Near Misses Volume 2 (So close you can feel it)

a_squirrelman

breezy1985 wrote: »

Don't bother. This mad gas edgelord was around a few months back trying all this nonsense on this thread. I wouldn't take anything he says seriously

Yeah I replied again before seeing all your replies.

The J Stands for Jay

doughef wrote: »

No - he shouldn’t of been there . There is literally a cycle lane on that road

Should we take the same attitude to leaner drivers? There's perfectly good empty industrial estates to practice in.

VonLuck

buffalo wrote: »

When explaining these sort of situations, I sometimes compare it to taking the motorway instead of the old N road that twists and turns and goes through every village and town. Sure the N road is 'usable', but why should somebody be damned for choosing the faster and safer* route?


*That's safer assuming nobody deliberately makes it otherwise, as above.

I personally would feel safer in the cycle lane, but that's just my own feeling on the situation.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Regardless where a cyclist should be, there is no excuse for a dangerous overtake

Where did I say there was an excuse for the dangerous overtake? I explicitly said the driver was in the wrong!

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why should a cyclist who can safely travel at 30kph slow down. Do cyclists not have the right to commute to work a quickly as possible within the legal limits like a car can.

I often use the road in similar situations because of the many near crashes or abuse I get from idiot pedestrians who can't navigate a path that is colour coded for them

They totally have the right, but that won't stop drivers being pissed off as a result. You might think "so what", but an angry driver is more likely to perform risky manoeuvres like in the video. I'd prefer to be alive instead of right.

kennethsmyth

To all those who think I should be in the cycle lane (that started 2 meters prior to the video by the way).
1. I am cycling a pedalec (25kph assist limit) which is much heavier than a normal bicycle and not suitable for any shared cycle path unless wide.
2. I normally cycle at 30kph so cars don’t just come upon me as such.
3. This is a 50kph zone.
4. The cycle path stops and starts as you can see it’s in red first then forms part of the path.
5. The comment on rather being alive than right is a complete cop out. I cycle defensively and will take the central line when going through roundabouts and tight areas etc. I am in no danger on the road and had completed a 20km (within 5km) without issue. Simply this driver is the same as anyone who wants to commit a criminal act, they will still do it regardless. An ahole is an ahole no matter where they are.

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

I'd prefer to be alive instead of right.

Me too. That's why i cycle at least a meter out from the Kerb at all times.
Its why i rarely use cycle paths as they usually end abruptly and force you out into the path of traffic (or into the drivers blind spot)
Its why, when cycling with others, we always cycle two abreast.
Its why, when approaching a traffic Island i "Take the lane".
Its why I sometimes "Jump" a red light (to get a head start on the muppets behind me in cars).

The things we have to do to stay alive eh?

doughef

kennethsmyth wrote: »

To all those who think I should be in the cycle lane (that started 2 meters prior to the video by the way).
1. I am cycling a pedalec (25kph assist limit) which is much heavier than a normal bicycle and not suitable for any shared cycle path unless wide.
2. I normally cycle at 30kph so cars don’t just come upon me as such.
3. This is a 50kph zone.
4. The cycle path stops and starts as you can see it’s in red first then forms part of the path.
5. The comment on rather being alive than right is a complete cop out. I cycle defensively and will take the central line when going through roundabouts and tight areas etc. I am in no danger on the road and had completed a 20km (within 5km) without issue. Simply this driver is the same as anyone who wants to commit a criminal act, they will still do it regardless. An ahole is an ahole no matter where they are.

You fly boys craic me up !!

Just obey the rules / be where your meant to be and all will be ok.
We can’t pick and chose which rules apply to us.

Stay safe

kennethsmyth

doughef wrote: »

You fly boys craic me up !!

Just obey the rules / be where your meant to be and all will be ok.
We can’t pick and chose which rules apply to us.

Stay safe

Where do I state anything that’s illegal , I abide by all the rules of the road and stop at all red lights etc.

I also drive by the way as I’m in a rural area, and need to be on lookout for persons on horses also when going around bends etc.

I am lit up like a Christmas tree on my bike with red hi vis coat, lupine front light, a white flasher, rear supernova light, red flasher and rear reflector. You cannot help but see me, I do this as I regularly cycle at night but also fun the lights during the day.

