Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Thelonious Monk

ewc78 wrote: »

Just hurt himself? Really?
What about the person driving the car? You telling me if that person had hit and killed the idiot on the bike that it wouldn't have affected that person at all?
Was there not a post on here a few weeks ago from someone who hit a cyclist who broke a red light and said they would have thought about suicide if they had actually killed the person... Can't remember who posted it as I dont look at usernames most of the time.
Psychological damage can be as bad as any physical damage.

Yeah I'm sure the guy has PTSD, ffs.
I'm just pointing out that it's yet another cyclist story where no one gets harmed. Like the pavement cyclists menacing society during the nice weather. Yet no one is harmed. Or Journal commenters going on about how dangerous cyclists are and they're the scourge of the roads, but they don't harm anyone.
They are harmless. Is my point!
I don't believe the post RE suicide, people go to extreme lengths to vilify cyclists.

Thelonious Monk

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Gas. And of course there's a 'thanks' from AndrewJRenko :rolleyes:

He caused no harm only because the driver was paying attention, while the cyclist himself was oblivious. No matter he could have been killed, could have ended up causing someone else to be killed, and caused trauma for whatever driver ended up killing him or someone else.

But then cyclists are immune from criticism...

You are correct, if drivers paid more attention maybe more pedestrians and cyclists wouldn't get killed by them!
The guy on the dual carriageway acted the eejit for whatever reason, these things happen, humans are flawed, but if you're on a bike and you do something like this you're only going to harm yourself really.
Show me evidence of this fabled drivers swerving out of the way and crashing story you all seem to have? It's fantasy.

FinnC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure the guy has PTSD, ffs.
I'm just pointing out that it's yet another cyclist story where no one gets harmed. Like the pavement cyclists menacing society during the nice weather. Yet no one is harmed. Or Journal commenters going on about how dangerous cyclists are and they're the scourge of the roads, but they don't harm anyone.
They are harmless. Is my point!
I don't believe the post RE suicide, people go to extreme lengths to vilify cyclists.

Hi. That was my post about hitting the guy who broke a red light. I'm not sure why you didnt believe it but I can assure you its true.

I was very bad mentally for a long time afterwards and as someone who has suffered on and off from depression over the years I really don't know what I may have done to myself had I killed the guy,it quite possibly could have tipped me over the edge. It was months before I was right again but then with my history I probably took longer to get over it than someone else might. They guy was very badly broken up by me hitting him and even though he admitted fault I blamed myself for a long time.

I'm sorry and a little disappointed that you think I made it up to vilify cyclists, but I can assure you I didnt.

I cycle 3000 to 4000 miles a year as part of my triathlon training ( to help me cope with my depression)so I certainly have no agenda against cyclists.
Maybe this thread wasn't the place to tell my story as everyone seems to be suspicious of everyone having an agenda or whatever.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Poor take. The vid was posted yesterday elsewhere and you'll find the 'typical' cyclst attitude was completely contrary to the one you like to make up.

Hurrache wrote: »

when he was an absolute eejit .....

TaurenDruid wrote: »

But then cyclists are immune from criticism...

[Shrugs shoulders and sighs]

Maybe this staggering myopia is a reason for a large number of road crashes.

Hurrache

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Show me evidence of this fabled drivers swerving out of the way and crashing story you all seem to have? It's fantasy.

In fairness it does happen, this was only posted yesterday, the driver aimed for the soft safety of a pedestrian. There's plenty of vids in which cars swerve to avoid something, not neccessarily cyclists, and crash as a result.

magicbastarder wrote: »

as per 07LaPierre's video, it's actually easier to flip a car than you'd think. here's one from kimmage road from a couple of years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXtAzagREQ

Thelonious Monk

FinnC wrote: »

Hi. That was my post about hitting the guy who broke a red light. I'm not sure why you didnt believe it but I can assure you its true.

