Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

partyguinness wrote: »

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road..

Can we take that you wear a crash helmet in the car yourself at all times, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? And you never play radio or music in the car?

Tea drinker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You do know how yellow boxes are supposed to work?

No idea at all. Can you tell me your understanding, with particular attention to RIGHT turning traffic, if the exit is clear, and taking into account oncoming traffic?

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

No idea at all. Can you tell me your understanding, with particular attention to RIGHT turning traffic, if the exit is clear, and taking into account oncoming traffic?

My understanding is that you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed. Sounds he entered the yellow box and blocked the cyclist.

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

A car is not going to collide with the cyclist's head in the first instance

really?
if i am hit by a car, the notion that it will be a simple fall i will suffer is kinda weird.

anyway;
Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/#1c379234cbd4

i *love* the attitude of 'if you're so exposed, why don't you do more to protect yourself'.
it's outsourcing the issue of dealing with the danger, from those creating the danger, to those exposed to it. and society has bought it hook, line and sinker.

if being able to hear clearly is crucial, why is it only cyclists who have the burden, that someone listening to loud music in a car isn't chastised in the same manner?

partyguinness

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can we take that you wear a crash helmet in the car yourself at all times, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? And you never play radio or music in the car?

As I mention above, if I am going to share the road with hundreds of metal boxes flying past me at speed during the daily commute why would you not take the utmost precautions.

As for a radio, again I am encased in a metal box with an engine bay in front of me with a seat belt on, airbags and mirrors and a raft of safety features. If I was in a collision with a cyclist, I am pretty confident that myself and my head will fare a lot better than the cyclist.

One of the very very few safety features in the cyclists armour is a helmet so I cannot for the life of me fathom why you would not wear one.

I have no interest in turning this into a car v cyclist thing. I cycle myself and friends of mine are avid triathlons so I am very mindful of cyclists. It does seem that cyclists are very sensitive to any form of criticism.

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

I have no interest in turning this into a car v cyclist thing. I cycle myself and friends of mine are avid triathlons so I am very mindful of cyclists. It does seem that cyclists are very sensitive to any form of criticism.

Really? but yet you were happy to post this:

"1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else."

Lycra louts, wanker cyclists and beating people up after a near collision

Stark

partyguinness wrote: »

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

How the **** is not wearing a helmet a danger to anyone else?

I think if you took a look in the mirror, you'd see who the real dickhead of the story is.

Stories like the above show the hidden dangers of the victim blaming messaging around helmets/hi-viz etc. Dickheads see not wearing helmets/hi-viz as justification for assault and the like. "Yeah I'm a big man who goes around assaulting people but it's people who don't wear helmets who are a danger to others".

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

It does seem that cyclists are very sensitive to any form of criticism.

i.e. 'they disagree with me so they must be sensitive souls'.

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

i actually didn't spot this at first. you say he ploughed into you, but then say he came to a grinding halt "in front" of you and fell over?
and you 'roughed him up' for that?

holy ****.

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

really?
if i am hit by a car, the notion that it will be a simple fall i will suffer is kinda weird.

How is it weird? Is it not basic physics that you will ultimately fall off your bike or end up off you bike whichever you look at it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway;
Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/#1c379234cbd4

i *love* the attitude of 'if you're so exposed, why don't you do more to protect yourself'.

And what is wrong with that?

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's outsourcing the issue of dealing with the danger, from those creating the danger, to those exposed to it. and society has bought it hook, line and sinker.

It is about taking personal responsibility for yourself and the decisions you make. If I decide to cycle on a busy road I am going to take the view that there will be dickhead drivers out there and I will do all I can to make sure I get to my destination safely.

If I get smashed by a driver I am not likely to jump up and start lecturing the driver about 'outsourcing' the issue of danger.

But hey if you want to get into a moral debate with a motorist on the side of the road after a collision knock yourself out. Chances are you will be in a far worse state.

magicbastarder wrote: »

if being able to hear clearly is crucial, why is it only cyclists who have the burden, that someone listening to loud music in a car isn't chastised in the same manner?

I would have thought being able to hear as a cyclist is far more important than a motorist being able to hear.

Of course helmets are not designed to protect you from collissions per se- I have not suggested otherwise so I am not sure why that is being thrown back at me. I would have thought that helmets are to offer protection or at least cushion the impact from a collision with the road/ditch etc when you have been thrown from your bike be it a collision/pot hole and the like.

