Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Zebra3

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, you're right, a cul-de-sac with a walking route through to the next estate, and loads of room on the road.

What's your point?

I would've thought it was obvious.

Parking on the footpath instead of the road in the end of a cul-de-sac.

A special type of selfishness in play there.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Andrew doesn't explicitly pander to lawbreaking by cyclists. Andrew just engages in whataboutery, which is the same thing.

Except that it’s a different thing, which is not the same thing at all.
But thanks for confirming that Tauren was way off target anyway.

SeanW wrote: »

Probably, but if that video was taken in Ireland, there's a good chance the motorist is now off the road. Cyclists in Ireland normally demand "Strict liability" which means that in the event of any collision between a motorist and a cyclist, the motorist would be held at fault for insurance purposes. Ireland doesn't have Strict Liability of that sort written into law, but it is there by judicial precedent. Our judges largely regard themselves as Santa Claus in a black robe when it comes to personal injury claims, hence the cyclist was probably able to get a fat settlement from the motorists insurance. If the cars' owner had any problems getting insurance before hand (e.g. young, new driver, car more than 10 years old etc) there's a very good chance they'll not get insurance anymore.

Could you point to any examples of cyclists getting a fat settlement from the motorists insurance after riding into the back of the unattended car?
Yeah, I thought so.

I'm still waiting for those examples of the mostly unavoidable road deaths you mentioned during the week too. Given your certainty that most road deaths are unavoidable, surely it can't be that difficult to put a few examples on the record.

SeanW wrote: »

No - working lights would have definitely improved their visibility. But in the end I was able to avoid an accident with the schmucks because I was observant and aware of the danger.

Though in the absence of working lights, hi-vis stripes on all sides would definitely have improved visibility for you and any other approaching traffic, right? You know most drivers aren’t as good as you, so surely you can see the value of hi-vis for all cars, right?

SeanW wrote: »

The majority of cars are parked in accordance with generally accepted parking conventions:
1) In a driveway.
2) In a car park.
OR
3) On a residential side street where on-street parking is expected.

Yes, that’s generally accurate, though I’m not sure of your point? Hi-vis stripes all round would still improve visibility of vehicles in all those situations, especially for those parked on public roads, often against the flow of traffic, so with no reflectors facing oncoming traffic. What’s not to like?

SeanW wrote: »

I'd say that calling them "very dodgy drivers" is being generous. They shouldn't have been on the road.

Yes, that’s generally true – and yet they are on the road, and similar drivers are on the road today and tonight. So surely hi-vis stripes all round would improve visibility for these very dodgy drivers?

SeanW wrote: »

Most of my journeys by car are well over that and often involve rural R-roads. It may be different for others.

It IS different for most others, as the Census confirms.

SeanW wrote: »

Correct.

So are you saying that hi-vis stripes on all sides doesn’t improve visibility of parked cars?

SeanW wrote: »

I'll bite. Go for it.

Well, one is generic and one is specific. Your earlier claims were specific, which were incorrect.

SeanW wrote: »

"Motor tax" is Ireland's implementation of road tax.

Now you’re getting places. Keep it coming...

SeanW wrote: »

You keep quoting your 98% figure. Yet the fact remains Ireland has among the lowest road deaths of any country in the world by any relative measure.

You cannot explain how all of this "speeding" is going on yet Irish road fatality stats are so low. I suggest the reason is simple. Lots of "urban" speed limits in the middle of nowhere = lots of "urban speeding" but because so many places with "urban" speed limits are in fact in the middle of nowhere, there is no road safety downside in many cases.
Do you have an alternative theory?

It’s not my 98% figure. It is the Road Safety Authority’s 98% figure, arising from a professional survey carried out by professional contractors. It is part of a trend of speed surveys carried out over the preceding decade, all showing endemic levels of speeding on Irish roads. They’ve also dones specific investigations into road death trends showing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths on Irish roads.

SeanW wrote: »

You've never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control? Right? ... right ... uhh ... umm ... err ...
Yeah, I thought so.

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting wildly that I hear? I thought the relevant standard was “break every law in the book as a matter of routine” so now it has shifted everso slightly to “never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control”. Can we take it that the author of this standard has never and does never break a speed limit himself, never pulls up on the path or on a cycle lane, never has a phone in his hand while driving?
Yeah, I thought so.

AndrewJRenko

07Lapierre wrote: »

The triumph classic car owners club just passed me ( I was on my bike) about 20cars in convoy..TR6’s, TR7’s and a Triumph Stag! Lovely cars but blocking the whole road. Awful behaviour and not one hi viz jacket to be seen!

What colour were the cars? Any blue, black or burgandy ones?

Zebra3 wrote: »

I would've thought it was obvious.

Parking on the footpath instead of the road in the end of a cul-de-sac.

A special type of selfishness in play there.

Fully agree.

meeeeh

Thargor wrote: »

Yes Im pretty sure you've nailed it and dont sound like a bitter deluded lunatic in any way whatsoever...

Thanks.

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What colour were the cars? Any blue, black or burgandy ones?


Fully agree.

The Stag was Brown. The TR7 was Red (ruby), and the TR6’s were blue/red/green etc. All were pretty dull couloirs TBH. Nice cars ... and great to see them being driven by their enthusiastic owners. Even if they are inconsiderate non tax paying belligerent gob****es!