I was very bad mentally for a long time afterwards and as someone who has suffered on and off from depression over the years I really don't know what I may have done to myself had I killed the guy,it quite possibly could have tipped me over the edge. It was months before I was right again but then with my history I probably took longer to get over it than someone else might. They guy was very badly broken up by me hitting him and even though he admitted fault I blamed myself for a long time.

I'm sorry and a little disappointed that you think I made it up to vilify cyclists, but I can assure you I didnt.

I cycle 3000 to 4000 miles a year as part of my triathlon training ( to help me cope with my depression)so I certainly have no agenda against cyclists.
Maybe this thread wasn't the place to tell my story as everyone seems to be suspicious of everyone having an agenda or whatever.

Well I hadn't seen your post tbh. Sorry to hear that. But these things happen and at least you're both still alive. I got car doored pretty badly once while cycling in the city centre and it shook me up for a while, now I'm paranoid af around parked cars.
You must excuse my suspicions, for years and years cyclists get such a hard time, you should know this as a cyclist yourself. Given a hard time because they sometimes annoy motorists, it's as simple as that. The only reason they don't go nuts at pedestrians who are also an annoyance to drivers, is because everyone has to be a pedestrian whether they drive a car or not.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hivis would help you to see his vehicle, especially in black and blue environments as you confirmed yourself, such as nighttime.

Hopefully, he get it fixed before August, given that I let him know about the faulty lights.

Could you not see his car then, with the daylight reflecting of his windows, the one working brake light to show he was slowing down etc., you sure you should be on the road at all given your difficulties?

Stark

Spook_ie wrote: »

Could you not see his car then, with the daylight reflecting of his windows, the one working brake light to show he was slowing down etc., you sure you should be on the road at all given your difficulties?

You keep missing the point don't you.

He's just parroting the same drivel people come out with for not being able to see cyclists in the middle of the day if they're not wearing builders' vests.

I have the same opinion of people who claim road users who don't wear hi-viz are invisible regardless of lights or ambient lighting. They simply shouldn't have driving licences. Can't wrap the entire external world in hi-viz.

FinnC

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I hadn't seen your post tbh. Sorry to hear that. But these things happen and at least you're both still alive. I got car doored pretty badly once while cycling in the city centre and it shook me up for a while, now I'm paranoid af around parked cars.
You must excuse my suspicions, for years and years cyclists get such a hard time, you should know this as a cyclist yourself. Given a hard time because they sometimes annoy motorists, it's as simple as that. The only reason they don't go nuts at pedestrians who are also an annoyance to drivers, is because everyone has to be a pedestrian whether they drive a car or not.

First off thanks for replying and being honest.

BTW my cyclist friends say I'm a triathlete not a cyclist!

Joking aside though I understand your point but personally I just get on with it and not let myself get stressed with what anyone thinks about me when I'm out on the road cycling. To be fair though, where I live I really don't get much if any aggression towards me when I'm on the bike.

You're right, these things do happen but the reason I originally posted was because I just wanted to let people know what can actually happen by breaking a red light when cycling, I got the sense from some of the posts they were condoning it and trying to justify it. I'm sure many will disagree but that's just the sense I got.

I got car doored myself once while out running, an aul biddy who was going into Mass just opened the door right as I was passing. Christ that hurt.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Could you not see his car then, with the daylight reflecting of his windows, the one working brake light to show he was slowing down etc., you sure you should be on the road at all given your difficulties?

But surely you would agree that hivis would make him more visible, from further away, particularly in a blue or black environment, such as nighttime?

07Lapierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But surely you would agree that hivis would make him more visible, from further away, particularly in a blue or black environment, such as nighttime?

A bit of day glow wouldn't go amiss either!

Thelonious Monk

FinnC wrote: »

I got car doored myself once while out running, an aul biddy who was going into Mass just opened the door right as I was passing. Christ that hurt.