If that summary is wrong then why do cyclists use helmets?

partyguinness

Stark wrote: »

How the **** is not wearing a helmet a danger to anyone else?

I think if you took a look in the mirror, you'd see who the real dickhead of the story is.

Stories like the above show the hidden dangers of the victim blaming messaging around helmets/hi-viz etc. Dickheads see not wearing helmets/hi-viz as justification for assault and the like. "Yeah I'm a big man who goes around assaulting people but it's people who don't wear helmets who are a danger to others".

There is no danger to me not when a cyclist does not wear a helmet. Quite frankly it's the cyclist's problem.

My point is that I cannot understand why a cyclist does not take every precaution to protect themselves in the event of an accident? But hey, you twist my post around why you want.

Thelonious Monk

This thread is gas, same stuff over and over. I still can't understand the irrational anger towards cyclists though.
There were 2 incidents of 2 people dying in crashes during the week in cars, one involved a teenager. It barely makes the news, one of the articles had ZERO comments on the journal, after 2 men died. This is the most horrific way of dying, lying there with metal jammed through you choking on your own blood, but we all just shrug our shoulders and no one cares.

Can you imagine the sh*tstorm if it was an article about a bike hitting someone, or even a cyclist dying? Everyone would just say it was the cyclists fault and sure didn't they see a cyclist go through a red light once and they're a scourge and menace on the roads. Even though they cause no harm at all and are a benefit to society.

So it's evident there is a completely irrational hatred of cyclists out there, which must be just down to the fact that motorists find it a nuisance that they have to be a little bit careful not to kill them when they're around them. Oh boo hoo.

Thelonious Monk

Oh and that North Strand cycle lane is a disaster. Nearly always a securicor van in it or women in pajamas not looking where they're going, I usually just take the road.

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

i.e. 'they disagree with me so they must be sensitive souls'.

So we are clear:-

- there is nothing wrong with cyclists cycling at speed on footpaths against oncoming pedestrians
- cycling on a busy road without a helmet wearing earphones and large rucksack is fine.

Ok. We will just have to disagree on that.

And yes, if a cyclist is bombing down a footpath in darkness against oncoming pedestrians and comes to a grinding halt to try to avoid crashing into other and topples over into pedestrians, I will give the gob****e a piece my mind. What if a kid or a mother with a pram suddenly came out of a driveway? That also indicates how fast and unprepared the cyclist was for the situation.

But hey, let's just ignore the illegality and dangerous behaviour of the cyclist. I suppose we were in the wrong for not jumping out of the way to allow the cyclist through.

Thelonious Monk

partyguinness wrote: »

- cycling on a busy road without a helmet wearing earphones and large rucksack is fine.=

I do this every time I'm out on the bike. I don't know why you people care about whether we wear helmets or not, I've had people shout out windows at me "Where's your f*cking helmet?". Bizarre.

Stark

partyguinness wrote: »

So we are clear:-

- there is nothing wrong with cyclists cycling at speed on footpaths against oncoming pedestrians
- cycling on a busy road without a helmet wearing earphones and large rucksack is fine.

Jesus, now "wearing a large rucksack" is on the list of things that makes you a "dickhead" when cycling :rolleyes: Maybe you should go "rough him up" so he knows to wear a bag that agrees with your fashion sense in future. Bring your hard man friend with you.

kenmm

Are we really turning this into a helmet thread now?

Who said anything about it being ok to cycle at speed on a pavement?

Why do we insist on grouping ALL cyclists as one homogenised group?

And backpacks - what the actual fuc(k?

kenmm

Maybe if everyone just minded their own abilities, focused on being a more aware, better driver/cyclists/road user and stop minding what everyone else is doing all the time, half the issues we see (caused by individuals who act inappropriately, not entire groups of people classified by current mode of transport) would just disappear.

Thargor

partyguinness wrote: »

So we are clear:-

- there is nothing wrong with cyclists cycling at speed on footpaths against oncoming pedestrians
- cycling on a busy road without a helmet wearing earphones and large rucksack is fine.

Ok. We will just have to disagree on that.

And yes, if a cyclist is bombing down a footpath in darkness against oncoming pedestrians and comes to a grinding halt to try to avoid crashing into other and topples over into pedestrians, I will give the gob****e a piece my mind. What if a kid or a mother with a pram suddenly came out of a driveway? That also indicates how fast and unprepared the cyclist was for the situation.