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a lie.

It is not.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's funny how cyclists never cycle through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.

It's amazing how motorists never drive through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.

Spook_ie

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Probably for the usual reason of rear end accidents one stopped when the other didn't

TaurenDruid

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

railer201

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Dart boards are the same - with half the segments bright yellow, I find the darts still hit the board - very puzzling indeed.

Maybe that's not the function of high-viz though, once it's done the 'highly conspicuous bit', then that's it - perhaps we're expecting too much, don't you think ?

Spook_ie

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It's amazing how motorists never drive through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.

Does James May sail through red lights?


Maybe this guy flies through them

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is not.

Oh yes it is!

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

What’s a “typical motorist”?

karlitob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

If drivers feel that cyclists must wear luminous jackets and helmets, then by the same logic cars should also be luminous and drivers should also wear helmets. You would certainly notice a luminous car.

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably for the usual reason of rear end accidents one stopped when the other didn't

Yes, one of those completely unavoidable accidents I guess - no-one can think of any possible way that anyone could have avoided crashing into a car stopped at traffic lights.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is not.

It is a blatant lie, though again it is interesting to see the wide gap between what I said and what others said that I said. But feel free to prove me wrong anytime with link to the post where I said that " he never sees cyclists with phones! Wait, sorry, let me rephrase... never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling, because if you have a phone in an armband or attached to your handlebars you have a phone but you're not using it".

Could you really not find enough in what I actually said to argue with without having to lie?

07Lapierre wrote: »

The Stag was Brown.

And let me guess - no hi-vis markings on the vehicle at all? Fair play to you for spotting it, I don't know how anyone can be expected to see anything on the road unless it is completely wrapped in hi-vis.

SeanW

karlitob wrote: »

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

meeeeh

What I find interesting is how you guys spend your free time. Looking do web cam footage of someone doing something wrong, constantly recording and finding anyone who is less than perfect and keeping a file on them, finding the most obscure links to argue the same stuff over and over again.

All this and achieving nothing. Cars still park on cycling paths and cyclists still stick to the basic rules of the road. Ironically more people actually cycle but they don't seem to join you in your 'highly effective' campaign. It seems to me that cycling is increasing despite your campaigning and not because of it.

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

Dart boards are the same - with half the segments bright yellow, I find the darts still hit the board - very puzzling indeed.

Maybe that's not the function of high-viz though, once it's done the 'highly conspicuous bit', then that's it - perhaps we're expecting too much, don't you think ?

So wait, you're saying that hi-vis isn't a panacea for preventing collisions on the road?

meeeeh wrote: »

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

Nah, we'll love it - because if the cycle paths get crowded with the newbies, we'll just move out onto the main traffic lane.

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

Yes, seat belts and airbags and still way more deaths and injuries that cyclists.

I'd love to hear your source for your conclusion that helmets wouldn't make any different for motorists.

I'd also love to hear you explain why the same doesn't apply to cyclists.

Anyway, let's get back to the #bloodycyclists;
https://twitter.com/SavetheHellfire/status/1272131578370670592

FinnC

meeeeh wrote: »

What I find interesting is how you guys spend your free time. Looking do web cam footage of someone doing something wrong, constantly recording and finding anyone who is less than perfect and keeping a file on them, finding the most obscure links to argue the same stuff over and over again.

Have to agree. I find that all rather bizarre. Just don't understand it.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nah, we'll love it - because if the cycle paths get crowded with the newbies, we'll just move out onto the main traffic lane.

It doesn't work that way. Where I come from there are plenty of pensioners (usually a couple) who cycle longer distances even where there are no cycling paths. I'd like to see how will that work when you come upon them in some roundabout.

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

But if a helmet saves one life right?

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't work that way. Where I come from there are plenty of pensioners (usually a couple) who cycle longer distances even where there are no cycling paths. I'd like to see how will that work when you come upon them in some roundabout.

I'll look over my shoulder, and if safe, I'll move out and pass them. If it's not safe, I'll wait behind them.

Do you actually know how to drive?

Stark

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But if a helmet saves one life right?

The post you're quoting is also inaccurate. Serious helmet preventable head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. A lot more than one life to be saved.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll look over my shoulder, and if safe, I'll move out and pass them. If it's not safe, I'll wait behind them.

Do you actually know how to drive?

I do. What is that supposed to mean?

Considering your rage on this thread I don't think you would find it that easy when other road users will be in your way.

karlitob

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

And yet they still die.

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

Wow you got a source for that? Thats amazing. Or did you just pull it out of your a$$ because you dont have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

Spook_ie

karlitob wrote: »

If drivers feel that cyclists must wear luminous jackets and helmets, then by the same logic cars should also be luminous and drivers should also wear helmets. You would certainly notice a luminous car.

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I do. What is that supposed to mean?

Considering your rage on this thread I don't think you would find it that easy when other road users will be in your way.

No rage from me at all.

There's a difference between other legitimate road users, and those who shouldn't be on paths or bike lanes.

Stark

Spook_ie wrote: »

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

No-one's arguing that cyclists shouldn't have lights after dark.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

huh, you really have a thing about cyclists.
for the record, if you were to browse the cycling forum here, you'd happily find that the above assumption is nothing more than ill-intentioned spite.
the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it makes the roads for all other cyclists.