Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

SeanW wrote: »

Did Hitler ever ride a bike? That might explain a lot. :pac::D

(Andrew already Godwinned the thread so it's OK)

No, he hated them..
https://vimeo.com/36287895

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Again, which safely puts Ireland well within the bottom 20 for road fatalities. Clearly, correct decisions are being made.

just coming back to this, and i'm going to dig out my tired old cliche of the shark infested pool again.

in ireland, 2% of secondary school students cycle to school, in the netherlands, it's approx 75%.
approx 70% of irish students are driven to school (42% car, 28% bus), and there are more female secondary school students driving to school than there are cycling.

so you can say the roads are safe, but it's a very facile way of looking at it, if they're safe because vulnerable road users have been driven (pun intended) away.

i did a quick google and came across this quote which would make you laugh:

One of the headline concerns of the Dutch is that only 17% of primary ages children (5-12) now travel to school by bike completely independently of adults.

'only' 17% - of *primary* school kids. can you imagine what the figure is in ireland for primary school kids cycling to school? you'll have to imagine because it's clearly so low the CSO don't even list it:
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6stp/

Hurrache

On the same theme of hey, we keep the numbers using our roads that aren't driving low it's doing wonders for our stats....
https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1273160919724556292?s=19

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sorry, but how do you 'let your car' do anything. Your car doesn't have a life of its own. It doesn't do things on its own. Drivers are supposed to be in control.

If the driver is unable to control the vehicle, they shouldn't be in the driving seat.

We really need regular retesting of drivers.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret - people sometimes make mistakes and old people sometimes do silly things - because they're old people. Over 70s are subject to restrictions on the renewal of their license. Further, in this case, no deaths or injuries occurred (like 98% of cyclists jumping red lights or your likely false claim of 98% of motorists breaking "urban" speed limits). This incident provides precisely zero evidence that Irish drivers are unique in needing regular driving tests. Anyone who doesn't understand that has no business commenting about transport policy.

magicbastarder wrote: »

just coming back to this, and i'm going to dig out my tired old cliche of the shark infested pool again.

This analogy works best if you assume that only Irish roads/streets can be likened to a shark infested pool, and that streets in other countries can be likened to swimming pools with no sharks. A more accurate analogy would perhaps be that in all countries the "swimming pools" have at least some sharks, and then what follows is an interaction between the number of sharks and the swimmers' perspective on the shark risk.

In other countries, the "swimming pools" have WAY more sharks, as I've proven.

in ireland, 2% of secondary school students cycle to school, in the netherlands, it's approx 75%.
approx 70% of irish students are driven to school (42% car, 28% bus), and there are more female secondary school students driving to school than there are cycling.

I maintain this has less to do with anything to do with transport and more related to a MUCH more disjointed school system. In the US and other countries, each municipality has a guaranteed school placement in the municipal school system. Bus routes etc, can all be planned around that.

In Ireland, it's more a question of getting some school that might or might not have a place somewhere in the area. Or going to school somewhere further away. In such cases, bicycles or even buses may simply not be of much use. Ergo, more children driven to school at least in part for reasons that having to do with the transport system.

so you can say the roads are safe, but it's a very facile way of looking at it, if they're safe because vulnerable road users have been driven (pun intended) away.

This may be true to some extent but both the low numbers of deaths and the rapid improvements over the years both suggest that at least some decisions are being made correctly.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Pedantry. "exceedingly rare" vs "unusual" there's not much difference.

Now, as a pedestrian, I wish motorists would not jump reds just after the light changes because that often leaves them still on the junction when I've got the green man, but it doesn't change the fact that motorists RLJing a "stale" red are the exception, not the rule. And on the handful of occasions I did see a motorist doing that, they didn't cut off anyone.

You're not going to believe it Sean - but have a look;

Two exceedingly rare unusual incidents in one week, about 1 km apart, both happening in front of the same cyclist, with a helmet camera, the one who uploads and participates in this thread.

So this genius slowed to the point of stopping at the first set of lights, where he had a straight on filter green arrow, so he didn't have to stop - and then at the very busy main junction - he just blew through the very, very stale red light, so stale it was just a couple of seconds of going green again, not that he could have know it.

https://streamable.com/xm0ju2

What are the odds? Twice in one week, 1 km apart, in front of the same cyclist?

That's some coincidence. I should definitely buy a lotto ticket this week with those odds in my favour.

Or else, just possibly, it happens all the time but some people are too busy looking for cyclists with no hi-vis to notice it.