But hey, let's just ignore the illegality and dangerous behaviour of the cyclist. I suppose we were in the wrong for not jumping out of the way to allow the cyclist through.

So you didn't 'rough him up' for braking in front of you now? You just gave him a piece of your mind instead? You sound mentally ill tbh.

AndrewJRenko

partyguinness wrote: »

I have no interest in turning this into a car v cyclist thing..

Bit late for that, in fairness.

Stark

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Bit late for that, in fairness.

To be fair, be did turn it into a "dickhead with anger management problems vs cyclist" thing as opposed to "car vs cyclist"

partyguinness

Stark wrote: »

Jesus, now "wearing a large rucksack" is on the list of things that makes you a "dickhead" when cycling :rolleyes: Maybe you should go "rough him up" so he knows to wear a bag that agrees with your fashion sense in future. Bring your hard man friend with you.

Oh darn it...you got me. I was indeed offended by his fashion sense.

And there I was trying to fool you into thinking I thought the cyclist was a dickhead for a having a large rucksack that above the back of his head BTW..not one of those small sacks.. and then throw in some earphones on a busy road and no helmet for good measure.

You lot really love taking points out of context don't you in order to get all puffed up and indignant about poor persecuted cyclists.

And again completely ignore the illegal actions of the cyclist. Good man.

Thelonious Monk

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh darn it...you got me. I was indeed offended by his fashion sense.

And there I was trying to fool you into thinking I thought the cyclist was a dickhead for a having a large rucksack that above the back of his head BTW..not one of those small sacks.. and then throw in some earphones on a busy road and no helmet for good measure.

You lot really love taking points out of context don't you in order to get all puffed up and indignant about poor persecuted cyclists.

And again completely ignore the illegal actions of the cyclist. Good man.

I'm not actually aware of what's illegal here. And why do you care if someone wears a helmet or not? I've never worn one in 40 years of cycling.

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh darn it...you got me. I was indeed offended by his fashion sense.

And there I was trying to fool you into thinking I thought the cyclist was a dickhead for a having a large rucksack that above the back of his head BTW..not one of those small sacks.. and then throw in some earphones on a busy road and no helmet for good measure.

You lot really love taking points out of context don't you in order to get all puffed up and indignant about poor persecuted cyclists.

And again completely ignore the illegal actions of the cyclist. Good man.

I think context is irrelevant on this complete nonsense thread.

and again - stop grouping people together.

partyguinness

Thargor wrote: »

So you didn't 'rough him up' for braking in front of you now? You just gave him a piece of your mind instead? You sound mentally ill tbh.

LOl...Yes we did rough him up in that past instance. Give a piece of my mind in the future....same thing not sure why you want to play semantics.

Again nothing about the illegal and dangerous actions of the cyclist. Good man.

Anymore rubbish you wish to throw out or shall we keep playing this game of semantics so you can to skirt around the main point. Not holding my breath.

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

And again completely ignore the illegal actions of the cyclist. Good man.

a very pious stance to take, from someone who just admitted to assaulting someone?

AndrewJRenko

partyguinness wrote: »

.

My point is that I cannot understand why a cyclist does not take every precaution to protect themselves in the event of an accident? But hey, you twist my post around why you want.

Why don't YOU take every precaution to protect YOURSELF while driving by wearing a crash helmet, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? Or is it just cyclists that you like to give orders to?

partyguinness

kenmm wrote: »

I think context is irrelevant on this complete nonsense thread.

and again - stop grouping people together.

I would refer you back to the last sentence of my original post where I distinguished between those cyclists who go the whole hog on their commute that are fine and then shall we say more amateurish cyclists:


The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

kenmm

Tell you something tho - I am driving later and those fu(king pleb bus users wind me up. Taking up bus lane space, walking out onto the road - they should all be taken out and shot. They don't even wear safety harnesses to cross the road - and don''t get me started on seatbelts - bus passengers don't even wear them! One of them even had shopping the other day - 5 bags!



That's a generalisation the works, because now all these threads sound the same.

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

I would refer you back to the last sentence of my original post where I distinguished between those cyclists who go the whole hog on their commute that are fine and then shall we say more amateurish cyclists:


The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

You will need to quote more than one line from your post - I have no context or will to go backwards in this thread.