Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

karlitob

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Ah a pedantic smart arse, who’s wrong. How refreshing.

- give out light or reflect light.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luminous

But I’m sure if it helps you understand the point you could swap the word luminous in your head to reflective high visibility paint, or other application.


Interesting point that you make about cars being fitted with ‘lights’ (which makes me think that you did swap the words in your head). It’s a wonder why the gardai, the corporation and any heavy vehicle using luminous (or reflective paint, or other application). It’s like they didn’t need the extra visibility because they had lights but still went to the effort of putting it on their equipment.

Sure why did anyone ever invent high-vis in the first place.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Strange thing is the very high number of cars that have one or two or three or more of their lights not functioning.

Another strange thing is that most bikes are fitted with lights too.

AndrewJRenko

Anyway, back to the topic of obstructions on pavements;

Kingston Ballinteer, usually in the same spot, pushing pedestrian onto the grass;



Hillcrest, Sandyford - Mark Whelan Roofing, taking the full pavement;


Taney Road, squashing older man


Upr Churchtown Road, van on cycle path;


Stillorgan Road, pushing pedestrian out onto cycle lane

AndrewJRenko

And a few more;

Van on cycle lane at shops off Foster Ave


KY reg regularly blocking the path on Foster Ave;


Alltrans van blocking path and bikelane, probably to get nice and close to the pharmacy at Marlay


2 x HeatCo vans who seem to think that the pavement is their company parking facility;

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

If you think it's normal for a) people to own Lamnorghinis, and b) for them to tear around city streets like it was a racetrack, then you've a pretty screwed up view of the average motorist and where the dangers to the average pedestrian, cyclist and driver arise from.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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!

Not a blatant lie. Do not accuse me of being a liar. I posted about cyclists on the phone. You replied with some uber-pedantry about a phone attached to handlebars meaning the cyclist wasn't using it.

SeanW

karlitob wrote: »

And yet they still die.

Thargor wrote: »

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?

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion (from some, I don't really care) that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But if a helmet saves one life right?

Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.


Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggest good cause that this might be the case!

So much wrong with this!

Why do you assume all RTA’s are car on car?
A helmet is feck all use to a cyclist hit by a car at 50kph never mind 200!

railer201

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If you think it's normal for a) people to own Lamnorghinis, and b) for them to tear around city streets like it was a racetrack, then you've a pretty screwed up view of the average motorist and where the dangers to the average pedestrian, cyclist and driver arise from.



Not a blatant lie. Do not accuse me of being a liar. I posted about cyclists on the phone. You replied with some uber-pedantry about a phone attached to handlebars meaning the cyclist wasn't using it.

Phones on handlebars my ass, hands off handlebars and txting away - seen it quite a few times unfortunately.

BTW I've no problems in criticising car drivers either, but it seems that side of things is being adequately taken care of on this thread.

SeanW

07Lapierre wrote: »

So much wrong with this!

WTF are you talking about? :eek:

Why do you assume all RTA’s are car on car?

I never said they were - indeed I explicitly pointed to car on lorry collisions in my refutation.

A helmet is feck all use to a cyclist hit by a car at 50kph never mind 200!

I never said that it would be, just better than nothing.

TaurenDruid

railer201 wrote: »

Phones on handlebars my ass, hands off handlebars and txting away - seen it quite a few times unfortunately.

BTW I've no problems in criticising car drivers either, but it seems that side of things is being adequately taken care of on this thread.

Indeed. I see it every day when I'm out, and I'll even admit a huge proportion of it is food delivery and bike couriers (I walk past a lot of food places and a couple of courier congregation points), but it's ordinary cyclists too.

And yes, a significant number of drivers do it all the time, too. Which I just don't get. No need for it.

SeanW

What are the odds some of those cyclists twiddling with their mobile phones are on boards or social media complaining about motorists?

07Lapierre

SeanW wrote: »

WTF are you talking about? :eek:

I never said they were - indeed I explicitly pointed to car on lorry collisions in my refutation.
I never said that it would be, just better than nothing.

Sorry.... that’s what happens when you try to reply on boards.ie while distracted.

07Lapierre

railer201 wrote: »

Phones on handlebars my ass, hands off handlebars and txting away - seen it quite a few times unfortunately.

BTW I've no problems in criticising car drivers either, but it seems that side of things is being adequately taken care of on this thread.

Cycling hands free is a skill all cyclists should be able to perform!

