 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    hhmmm? wrote: »
    If I'm driving at 100mph then it would not be possible for me to brake in a safe manor at an amber light
    You would have time if it was a 100km/h road. The time between amber and red is relative to the speed limit
    AmboMan wrote: »
    Thats not why we have amber lights, if you are travelling at a speed that does not allow you time to stop safely at a junction you are at fault.
    That's clearly not true.
    I'm surprised that anyone who has ever been on the road would think that.


  • Options
    #69
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    07Lapierre wrote: »
    With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight vision, most accidents are ;)

    Again that's indisputable but foresight can help too !!

    Speed
    Junction
    Amber Light
    Wet Leaves
    Pedestrian
    Morning

    All words from the OP. Only one of those factors that the rider can control and that most likely would have been enough to avoid or reduce the impact of this accident. My money is on plenty of foresight the next time he's back on the bike approaching this junction :D

    The OP did avoid and reduce the seriousness of the incident when he "grabbed a handful of brake". If he hadn't of done that, he may have hit the pedestrian?


  • Options
    #70
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,068 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    Just as an aside, I recently did my HGV test. During the lessons my instructor would often tell me to slow down slightly approaching a green light and be prepared for the light to change. Especially if approaching a light I knew had been green for a good while.

    In a HGV your stopping distance is obviously much longer and you don't really have the option of slamming on the brakes if you risk going through a late amber.

    Whether on a bike, in a car, bus or truck, you need to adjust your speed to suit your surroundings. And as a cyclist you need to be more aware that people just may not notice you the same way they would see a car/bus approaching, and that someone might step out in front of you. However you get around, always assume someone else is going to do something unexpected, especially in built up areas.

    As for why nobody helped you. People can be funny, and awkward. If one person offered help, others might have too. But it just needed that one person to come forward and break the awkwardness.


  • Options
    #71
    have2flushtwice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭have2flushtwice


    All accidents can be avoided.op thought they would be ok but the op thought wrong and didn't take the road condition into account. Slow down and act responsibly. If you were driving a car and lost control what would the reaction be?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    Effects wrote: »
    Clearly they can't cycle very fast so don't cause any real damage.

    Dear sweet Jesus :rolleyes:

    *bites tongue


  • Options
    #73
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    This thread is a great service. Now there's no need to have a fall and have nobody check to see that some people can be left wanting, that's pretty evident by many of the posts here.


  • Options
    #74
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,239 ✭✭✭plodder


    Some people are selfish idiots. A friend of mine with a dodgy hip once tripped in the car park of a railway station and this car drove right up to her, stopped, and the driver sat there with the engine running, waiting for her to get up and out of his way. She literally couldn't get up until someone else came to help her. That one took the biscuit for me.


  • Options
    #75
    Alanstrainor
    Registered Users Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    car doing 50km/h though an orange as too close to stop when it changes, no one bats an eyelid.

    Cyclist doing 30km/h in the same circumstances and we end up with them being completely in the wrong... :rolleyes:


    light changes to orange when you are 2 metres from it, what do you do?

    Exactly. You don't see cars slowing to 40km/h (or trucks for that matter) passing a green light. Even if the OP was doing 20km/h and the light changed to amber, it would be reasonable to continue if stopping meant skidding to a halt.

    Even with the best of intentions bad things still happen. Hopefully you're not too bashed up OP.


  • Options
    #76
    NeedMoreGears
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭NeedMoreGears


    I can't help but wonder did the person step over the OP because they felt somewhat at fault as they seem to have stepped out before the green man and wanted to get out there quickly.


    I've had mixed experiences when falling off the bike - the vast majority good.

    The worst was one guy who stepped over me after I slipped on some ice - very odd behaviour altogether. The best being two women who stopped their car and offered me a lift home.

    Hope you're ok OP.


  • Options
    #77
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,536 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    tretorn wrote: »
    A woman crssing the road in the city centre was very badly injured last week, she was hit by a twenty two year old cyclist who must have been travelling at some speed, she is in Beaumont so must have a very serious head injury.

    To all you men cycling out there and you know who you are, remember what you weigh and how much damage you will do if you plough at full speed into someone, cyclists mostly wear helmets and pedestrians dont. Leave for work on time so you dont have to cycle at full throttle, this is not safe in built up areas.

    Im sorry you fell off your bike but you were going too fast, I am glad that it was you who fell and not the poor pedestrian who you might have killed.
    What makes you think it was some speed ?

    My understanding is that no details have been realised as to if she stepped out onto the road , or if the cyclists went through a red light.

    Remember last year a cyclist was killed by a pedestrian in a cycle lane


  • Options
    #78
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    Just as an aside, I recently did my HGV test. During the lessons my instructor would often tell me to slow down slightly approaching a green light and be prepared for the light to change. Especially if approaching a light I knew had been green for a good while.
    That's what all learner drivers are told during lessons, including cars, and the expected behaviour in the test. It's post being "fully qualified, insured, registration plate etc" that it becomes "floor it to make sure you get through".

    If the OP wasn't doing the slow down/ be prepared to stop bit, that just put him the same as the vast majority of road users (including pedestrians who'll begin to cross on an amber man/ all lights off). If they were on an amber for the OP, the pedestrian was also jumping the lights.