Yeah I was lucky there was no traffic behind me. Completely took me out, cuts up my leg and my favourite jeans ripped to bits. I was so angry at the bloke that I just refuted his apologies and limped off with my bike. Shortly afterwards I realised I should have at least made him buy me a new pair of jeans!

TaurenDruid

Hurrache wrote: »

[Shrugs shoulders and sighs]

Maybe this staggering myopia is a reason for a large number of road crashes.

Heh, fair point. Let me rephrase. Cyclists are immune to criticism from certain posters on this thread.

LeinsterDub

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Heh, fair point. Let me rephrase. Cyclists are immune to criticism from certain posters on this thread.

And ? Motorist are immune to criticism from certain others posters on this thread.

Who cares about the unreachable fringes?

SeanW

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The comments section in the journal is always a good bell weather of how car dominated and car dependent we are. Someone boozed up driving and kills someone in a hit and run ? Hardly an eyebrow raised. Must look up the story about the new cycle lanes in the Phoenix park. I'd say the comments section went into melt down.

In such a case the driver is a criminal. A "hit and run" driver no more represents motorists as a whole than the murderers in the Hutch-Kinihan feud represent everyone in Leinster.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And ? Motorist are immune to criticism from certain others posters on this thread.

Who cares about the unreachable fringes?

According to whom? Everyone on this thread will criticise a motorist who genuinely behaves irresponsibly. But according to some * cough cough Thelonious Monk * what the cyclist did in Spook's video is no big deal.

Stark wrote: »

You keep missing the point don't you.

He's just parroting the same drivel people come out with for not being able to see cyclists in the middle of the day if they're not wearing builders' vests.

Did you see Spook's picture of the horses with and without hi-vis? I would have thought that would have ended the debate.

I have the same opinion of people who claim road users who don't wear hi-viz are invisible regardless of lights or ambient lighting. They simply shouldn't have driving licences. Can't wrap the entire external world in hi-viz.

Again, review Spook's pic. And no there is no need to "wrap the entire external world in hi-viz" just road users that are not already highly visible.

Indeed if everything in the world was hi-vis, a hi-vis wearing cyclist would blend in to the background, which rather defeats the purpose.

LeinsterDub

SeanW wrote: »

According to whom? Everyone on this thread will criticise a motorist who genuinely behaves irresponsibly. But according to some * cough cough Thelonious Monk * what the cyclist did in Spook's video is no big deal.
.

And again I'll repeat who cares what the unreachable fringe think

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

In such a case the driver is a criminal. A "hit and run" driver no more represents motorists as a whole than the murderers in the Hutch-Kinihan feud represent everyone in Leinster.

i don't think that was the point he was making, more the point that there's no clickbait like a cycling story, and actual serious injuries and deaths on roads are unremarked on. at least in the journal comments anyway.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

In such a case the driver is a criminal. A "hit and run" driver no more represents motorists as a whole than the murderers in the Hutch-Kinihan feud represent everyone in Leinster.

Though you were quite happy to identify cyclists as a group as 'lawbreaking scum' not so long ago, right?

SeanW wrote: »

According to whom? Everyone on this thread will criticise a motorist who genuinely behaves irresponsibly.

No, not everyone - some people will dig deep to make excuses for 'lawbreaking scum' drivers who reckon speed limits don't apply to them.

SeanW wrote: »

Did you see Spook's picture of the horses with and without hi-vis? I would have thought that would have ended the debate.

So hi-vis works on everything, except cars, and except Spook when he's out walking - is that right?

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think that was the point he was making, more the point that there's no clickbait like a cycling story, and actual serious injuries and deaths on roads are unremarked on. at least in the journal comments anyway.

Kind of predicted he'd pick this up. :rolleyes:

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Though you were quite happy to identify cyclists as a group as 'lawbreaking scum' not so long ago, right?

As someone who has had the misfortune of being a pedestrian in Ireland's main cities, yes Irish cyclists are - in the main - profligate lawbreakers. Totally unqualified to point the finger at others.