Cycles are considered vehicles on the road and are allowed “take the lane” when necessary. If they do wished they could just cycle the whole time in the center of the lane however we don’t and I don’t recommend that. I’m courteous to otter road users including cars. I will not however cycle in the gutter - it’s dangerous for more than one reason. Do you drive your car purposely over potholes? I don’t, so why would you think that a cycle could handle them better. In this video I was positioned on the left if the lane approximately 2 ft from kerb.

I don’t pick any if the rules, I abide by all so what the hell arr you on about?

doughef

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Where do I state anything that’s illegal , I abide by all the rules of the road and stop at all red lights etc.

I also drive by the way as I’m in a rural area, and need to be on lookout for persons on horses also when going around bends etc.

I am lit up like a Christmas tree on my bike with red hi vis coat, lupine front light, a white flasher, rear supernova light, red flasher and rear reflector. You cannot help but see me, I do this as I regularly cycle at night but also fun the lights during the day.

Cycles are considered vehicles on the road and are allowed “take the lane” when necessary. If they do wished they could just cycle the whole time in the center of the lane however we don’t and I don’t recommend that. I’m courteous to otter road users including cars. I will not however cycle in the gutter - it’s dangerous for more than one reason. Do you drive your car purposely over potholes? I don’t, so why would you think that a cycle could handle them better. In this video I was positioned on the left if the lane approximately 2 ft from kerb.

I don’t pick any if the rules, I abide by all so what the hell arr you on about?

Stay safe bro - maybe the cycle lane on that road would be a good idea next time.

kennethsmyth

doughef wrote: »

Stay safe bro - maybe the cycle lane on that road would be a good idea next time.

No it’s not, get used to cycles etc being on the roads as there will be a lot more of them after this lockdown.

Cyclists be courteous to drivers.
Drivers look out for cyclists and pass when safe.

Thanks

Wildly Boaring

Meeting a very large Class and trailer here. He was on the white line.

Middle aged man in white crossover (Renault?) managed to squeeze between me and tractor.

I was in left wheel track in the drops. Really wasn't expecting a car to squeeze through right when meeting the tractor.

VonLuck

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Point taken but your post was suggesting that the cyclist should be going slower and you refer to the cycle path beside the OP. Neither of which are really relevant in terms of a prick driver putting someone in danger.

Again, there's not much you can do about bad drivers on the road. You just need to look out for yourself and avoid danger if you can.

kennethsmyth wrote: »

5. The comment on rather being alive than right is a complete cop out. I cycle defensively and will take the central line when going through roundabouts and tight areas etc. I am in no danger on the road and had completed a 20km (within 5km) without issue. Simply this driver is the same as anyone who wants to commit a criminal act, they will still do it regardless. An ahole is an ahole no matter where they are.

You've just proven my point! You can cycle defensively, take the central line etc. and be completely in the right, but there's nothing you can do about dangerous drivers.

kennethsmyth

VonLuck wrote: »

Again, there's not much you can do about bad drivers on the road. You just need to look out for yourself and avoid danger if you can.



You've just proven my point! You can cycle defensively, take the central line etc. and be completely in the right, but there's nothing you can do about dangerous drivers.

Actually you can do multiple things you can do about dangerous drivers.

1. Be aware of your surroundings and other drivers.
2. If someone is not looking at you from an exit then assume they haven’t seen you.
3. If a driver does something on purpose that was dangerous report them
4. Follow up on report and don’t take no for an answer from Garda.
5. Make there reg number visible on YouTube so if they have multiple incidents they can be charged more seriously.

This will reduce the amount of dangerous drivers and increase the realisation of what is acceptable driving.

Eamonnator

@kennethsmyth
As my grandmother used say: "you've the patience of Job"
I can't remember, who Job was, but apparently, he was a very patient man.

VonLuck

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Actually you can do multiple things you can do about dangerous drivers.

1. Be aware of your surroundings and other drivers.
2. If someone is not looking at you from an exit then assume they haven’t seen you.
3. If a driver does something on purpose that was dangerous report them
4. Follow up on report and don’t take no for an answer from Garda.
5. Make there reg number visible on YouTube so if they have multiple incidents they can be charged more seriously.