    However, the OP was mainly about the reaction not about saying they were or weren't in right/ wrong. I think manners have just gone - holding doors, giving up seats, saying hello if you meet someone walking (say on a trail) etc. I've seen people walk past OAP's that have fallen without even asking are they ok, so I really think the whole "they thought the cyclist was in the wrong" is just a load of bs tbh!


  • Options
    #79
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight vision, most accidents are ;)

    Oh to have 20/20 foresight vision though. How different things could be :)


  • Options
    #80
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I wouldn't go too heavily on the "That's the modern world for you!" rhetoric in terms of the woman doing nothing. People do odd things in these circumstances, always have.

    If you slipped off and then got up, she probably reckoned you were fine and was apprehensive about making a fuss or whatever. Like I say, people react weirdly to these situations. Some people run, some people pretend it didn't happen, some people come and help.


  • Options
    #81
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    You crashed because you were going too fast for the circumstances. The amber light, the road conditions, the pedestrian and the other road users, you were at a speed that meant you did not safely come to a stop when those circumstances dictated that you needed to. Thats on you and nobody else.

    Which is probably why you received little assistance, people tend to have reduced sympathy when they believe the person in need caused their own misfortune.

    I don't know anyone who would see some one come off a bike, regardless of the circumstances, and not help. When you see something like That, you don't have time to calculate things. Your instinct just tells you, some one is hurt, check whether they are ok. I've never seen some one fall and thought, well it's their own fault leave them to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    hhmmm?
    Registered Users Posts: 171 ✭✭hhmmm?


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    car doing 50km/h though an orange as too close to stop when it changes, no one bats an eyelid.

    Cyclist doing 30km/h in the same circumstances and we end up with them being completely in the wrong... :rolleyes:


    The big difference is that it's very easy to stop a car going 50kph as it's only a fraction of its top speed and extremely controllable should the unexpected happen.

    Most of these selfish cyclists are flying along at near top speed and have no control whatsoever should the unexpected happen.


  • Options
    #83
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    TallGlass wrote: »
    No. You stop on red. On amber you stop if is safe to do so. AKA, don't do what the OP done and jam on the breaks. :pac:

    NO, "An amber light means that you must not go"
    On Amber you only go if it's dangerous to stop.

    A minority of motorist need more discipline when it comes to traffic lights says AA
    http://www.theaa.ie/blog/a-minority-of-motorist-need-more-discipline-when-it-comes-to-traffic-lights-says-aa/
    When the light is amber you cannot go beyond the traffic light stop line or light itself in the absence of a line. ONLY if you are so close to the line/traffic light when the light in question turns amber that it would be unsafe to bring your vehicle to a stop can you continue through an amber light.

    Rules of the Road (page 103):
    http://www.rotr.ie/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, you must not go beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.


  • Options
    #84
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,598 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    hhmmm? wrote: »
    Most of these selfish cyclists are flying along at near top speed and have no control whatsoever should the unexpected happen.
    selfish cyclists? top speed? no control? welcome to the forum.


  • Options
    #85
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,598 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Slydice wrote: »
    NO, "An amber light means that you must not go"
    On Amber you only go if it's dangerous to stop.
    eh, i think you've essentially repeated what the person you're claiming to contradict said.
    he said 'you stop if it is safe to do so'. you said 'you only go if it is dangerous to stop'. there's not much difference between those statements?


  • Options
    #86
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    eh, i think you've essentially repeated what the person you're claiming to contradict said.
    he said 'you stop if it is safe to do so'. you said 'you only go if it is dangerous to stop'. there's not much difference between those statements?

    the difference between
    - 'you must not go'
    and
    - 'you stop if it is safe to do so'

    WRONG says it's always ok .. if safe

    the LAW says it's never ok .. unless it's dangerous


  • Options
    #87
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    :confused:

    Unless it's pure pedantry (which I'm normally a fan of by the way) I can't see the difference.


  • Options
    #88
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    TheChizler wrote: »
    :confused:

    it is confusing because it's sounds so similar

    but the law is designed to keep people alive as best it can

    so it's saying.. don't take the risk ever unless you are in more danger by not taking the risk


    Telling people it's ok to go through an amber if it is safe is WRONG. It just is wrong. It's there in the rules I quoted:

    Rules of the Road (page 103):
    http://www.rotr.ie/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, you must not go beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

    Again:
    "An amber light means that you must not go"

    Not if it's safe.
    Not it it looks alright.

    The WRONG catch-all rule for amber that is being given is: it's ok to go.

    The LAW catch-all rule is: "An amber light means that you must not go"


  • Options
    #89
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Slydice wrote: »

    Rules of the Road :

    Mean nothing.


    Just for clarity.


  • Options
    #90
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Don't think they said it's ok to go through if it's safe. Pretty sure it was stop if it's safe/unless it's not safe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Slydice
    Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    ED E wrote: »
    Mean nothing.


    Just for clarity.

    oh for f**k sake

    the legislation so...
    S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print
    (2) A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows an amber light while no other traffic light lamp (immediately above or below) shows any light, shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light (or, if there is no such stop line, beyond the light) save when the vehicle is so close to the stop line when the amber light shows that the vehicle cannot safely be halted before crossing the stop line.
    "shows an amber light" ... "shall not proceed"


Advertisement