That's why seeing every thread about cyclists being hijacked with "But motorists break urban speed limits in the middle of nowhere" does tend to grate after a while.

You will also most likely never find a thread about a motorist hit-and-run being hijacked with "but, but, whatabout lawbreaking cyclists."

No, not everyone - some people will dig deep to make excuses for 'lawbreaking scum' drivers who reckon speed limits don't apply to them.

You keep that up, in spite of the fact that Irish motorists are collectively responsible for among the safest roads in the world, demonstrably so and by a very wide margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Your 98% figure is nothing but hypocritical, cynical excuse to cover for two-wheeled lawbreakers by deflecting towards motorists who are among the safest in the world, provably so and by a very wide margin.

So hi-vis works on everything, except cars, and except Spook when he's out walking - is that right?

I'm going to try this one. more. time.

CARS ARE ALREADY HIGHLY VISIBLE!

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

That's why seeing every thread about cyclists being hijacked with "But motorists break urban speed limits in the middle of nowhere" does tend to grate after a while.

Then you should try "Motorists murder several people every week in this country" instead and see how you get on.

As a follow up you can ask yourself why exactly you and people like you get so excited about cyclists breaking laws with effectively zero consequences or harm when you have endless death and carnage on near daily basis from 'lawbreaking scum' as you put it in cars engaging in the exact same lawbreaking, just using a rocket launcher instead of a cap gun as someone compared earlier.

Would you ever be tempted to spend days/weeks of your time complaining about motorists the way you do about cyclists on here considering the consequences are so infinitely more horrific? Why not out of interest? Genuinely curious about this to see if you can articulate why instead of ducking the question/calling it whataboutery...

SeanW

Thargor wrote: »

Then you should try "Motorists murder several people every week in this country" instead and see how you get on.

Then you start a thread like that if you want. Just be ready for people to come up with nice ways to call you a liar because - unless you have evidence that the vast majority of fatal collisions were caused with specific intent to kill - any claim that motorists are "murdering people" is a scurrilous lie.

As a follow up you can ask yourself why exactly you and people like you get so excited about cyclists breaking laws

Because cyclists who complain about lawbreaking are mostly a bunch of two-faced hypocrites. Either make sure your own house is in order before you point at others, or take a chill pill. Whichever, either is fine by me.

But I despise two faced hypocrites.

with effectively zero consequences

I've been a daily pedestrian in Ireland's major cities. We learn very quickly as a survival skill to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers in daily life. That's the reason that hypocritical cyclists don't hurt or kill more people. We're watching for you.

or harm when you have endless death and carnage on near daily basis

Have you ever been to Ireland? Seriously! Your chances of dying on Ireland's roads are very, very slim. Among the slimmest in the world by any relative measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

from 'lawbreaking scum' as you put it in cars engaging in the exact same lawbreaking, just using a rocket launcher instead of a cap gun as someone compared earlier.

And yet we still have among the safest roads in the world.

Would you ever be tempted to spend days/weeks of your time complaining about motorists the way you do about cyclists on here considering the consequences are so infinitely more horrific? Why not out of interest? Genuinely curious about this to see if you can articulate why instead of ducking the question/calling it whataboutery...

If someone is driving drunk, taking the piss with speed, driving stolen cars or otherwise driving in a scummy or super-dangerous way, yes, I'll criticise them.

But the fact is that Irish motorists are among the safest in the world and that there is good reason to call Andy's 98% figure into question.

Hurrache

SeanW wrote: »

As someone who has had the misfortune of being a pedestrian in Ireland's main cities, yes Irish cyclists are - in the main - profligate lawbreakers. Totally unqualified to point the finger at others.

LOL, they're totally qualified to point their finger at you to tell you you're wrong, and also motorists to show you who the real profligate offenders are.

And it's not a matter of opinion, the facts and figures prove you wrong.