This will reduce the amount of dangerous drivers and increase the realisation of what is acceptable driving.

1. Won't stop any driver from behaving dangerously, you are just avoiding being in a position where a dangerous driver can impact you
2. Same as point 1. Effectively what I was saying earlier about avoiding putting yourself into potentially dangerous situations.
3. Again, that won't undo the driver behaving dangerously in the moment. Might help prevent future incidents though.
4. As per point 3.
5. As per point 3.

As Picard once said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

Look, everything you're saying is right at limiting the risk, but there still will be a risk when you're on the road as opposed to a cycle lane.

kennethsmyth

VonLuck wrote: »

1. Won't stop any driver from behaving dangerously, you are just avoiding being in a position where a dangerous driver can impact you
2. Same as point 1. Effectively what I was saying earlier about avoiding putting yourself into potentially dangerous situations.
3. Again, that won't undo the driver behaving dangerously in the moment. Might help prevent future incidents though.
4. As per point 3.
5. As per point 3.

As Picard once said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

Look, everything you're saying is right at limiting the risk, but there still will be a risk when you're on the road as opposed to a cycle lane.

There is also a risk on cycle path, going on and off or someone/something stepping onto it. At some point of mitigation of risk it becomes that you are not actually living and have zero experiences due to reducing risk. Cycling on road is normal, drivers need to expect cyclists and so long as the cyclists are not taking the mick then there should be no frustration between either party.

Eamonnator

VonLuck wrote: »

1. Won't stop any driver from behaving dangerously, you are just avoiding being in a position where a dangerous driver can impact you
2. Same as point 1. Effectively what I was saying earlier about avoiding putting yourself into potentially dangerous situations.
3. Again, that won't undo the driver behaving dangerously in the moment. Might help prevent future incidents though.
4. As per point 3.
5. As per point 3.

As Picard once said, "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose."

Look, everything you're saying is right at limiting the risk, but there still will be a risk when you're on the road as opposed to a cycle lane.

Are you seriously using a fictional character to back up an argument?

kennethsmyth

Eamonnator wrote: »

@kennethsmyth
As my grandmother used say: "you've the patience of Job"
I can't remember, who Job was, but apparently, he was a very patient man.

Ha ha, I have a habit of playing the long game alright.

Eamonnator

Eamonnator wrote: »

@kennethsmyth
As my grandmother used say: "you've the patience of Job"
I can't remember, who Job was, but apparently, he was a very patient man.

We had a priest at school who liked to tell us about Job and his patience, I remember putting it to him that it seemed to me that Job was actually a more a stubborn and persistent guy than a patient one. He didn't like my take on Job at all.

doughef

Hi guys

Just wondering if there is something in the charter about posting pictures of peoples cars, with the registration clearly visible .

Is this not against GDPR regulations ?

Weepsie

doughef wrote: »

Hi guys

Just wondering if there is something in the charter about posting pictures of peoples cars, with the registration clearly visible .

Is this not against GDPR regulations ?

No. People are not identifiable by a car registration plate. Also, driving your car on a public road, you are allowed be filmed/photographed etc.

Youtube would have a hell of a time cleaning stuff up if it was remotely a problem.

What people think GDPR covers, and reality are often a mile apart.

doughef

Weepsie wrote: »

No. People are not identifiable by a car registration plate. Also, driving your car on a public road, you are allowed be filmed/photographed etc.

Youtube would have a hell of a time cleaning stuff up if it was remotely a problem.

Ok cool- thanks

ED E

Nice try Doug.

doughef

cletus wrote: »

Is the reg not clearly visible while he's driving around the road?

There's no expectation of privacy when in a public place

Edit: multiple people in ahead of me

Yes, but capturing it and posting it to social media platform without consent might be against the regulations?
Also .. these drivers are being accused of acting illegally without their knowledge.
Surely that’s against the regulations/ law ?

breezy1985

doughef wrote: »

Yes, but capturing it and posting it to social media platform without consent might be against the regulations?
Also .. these drivers are being accused of acting illegally without their knowledge.
Surely that’s against the regulations/ law ?