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Indeed. I see it every day when I'm out, and I'll even admit a huge proportion of it is food delivery and bike couriers (I walk past a lot of food places and a couple of courier congregation points), but it's ordinary cyclists too.

And yes, a significant number of drivers do it all the time, too. Which I just don't get. No need for it.

Most descent bike computers link to phones and allow you to view incoming texts, they display contact details of incoming calls and if you wear headphones, you can accept incoming calls while cycling. All handsfee and legal.

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

Simple probability.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Anyway, back to the topic of obstructions on pavements

PSST
AJR
i think you've made your point.

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion (from some, I don't really care) that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.


Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

Funny how you're not allowed enter any kind of motorsport competition without a helmet seeing as they're so pointless isnt it? I suppose you know best though...

BTW heres the original quote from you, you seem to have realised what a moronic statement it was and pretended you said something completely different in your reply:

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.

magicbastarder

what i'm reading from that is that some accidents happen at such speed that even modern safety features which cocoon drivers in their cars, cannot cope with them.
there's only one answer; 30km/h speed limits in all areas, on all roads, permanently.
i mean, if it saves just one life. and it will.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If you think it's normal for a) people to own Lamnorghinis, and b) for them to tear around city streets like it was a racetrack, then you've a pretty screwed up view of the average motorist and where the dangers to the average pedestrian, cyclist and driver arise from.

The Lamborghini is a bit unusual all right, but treating the city streets like a racetrack isn't really that rare unfortunately.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Not a blatant lie. Do not accuse me of being a liar. I posted about cyclists on the phone. You replied with some uber-pedantry about a phone attached to handlebars meaning the cyclist wasn't using it.

It is an absolute blatant lie.

What you said was;
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113724339&postcount=976
"Andrew told us, 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 "

What I had said was;
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113664723&postcount=766
"Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm."

So you said that I've never seen it, when I actually said the opposite, I said that I had seen it, though it's not that common in my experience. I said I've often seen the Deliveroo guys with it mounted, though I didn't make any comment about whether this was safe or legal.

So yeah, a big fat lie.

SeanW wrote: »

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion (from some, I don't really care) that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.


Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

And yet for all those safety systems, still far more people are killed in cars than on bikes - so surely there is room for more, something like the F1 drivers or rally drivers would use.

Alternatively, perhaps you'd like to come up with some actual evidence that cycle helmets save lives for cyclists in Ireland?

One way or other would be great.

karlitob

SeanW wrote: »

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion (from some, I don't really care) that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

If you’ve yet to realise, you’ve hit on the point that a number of us are making. How on earth does a yellow jacket and a flimsy bit of polystyrene and plastic in anyway ‘compensate’ for the wide variety of safety systems that I enjoy as I driver. When other drivers contemptuously suggest that ‘cyclists should......insert ineffective safety measure here’ it’s hard to take it seriously.

The highlight how ridiculous that suggestion is - I made an equally ridiculous - but nevertheless using the same logic that some drivers do - that if a bit of yellow and plastic can protect me from a few tonnes of speeding metal, then it makes sense that it would protect another driver from a few tonnes of speeding metal. You can’t have it both ways.

The only real way for cyclists to be safe is segregation from cars and that means taking road space from cars.

SeanW wrote: »

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.
Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

It won’t be lost on you that no where in the world do the suggestions that I made exists - so it’s quite hard to provide the evidence that you so dearly need. I would imagine that you’d be first into the high vis yellow paint shop and flimsy hat shop when the evidence is provided.

karlitob

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Lamborghini is a bit unusual all right, but treating the city streets like a racetrack isn't really that rare unfortunately.



It is an absolute blatant lie.

What you said was;
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113724339&postcount=976
"Andrew told us, 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 "

What I had said was;
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113664723&postcount=766
"Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm."

So you said that I've never seen it, when I actually said the opposite, I said that I had seen it, though it's not that common in my experience. I said I've often seen the Deliveroo guys with it mounted, though I didn't make any comment about whether this was safe or legal.

So yeah, a big fat lie.


And yet for all those safety systems, still far more people are killed in cars than on bikes - so surely there is room for more, something like the F1 drivers or rally drivers would use.

Alternatively, perhaps you'd like to come up with some actual evidence that cycle helmets save lives for cyclists in Ireland?

One way or other would be great.