SeanW wrote: »

We learn very quickly as a survival skill to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers in daily life. That's the reason that hypocritical cyclists don't hurt or kill more people. We're watching for you.

Ha ha, c'mon. Do you think you're unique, do you think anyone who cycles or drives into cities remain on their bikes or in the cars for the full window they're in the city. Every single person in the country is a pedestrian of some form, you're not in a little secret club.

Maybe stay indoors if you think walking around is a game of survival and you're in a permanent state of fear.

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

I've been a daily pedestrian in Ireland's major cities. We learn very quickly as a survival skill to "negotiate" with two-wheeled lawbreakers in daily life. That's the reason that hypocritical cyclists don't hurt or kill more people. We're watching for you.

Lol yeah I'm sure that must be a the reason its only motor vehicles that kill people, excellent logic and critical thinking there.

Hurrache

This one is for Andrew

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1273149224931274753

SeanW

Hurrache wrote: »

And it's not a matter of opinion, the facts and figures prove you wrong.

Which "facts" are these? The facts that show that road fatalities in Ireland are among the lowest in the world, provably so, by every relative measure?

Maybe stay indoors if you think walking around is a game of survival and you're in a permanent state of fear.

Not a "state of permanent fear" but rather a need for a relaxed awareness. If you aren't watching out for two-wheeled lawbreakers, you WILL be involved in a nasty accident. The risk is tolerable, but it is there.

Thargor wrote: »

Lol yeah I'm sure that must be a the reason its only motor vehicles that kill people, excellent logic and critical thinking there.

Are you prepared to withdraw your filthy scurrilous lies about "murder?"

Pinch Flat

SeanW wrote: »

Which "facts" are these? The facts that show that road fatalities in Ireland are among the lowest in the world, provably so, by every relative measure?

Not a "state of permanent fear" but rather a need for a relaxed awareness. If you aren't watching out for two-wheeled lawbreakers, you WILL be involved in a nasty accident. The risk is tolerable, but it is there.

Are you prepared to withdraw your filthy scurrilous lies about "murder?"

You'd be better off looking out for more four wheeled law breakers. I find them more of an issue regardless of whether I'm driving or cycling.

Hurrache

SeanW wrote: »

Which "facts" are these?

The facts that show that people in cars are worse offenders for law breaking. It's that simple.

Pinch Flat

Hurrache wrote: »

The facts that show that people in cars are worse offenders for law breaking. It's that simple.

Not if you've got blinkers on though.

I hadn't driven in a while in the whole lockdown. I mentioned earlier in the thread I bought a new car in March. Got to take it out for its first proper spin last friday and saturday.

Forgot how ****e the standard of driving was out there. Roundabouts are free for alls. Left lane busy and going straight? No problem - just join the quiter right lane and barge on through anyway.

Forget about driving at the speed limit without being overtaken or undertaken up the bus lane - this applies to any scenario - happened in a few spots in residential streets. More so saturday where everybody seemed to be in a right rush.

Stop lines at junctions can be generally ignored as can advance bike boxes. Just make sure you sail past, blocking the car's vision beside you, piling half your car into the junction. Red lights? Pah. Only for eejits. Speed up to get through or else drive up the arse of someone who's silly enough to be stopping. Amber it's case closed - definitely speed up to get through.

Make sure you drive around the car in front of you who's turning left, preferably onto the other side of the road. Better still if into incoming traffic. You'll never get those few seconds back. Oh yeah and saw loads of cyclists on footpaths. lots have been intimidated off the roads by aggressive driving that seems to be the norm these days.

Thelonious Monk

Couple in their 20s killed on the roads today after crashing into at truck. 3 x RIP comments on the Journal and it's been up for hours.
If that had involved a cyclist there'd be 100s of comments now saying "Ah this is always going to happen the way they behave on the roads".
Can someone please explain why no one cares about road deaths and are more concerned with cyclists on pavements?