What ya do then there doug is stop waffling on about it and back seat modding posts and report them using the report button

doughef

breezy1985 wrote: »

What ya do then there doug is stop waffling on about it and back seat modding posts and report them using the report button

I was only asking the question - but I agree, anything I feel is illegal or breaks any EU regulations will be reported.

Stay safe

07Lapierre

doughef wrote: »

I was only asking the question - but I agree, anything I feel is illegal or breaks any EU regulations will be reported.

Stay safe

You don’t know the ROTR
You don’t know GDPR


Stay safe.

doughef

magicbastarder wrote: »

under the law or under social media regulations? i can't see either having anything to say on the matter. if you take a video in a public place of an occurrence in a public place, it's legal to upload it to social media.
and regarding the car reg being visible. that's the point of a car reg, it legally must be visible.


if they're being incorrectly accused of acting illegally - for example, if the video had been edited to misrepresent the situation - then i suspect you could be right. however, if it's a straight unedited clip, it's a bit more straightforward.

Thanks for the genuine reply .

I do feel there is cause for concern if we can openly accuse people of acting illegally without their consent ?

Eg - I see a friend of mine accused (in the wrong) of driving illegally .
I report the post to him and he challenges boards.ie ?

doughef

magicbastarder wrote: »

but we can do that anyway.
i could accuse you of being a criminal, without evidence, by posting that (just using plain text); but we don't remove the ability of users to post anything, based on them thus having that capability.

if there is a case where there's a genuine concern that someone has been accused of something in the wrong, that's dealt with as and when it happens.

That makes sense

Thanks

Kaisr Sose

doughef wrote: »

I’m quite genuine. Just because you don’t like the truth.

Simple fact is the guy chose to ignore the cycle land and place himself in harms way.

(Waits for ban)

For what it's worth, a motorist is obliged to overtake safely in all situations and avoid hazards or not create them by the own manner of driving. If its not safe, then the overtake is deemed wreckless, careless or dangerous. Respect all road users right to use the road in a safe manner, that's the spirit of the rules of the road.
That overtake was not safe and not a pleasant experience for the OP. Such behaviour by motorist who refuse to slow or pass at a safe distance is all too common. I doubt you care about that.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: There isn't an issue here in regards posting videos with number plates being visible. This said, in future, if you think there is an issue, report it, don't drag it up in thread. This is off topic and derailing the thread. If you wish to discus, it's via PM only, in thread will end up with a card or ban.

The J Stands for Jay

doughef wrote: »

You fly boys craic me up !!

Just obey the rules / be where your meant to be and all will be ok.
We can’t pick and chose which rules apply to us.

Stay safe

Yeah, they should be further to the right. Good call doughy.

Kaisr Sose

doughef wrote: »

I doubt you know what I care about ?
Cheers though

I am sorry, you post on a cycling forum that it was the cyclists own fault that someone close passed them, where its clear that it was anything but their fault.

You havent a clue. No doubt about that at all.

Cheers

kennethsmyth

doughef wrote: »

I firmly believe there’s an issue here .

Fines for breach of GDPR are astronomical

Doug if this car was owned by a friend of yours you’d be better off telling them to drive with more care for others. By the way I was part of my companies team on GDPR when it was introduced so I’m aware of what can be decimated publicly. If you or your friend feels that I am accusing them incorrectly get an injunction on the video and sue me, the video speaks for itself.

I have also just seen your earlier post which states I ignored the cycle lane and put myself in harms way,

I did not ignore the cycle lane, I choose not to use it, I was fully observant if it and was completely within my rights to use the road instead.

I also did not put myself in harms way, the driver of the car did. You are victim blaming (not a word I use lightly as I believe there is too much pc these days stiffing debate).

I had intended on letting this one go as there will always be other even worse incidents but you can tell your friend to thank you for getting their dangerous driving reported.

kennethsmyth

buffalo wrote: »

Indeed, I asked the same question, but there was no meaningful engagement from the faceless bureaucratic automatons.

edit: I also asked why the reg was considered PII, but also no answer to that.

Post the video again with reg in title

VonLuck

kennethsmyth wrote: »

There is also a risk on cycle path, going on and off or someone/something stepping onto it. At some point of mitigation of risk it becomes that you are not actually living and have zero experiences due to reducing risk. Cycling on road is normal, drivers need to expect cyclists and so long as the cyclists are not taking the mick then there should be no frustration between either party.

