Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

Truthvader wrote: »

Hardly irrational.

No issue with the man killed yesterday. Seems to be thieves in a stolen car. Hope they get caught.

The reason for "hatred of people on bikes" as you put it, is firstly that the bicycle lobby together with the Greens and Owen Keegan are forcing people who do not want to be stuck on a bicycle to cycle. That in itself is going to generate hostility. Add in the related policy of road closures, capacity reductions and the general "war on cars" being pursued. The latest being the crazy 30kph speed limit

Secondly many cyclists cycle slowly in the middle of the road in a deliberate effort to provoke car drivers (always with the helmet cam to record the conflict they are hoping for) Plus even where cycle lanes are provided about 10% of cyclists make a point of not using them - again to annoy drivers.

So you may be right but it is not "irrational". Not expecting any "likes" for this as I know Boards is infested with Greens/ cyclists. Might even get a ban from the mods as any criticism of cyclists or the green agenda is routinely banned here. But if I am wrong why do you think there is a "hatred of people on bikes"?

So let's just review the facts.

1) No-one is being 'forced to cycle'. Never. It has never happened. Not once.
2) There is no 'war on cars'. The Daily Heil invented it as a catchy headline to distract people from what's actually going on. When you've enjoyed the privilege of have the world designed and built around your personal choices, it might seem like a 'war' to have some of that privilege removed. It is actually just a very small amount of rebalancing of facilities in some small, restricted locations.
3) The number of cyclists with helmet cameras is tiny. It is a growing number, but it is still tiny, in the context of the 56k cyclists that commute by bike each day. So any suggestion that anything is happening 'always with a helmet camera' is a gross exaggeration.
4) Cyclists really don't cycle in the middle of the road. It would be a crazy place to cycle with traffic passing you closely in both directions. Some cyclists do cycle in the middle of the lane. It's not a pleasant experience, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent dangerous overtakes. No-one looks to generate conflict with a 1-3 tonne lump of metal.
5) Some cyclists don't use some cycle lanes, because those cycle lanes are designed like these ones https://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes and poorly maintained, covered with parked cars, mushy leaves, broken glass or dog walkers with extended leads.

So there is no element of rational logic in any of the positions you've suggested.

Stark

Turning right

This somehow comes as a surprise to some motorists, but people cycling need to turn right and to do so they usually need to cross traffic lanes…

This is the usual situation where I get abuse from motorists for not being in the cycle lane or "being in the middle of the ****ing road".

Tea drinker

Stark wrote: »

This is the usual situation where I get abuse from motorists for not being in the cycle lane or "being in the middle of the ****ing road".

That's ignorance on the drivers part? As long as none of you or bike is crossing over the lane divider surely you are good to go?

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

they're jealous of our sex appeal.

We all have lovely bottoms

Tea drinker

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Hard to know where to start but it seems to boil down to a few key issues. Drivers think we should share the burden of the roads by paying "road tax". Drivers seem to think we should be insured, ignoring that thousands are and uninsured drivers that they're funding are a much bigger problem. Drivers seem to think they have exclusivity to use the roads. Drivers have an opinion on what we should and shouldn't wear. Drivers have an opinion on where we should and shouldn't cycle.

I think most of it though boils down to just plain jealousy of it being a cheap and convenient way to get from a to b that offers immense freedom and choice. Weather doesn't matter. Schools on or off doesn't matter.

There's a lot wrong with this - IMHO.
I think being insured is the right thing for cyclists, a minor trafic incident can be come an expensive personal injury claim against you (for example)
Just because some gippo doesn't insure his car has no more bearing on my life than being pissed that some work shy are taking our tax for decades.
I share the road with other road users, giving and and expecting courtesy.
Wear whatever you like, as long as you are visible rock on.
I do have an opinion on where you should and shouldn't cycle we are sharing the road :-)

What pisses me off is pig ignorant behaviour, I have mentioned a few incidents in this thread, won't trot them out again, use your imagination :-)

magicbastarder

Tea drinker wrote: »

That's ignorance on the drivers part? As long as none of you or bike is crossing over the lane divider surely you are good to go?

as mentioned earlier, there are many roads where the cyclist has to leave the cycle lane to take a right turn. including one i often take about 100m from my house. i'd say the normal chance of me being blown at or gestured at for being in the wrong lane (i.e. not in the cycle lane) is maybe 5-10%.
i could cross at the pedestrian lights, but i'm not a pedestrian in that scenario.

and this is why many - not all, but many - people cycle on paths. because there's a certain cohort of people in cars who will try to intimidate you out of their way.

here's something to try - stick an L plate up in your car, if you're a driver. you will see an immediate change in how many other drivers behave around you - stupid overtakes (MGIFs, in cycling terms), other intimidatory behaviour, general dickishness. now take that intimidatory behaviour, and multiply it by (plucks figure out of air), a factor of three, and allow for the fact that they're intimidating you when you're on a bicycle, not in a car.