Now that’s unfair using his own logic against him. It can be hard for people to hear the argument when they sit so high on that horse.

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

Thats not true. I have nothing against cyclists, I was delighted when I saw more older people, teenagers and families on the bike. But there are certain type of attitudes that I can't stand and they are all displayed in this thread. I wouldn't be surprised if personal messages or mentions in cycling forum were posted so as many as possible would show up in here to slap each other's backs.

Personally I even have no issues with cyclists on the pavements of they ard empty I even go on them myself sometimes when cycling with kids. If there are no people there it allows cars get by faster and in that way nobody is inconvenienced. However there is no point discussing something like that because testosterone in this thread would just drown any nuances.

I don't define myself as cyclists as I don't define myself as walker, runer or a driver however I do all of it. You won't put me off cycling but if I wasn't cycling already you are certainly not making it attractive with your attitude.

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

What are the odds some of those cyclists twiddling with their mobile phones are on boards or social media complaining about motorists?

Zero?

07Lapierre

Only one reason for a cyclist to wear a helmet...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o8yipbk3t1a8rz8/Helmet.JPG?dl=0

Thargor

meeeeh wrote: »

Thats not true. I have nothing against cyclists, I was delighted when I saw more older people, teenagers and families on the bike. But there are certain type of attitudes that I can't stand and they are all displayed in this thread. I wouldn't be surprised if personal messages or mentions in cycling forum were posted so as many as possible would show up in here to slap each other's backs.

Personally I even have no issues with cyclists on the pavements of they ard empty I even go on them myself sometimes when cycling with kids. If there are no people there it allows cars get by faster and in that way nobody is inconvenienced. However there is no point discussing something like that because testosterone in this thread would just drown any nuances.

I don't define myself as cyclists as I don't define myself as walker, runer or a driver however I do all of it. You won't put me off cycling but if I wasn't cycling already you are certainly not making it attractive with your attitude.

Since the start of lockdown there has been nothing but 100% positive posts on the Cycling and Commuting/Transport boards in regards to seeing so many kids and their parents and grandparents out on their bikes, not a single post from a "cyclist" complaining about it. Across multiple threads its regarded as the best thing to happen for cycling ever in this country with everyone hoping it lasts and celebrating every government and council initiative to keep it going and build on it.

You are talking through your hole.

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

No Hi Viz, no reflective number plates (they were black with Alu coloured digits), no DRL's, no ABS, no Adaptive cruise control, no headrests and the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt! can you imagine even sitting in such a Deadly machine?

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if personal messages or mentions in cycling forum were posted so as many as possible would show up in here to slap each other's backs.

it's bizarre and unexplainable why keen cyclists might have an interest in the 'commuting and transport' forum.
i mean, what intersection could there possibly be between 'commuting' and 'cycling' or 'transport' and 'cycling'.

07Lapierre

Thargor wrote: »

Since the start of lockdown there has been nothing but 100% positive posts on the Cycling and Commuting/Transport boards in regards to seeing so many kids and their parents and grandparents out on their bikes, not a single post from a "cyclist" complaining about it. Across multiple threads its regarded as the best thing to happen for cycling ever in this country with everyone hoping it lasts and celebrating every government and council initiative to keep it going and build on it.

You are talking through your hole.

Agree...check out all the "negative" comments to these two OAP's on bikes..

https://twitter.com/silkerichard/status/1271844709519024128?s=21

meeeeh

Thargor wrote: »

Since the start of lockdown there has been nothing but 100% positive posts on the Cycling and Commuting/Transport boards in regards to seeing so many kids and their parents and grandparents out on their bikes, not a single post from a "cyclist" complaining about it.

Where did I say there was? You are inventing things now because you just can't accept anyone would find dissmissive, arrogant posts in this thread off-putting. It does help that even someone like me who doesn't pay attention to poster names and doesn't really follow cycling forums except when one of the grand tours is on knows exactly what AndrewJRenko's posta will be
about. Metal killer machines, hi viz for cars, drivers killing people, helmets, one tone killer machine, a random picture and another mention of drivers killing people... Anyway you don't need to persuade me more cycling is good because I already believe that. Maybe I'm wrong and potential cyclists you are trying to persuade will think your approach is great.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong and potential cyclists you are trying to persuade

i know this wasn't addressed at me, but it's clear that several of the testosterone fuelled cycling warriors (myself included) don't come in here expecting to persuade, but just for a bit of light entertainment.