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.

Eamonnator wrote: »

Are you seriously using a fictional character to back up an argument?

There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.


.

In the video posted earlier, what law did the cyclist break?

kennethsmyth

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.



There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

When I cycle in Dublin (prior march 2020 ) I use any dedicated cycle lane or path, shared ones are asking for trouble and not suitable for a pedelac or faster moving bicycle. This one is shared and asking for trouble including little scr**ts pushing you off.

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

All I'm saying is that if you want to avoid (serious) risks, cycle slowly on a dedicated cycle lane if there's one provided. Everyone is free to do what they want if they're in the bounds of the law.

There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

Would you also then recommend that all cars travel at 30kph at all times even in 60 zones and motorways because statistically it is safer. Would you double your commute time to avoid law breaking cars ?

The J Stands for Jay

- Video posted showing poor, dangerous driving which causes a high risk of serious injury/death to a cyclist correctly using the road in accordance with road traffic acts and SIs.

- Posters react and tell cyclist to wear hivis and cycle in the broken glass and potholes.

- Cyclists react with negativity.

-

VonLuck wrote: »

.
There is an awful undertone of negativity/aggression on this thread whenever someone disagrees with the general opinion. It's not conducive to good discussion.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: doughef is on a holiday, do not respond to doughefs posts while they are not here as it is unfair. I will be combing through the thread later to tidy it up.

VonLuck

07Lapierre wrote: »

In the video posted earlier, what law did the cyclist break?

None. Where did I say the cyclist broke any laws? In fact I specifically said that you're allowed to do what you want as long as you don't break any laws!

kennethsmyth wrote: »

When I cycle in Dublin (prior march 2020 ) I use any dedicated cycle lane or path, shared ones are asking for trouble and not suitable for a pedelac or faster moving bicycle. This one is shared and asking for trouble including little scr**ts pushing you off.

Not criticising you at all, or anyone for that matter. Everyone's situation is different. All I was trying to say is that it is generally safer to use dedicated lanes, even if shared, but you may have to compromise on speed as a result.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Would you also then recommend that all cars travel at 30kph at all times even in 60 zones and motorways because statistically it is safer. Would you double your commute time to avoid law breaking cars ?

Hard to even retort to that because it's not comparable at all. Slower speeds on motorways can be more dangerous and you would need everyone to buy-in for it to really be safer.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but some people value safety over speed when on a bicycle. Up to you which one you prioritise and it doesn't really bother me which one you choose.

McGaggs wrote: »

- Video posted showing poor, dangerous driving which causes a high risk of serious injury/death to a cyclist correctly using the road in accordance with road traffic acts and SIs.

- Posters react and tell cyclist to wear hivis and cycle in the broken glass and potholes.

- Cyclists react with negativity.

-

I never said anything about Hi-Vis jackets or cycling in broken glass or potholes

The J Stands for Jay

VonLuck wrote: »

I never said anything about Hi-Vis jackets or cycling in broken glass or potholes

You're just in the negative vibes bit.

VonLuck

buffalo wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true when it comes to the Irish experience.

We have so few fully dedicated lanes that you usually end up being put back on the road at junctions. Junctions are the most likely place for a cyclists to be in a collision IIRC.

When you stay on the road, you can take the lane and position to prevent a left hook from all but the most determined/****ty drivers. When you're off-road, you're out of sight, out of mind for a lot of drivers. Often you'll be put back on the road on the inside of left-turning traffic, which of course is a dangerous place to be at the best of times, but probably far worse when a driver hasn't seen you ahead of them on the road at any point.

I know what you mean, but I still think they're much safer for say your very casual cyclist. Say for instance a family out for a Sunday bike ride. Those lanes are perfect for them. Segregated from road traffic, slow speeds, potential to cycle side by side without being harassed by ignorant drivers. At junctions it's effectively treated as though you're a pedestrian - stop, wait, look left and right, cross. Agree that it would be a major inconvenience for your 30kmph cyclist though.

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

.



Hard to even retort to that because it's not comparable at all. Slower speeds on motorways can be more dangerous and you would need everyone to buy-in for it to really be safer.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but some people value safety over speed when on a bicycle. Up to you which one you prioritise and it doesn't really bother me which one you choose.