this evening, a van driver passed me with less than 50cm to spare on a country road, doing easily north of 50km/h. if someone was to try to convince me that he'd try the same if i'd be driving a car, let's just say i'd take a lot of convincing.

magicbastarder

regarding the L plate thing, possibly the most lunatic manouevre i've seen in a car was when my wife was learning to drive, and had just entered a roundabout, in the correct lane to go straight on (i.e. entering at 6 o'clock, leaving at 12).
a chap in a BMW overtook us and turned left across us - as we were entering the roundabout - to take the 9 o'clock exit. we came within a foot of him; or maybe it's better to say he came within a foot of us.

i've driven through that roundabout in the exact same manner literally hundreds of times, probably more than a thousand times - several times a week for nearly ten years.
i won't accept it's a coincidence that the time i saw *by far* the worst stunt pulled was one of the ten times out of that thousand, when there was an L plate on display.

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

I think being insured is the right thing for cyclists, a minor trafic incident can be come an expensive personal injury claim against you (for example)
Just because some gippo doesn't insure his car has no more bearing on my life than being pissed that some work shy are taking our tax for decades.

Do you think it's the right thing for pedestrians to be insured, given that they can cause collisions by walking out in front of vehicles or cyclists?

07Lapierre

Tea drinker wrote: »

There's a lot wrong with this - IMHO.
I think being insured is the right thing for cyclists, a minor trafic incident can be come an expensive personal injury claim against you (for example)

Can you give an example of an incident where a motorist made a personal injury claim against a cyclist as a result of a "minor" traffic incident?

micar

Tea drinker wrote: »

There's a lot wrong with this - IMHO.
I think being insured is the right thing for cyclists, a minor trafic incident can be come an expensive personal injury claim against you (for example)
Just because some gippo doesn't insure his car has no more bearing on my life than being pissed that some work shy are taking our tax for decades.
I share the road with other road users, giving and and expecting courtesy.
Wear whatever you like, as long as you are visible rock on.
I do have an opinion on where you should and shouldn't cycle we are sharing the road :-)

What pisses me off is pig ignorant behaviour, I have mentioned a few incidents in this thread, won't trot them out again, use your imagination :-)

Insurance for cyclists will never happen.....

If it did, what do you think will happen........people will give up cycling.......how do you think they will get around......more people using public transport and driving adding to further congestion on the roads.

The more people who cycle the less congestion thete will be.

A person who doesn't cycle does not understand road position for cyclists.

My suggestion is get a bike, cycle on our roads and in the position you believe cyclists should be .

Very quickly you will realise that you need to take a more dominate position......why....to project yourself.......selfish right!!!!.....to prevent motorists being given the opportunity of that dangerous manuvore

micar

07Lapierre wrote: »

Can you give an example of an incident where a motorist made a personal injury claim against a cyclist as a result of a "minor" traffic incident?

Would be interesting to find out what is the total cost of claims per year resulting rosd traffic accidents

Vs

Total cost of claims arising where a cyclist was at fault

magicbastarder

my sister (in her car) rear ended a micra at low speed a year or two ago. the (main dealer) garage quoted 2k for the repair, and over 4k if it was being done as part of an insurance claim.

i'd have to be trying very hard to do that much damage to a car, if i was on my bike. though to be fair, if you look at a beemer or a merc wrong, it'll probably cost you a grand.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

my sister (in her car) rear ended a micra at low speed a year or two ago. the (main dealer) garage quoted 2k for the repair, and over 4k if it was being done as part of an insurance claim.

i'd have to be trying very hard to do that much damage to a car, if i was on my bike. though to be fair, if you look at a beemer or a merc wrong, it'll probably cost you a grand.

A lot of motorists would have a heart attack if they knew how much it would cost to replace a damaged road bike! (Never mind a personal injury claim by the cyclist!)

https://www.canyon.com/en-ie/road-bikes/race-bikes/aeroad/aeroad-cf-slx-disc-9.0-etap/2873.html?dwvar_2873_pv_rahmenfarbe=BK

magicbastarder

i was talking to a chap a few years ago who was carted off in an ambulance after being hit by a car while out on his bike (it was the motorist's fault,the motorist admitted it straight away). no damage done really bar the bike, and he was (at his own insistence) willing to not involve the insurance company. but the driver rang them and fessed up; the insurance company rang the guy i was talking to and offered him 4k over the phone, i think it was their book value for an ambulance callout with no further health issues.

as per the above, that's insanely cheap for a claim.

07Lapierre

Apparently, cars blocking pavements is an issue. Who knew eh?

https://www.98fm.com/podcast/green-party-td-neasa-hourigan-discusses-cars-parking-paths-dublin?fbclid=IwAR1NdCi3jUT7wye4aO_rCrq5lJkJw5xe7tBMyB27swapuwl5sxcC0oz8Cvs

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was talking to a chap a few years ago who was carted off in an ambulance after being hit by a car while out on his bike (it was the motorist's fault,the motorist admitted it straight away). no damage done really bar the bike, and he was (at his own insistence) willing to not involve the insurance company. but the driver rang them and fessed up; the insurance company rang the guy i was talking to and offered him 4k over the phone, i think it was their book value for an ambulance callout with no further health issues.

as per the above, that's insanely cheap for a claim.