It is comparable. You are saying cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers. You then say they should go at a significantly reduced speed in case pedestrians do the wrong thing and walk on the cycle lane.

The cyclists must suffer despite being the only of the 3 groups in the scenario following the rules.

I know someone is gonna come on with "blaa blaa strawman blaa blaa" because it's everyones favorite word now but complaining about a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong and telling him to change his behavior because the motorist broke the law is the same as when people blame the size of the girls skirt and not the rapist

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

. Agree that it would be a major inconvenience for your 30kmph cyclist though.

Funny enough you didn't agree with that earlier

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

None. Where did I say the cyclist broke any laws? In fact I specifically said that you're allowed to do what you want as long as you don't break any laws!

Yet your only criticism was of the cyclist not choosing to use a cycle lane?

VonLuck

MojoMaker wrote: »

Now you're getting it VonLuck. So if you were to guess, which one of those is the OP?

Thanks for the patronising comment. All of my points to date are still valid, regardless of your attempts to belittle them by immature statements.

breezy1985 wrote: »

It is comparable. You are saying cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers. You then say they should go at a significantly reduced speed in case pedestrians do the wrong thing and walk on the cycle lane.

The cyclists must suffer despite being the only of the 3 groups in the scenario following the rules.

I know someone is gonna come on with "blaa blaa strawman blaa blaa" because it's everyones favorite word now but complaining about a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong and telling him to change his behavior because the motorist broke the law is the same as when people blame the size of the girls skirt and not the rapist

You are just hearing what you want to hear. Very common theme here it seems.

You're blatantly lying by saying that I said "cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers". Please point out when I said that.

I never told anyone to change their behaviour. Once again I'll say that everyone is free to do what they want as long as it's within the bounds of the law.

You're getting into dangerous territory with the rapist argument, but I will give you this example. If you were cycling and saw a car weaving erratically in front of you, would you cycle up alongside it? It's unlikely. You'd assess the risk and make a decision based on that assessment. Some people might just go for it though. The same with using a cycle lane or staying on the road. You assess the risk. It's not as severe as a weaving car, but still you're making a decision based on what you're comfortable with when cycling.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Funny enough you didn't agree with that earlier

Please point out where I disagreed with that.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yet your only criticism was of the cyclist not choosing to use a cycle lane?

Where did I criticise someone not choosing to use a cycle lane?



Honestly people, you need to relax and take a breather. For some reason you're determined to believe that I'm out to get you.

breezy1985

VonLuck wrote: »

Thanks for the patronising comment. All of my points to date are still valid, regardless of your attempts to belittle them by immature statements.



You are just hearing what you want to hear. Very common theme here it seems.

You're blatantly lying by saying that I said "cyclists who can very safely and legally travel on a road at 30kph should move to the path because of dangerous drivers". Please point out when I said that.

I never told anyone to change their behaviour. Once again I'll say that everyone is free to do what they want as long as it's within the bounds of the law.

You're getting into dangerous territory with the rapist argument, but I will give you this example. If you were cycling and saw a car weaving erratically in front of you, would you cycle up alongside it? It's unlikely. You'd assess the risk and make a decision based on that assessment. Some people might just go for it though. The same with using a cycle lane or staying on the road. You assess the risk. It's not as severe as a weaving car, but still you're making a decision based on what you're comfortable with when cycling.



Please point out where I disagreed with that.



Where did I criticise someone not choosing to use a cycle lane?



Honestly people, you need to relax and take a breather. For some reason you're determined to believe that I'm out to get you.

Seems like a lot of us have misunderstood your "kind helpful advice"

A car weaving in front of you is very different to one coming up behind you. No one has ever advocated passing a dangerous car ahead and is very different to "assessing a risk" you can't see

07Lapierre

VonLuck wrote: »

Where did I criticise someone not choosing to use a cycle lane?

Apologies...im confusing you with someone else. carry on..

That second one on Nutgrove Ave. passes a couple of bus shelters too if memory serves and by another one coming the other direction after the Bottletower.

OT didn't there used to be a petrol station on the right in that link you posted, haven't lived there in 10 years or so.