I'm fortunate that I have a secure room at work where I can store my bike. So on Monday last, as the weather was dry, I rode my "Good" bike to work. If it was written off by a motorist, I estimate it would cost just under €7,000 to replace as I upgraded the wheels, it has electronic gears etc. If you then add the cost of torn clothing, new helmet, medical expenses, loss of earnings etc. etc. It all adds up!

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1301270492989591553

Truthvader

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So let's just review the facts.

1) No-one is being 'forced to cycle'. Never. It has never happened. Not once.
2) There is no 'war on cars'. The Daily Heil invented it as a catchy headline to distract people from what's actually going on. When you've enjoyed the privilege of have the world designed and built around your personal choices, it might seem like a 'war' to have some of that privilege removed. It is actually just a very small amount of rebalancing of facilities in some small, restricted locations.
3) The number of cyclists with helmet cameras is tiny. It is a growing number, but it is still tiny, in the context of the 56k cyclists that commute by bike each day. So any suggestion that anything is happening 'always with a helmet camera' is a gross exaggeration.
4) Cyclists really don't cycle in the middle of the road. It would be a crazy place to cycle with traffic passing you closely in both directions. Some cyclists do cycle in the middle of the lane. It's not a pleasant experience, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent dangerous overtakes. No-one looks to generate conflict with a 1-3 tonne lump of metal.
5) Some cyclists don't use some cycle lanes, because those cycle lanes are designed like these ones https://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes and poorly maintained, covered with parked cars, mushy leaves, broken glass or dog walkers with extended leads.

So there is no element of rational logic in any of the positions you've suggested.

Don't accept most of the above is true. It is certainly the case that people are being forced onto bicycles. Plus just reading the posts here reveals the hostility of cyclists - and the sense of vengeance and entitlement

xckjoo

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't accept most of the above is true. It is certainly the case that people are being forced onto bicycles. Plus just reading the posts here reveals the hostility of cyclists - and the sense of vengeance and entitlement

Who's forcing anyone to cycle?

kenmm

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1301270492989591553

Not bad pace for a dog in that second clip!

Charles Babbage

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes and it's not like we don't see pedestrians doing stupid risky things all the time. It's all proof that there's an irrational hatred against people on bikes.

If you take to a machine then we should expect higher standards of you. If this doesn't suit then stay as a pedestrian. It isn't rocket science.

breezy1985

xckjoo wrote: »

Who's forcing anyone to cycle?

The Velominati

Thelonious Monk

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If you take to a machine then we should expect higher standards of you. If this doesn't suit then stay as a pedestrian. It isn't rocket science.

What? Pedestrians are regularly killed by drivers, 2 in the last week. So they're not safe from idiot drivers either.

Thelonious Monk

Truthvader wrote: »

Don't accept most of the above is true. It is certainly the case that people are being forced onto bicycles. Plus just reading the posts here reveals the hostility of cyclists - and the sense of vengeance and entitlement

How's the cycling going for you now that you've been forced onto a bike?
A sense of entitlement isn't getting people who use bikes very far though is it given the entire road infrastructure is almost completely dedicated to cars, even in city centres.

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How's the cycling going for you now that you've been forced onto a bike?
A sense of entitlement isn't getting people who use bikes very far though is it given the entire road infrastructure is almost completely dedicated to cars, even in city centres.

Youde want to be wearing a good set of padded shorts when you get forced onto the bike otherwise it could really hurtt

Duckjob

The comments on people being forced onto a bike are gas considering for the past 50 years people in Ireland have been forced into a car as the only means (PT excepted) of getting safely around from A to B without risking their lives.

Pinch Flat

Yeah it's weird. It's like the car is the go-to option for even the most modest of distances. People just can't see beyond it and seem incapable of living their lives with out it. Disclaimer - I drive a SUV that sits on the driveway when I'm not commuting. I should have taken a picture of the car sales man's face when I explained this to him.

07Lapierre

Irish People and cars are like Americans and Guns! "Ain't nobody takin my car or my freedom to drive where i want, when i want, how i want!".

Truthvader

Duckjob wrote: »

The comments on people being forced onto a bike are gas considering for the past 50 years people in Ireland have been forced into a car as the only means (PT excepted) of getting safely around from A to B without risking their lives.

The car is the most civilised, comfortable and safest mode of transport. Endy story. That is why, given a choice, people will prefer it. It is delusional to think otherwise. The bicycle agenda is a step backwards in time

Idleater

Truthvader wrote: »

The car is the most civilised, comfortable and safest mode of transport. Endy story. That is why, given a choice, people will prefer it. It is delusional to think otherwise. The bicycle agenda is a step backwards in time

Reporting to the journal for a FactCheck article.

Is there 1 sentence or subclause without a weasel word?

I like my car, don't get me wrong, it has a use, but most civilised?