SeanW

So you see it twice in one week, but as a daily pedestrian in Dublin I see motorists jumping just-turned-red lights many times a day, when I'm in the city. I wish they wouldn't but it isn't a big danger. By contrast, I see motorists jumping "stale" reds almost never - and because of the danger posed by mostly cyclists, I have to observe carefully the actions of all other road users when I'm crossing a central Dublin street.

TaurenDruid

Hurrache wrote: »

On the same theme of hey, we keep the numbers using our roads that aren't driving low it's doing wonders for our stats....
https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1273160919724556292?s=19

See! A link to actual data, where you can follow it back to see the numbers and where they got them from! You can do it!

Now - that garda study or survey or whatever it is... got a link?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're not going to believe it Sean - but have a look;

Two exceedingly rare unusual incidents in one week, about 1 km apart, both happening in front of the same cyclist, with a helmet camera, the one who uploads and participates in this thread.

So this genius slowed to the point of stopping at the first set of lights, where he had a straight on filter green arrow, so he didn't have to stop - and then at the very busy main junction - he just blew through the very, very stale red light, so stale it was just a couple of seconds of going green again, not that he could have know it.

https://streamable.com/xm0ju2

What are the odds? Twice in one week, 1 km apart, in front of the same cyclist?

That's some coincidence. I should definitely buy a lotto ticket this week with those odds in my favour.

Or else, just possibly, it happens all the time but some people are too busy looking for cyclists with no hi-vis to notice it.

I've got this one! "And at the end of the day the driver above caused no harm!"

That's how it goes, isn't it?

meeeeh

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I've got this one! "And at the end of the day the driver above caused no harm!"

That's how it goes, isn't it?

He was doing him a favour. Since so many cyclists break red lights he assumed they are both going through red lights and made it safe for the cyclist. I call that altruism.
(Before anyone corrects me I didn't even watch the video.)

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

I maintain this has less to do with anything to do with transport and more related to a MUCH more disjointed school system. In the US and other countries, each municipality has a guaranteed school placement in the municipal school system. Bus routes etc, can all be planned around that.

how does that explain that ten times as many secondary school students walk to school, than cycle to school?
it'd be one thing if the stats showed that kids *either* lived close enough to walk *or* lived so far from school that they had to be driven, that only 2% genuinely lived in the middle ground that cycling was the viable alternative.

or else it shows that irish parents are disproportionately concerned about their kids cycling to school; that concern is undoubtedly valid for a large number of parents, but we should be asking why is their concern valid.

SeanW

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I've got this one! "And at the end of the day the driver above caused no harm!"

That's how it goes, isn't it?

But, but, but whatabout ... if a cyclist runs a red light they're not hurting anybody. But if an elderly motorist lets their car roll down some rocks - also hurting nobody - it's proof that Irish motorists are UNIQUELY HORRIBLE MONSTERS and need to punished with stupid and over the top measures for no reason.

Am I doing this right, Andy?

magicbastarder

There were also just over 5,000 secondary students driving themselves to school. See figure 5.6. Just over 800 of these drivers are in Cork city and county (806), the ED's with the highest numbers being Douglas and Ballincollig. Six hundred and sixty were in Dublin city and county, clustered around Palmerston, Firhouse and Lucan in South Dublin, Glencullen, Foxrock and Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and Rush, Lusk, Malahide, Howth and Castleknock in Fingal.

douglas and ballincollig are not exactly in the wilds of west cork.
funny thing is, i used to go to one of the schools in one of the areas mentioned above, and there was an explicit ban on students driving to school. i wonder if that still exists.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

how does that explain that ten times as many secondary school students walk to school, than cycle to school?
it'd be one thing if the stats showed that kids *either* lived close enough to walk *or* lived so far from school that they had to be driven, that only 2% genuinely lived in the middle ground that cycling was the viable alternative.

or else it shows that irish parents are disproportionately concerned about their kids cycling to school; that concern is undoubtedly valid for a large number of parents, but we should be asking why is their concern valid.

Growing up I spent some time in the United States and I came to understand the value of a well planned school system. At least where I was, the majority of students travel to school by bus. Yes, by high school some students drive themselves and there are car parks for that, but it's not universal. Guaranteeing a place for a student in a well-functioning municipal school system makes it much easier to plan school transport.

I did concede though that there may be other factors in play.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

So you see it twice in one week, but as a daily pedestrian in Dublin I see motorists jumping just-turned-red lights many times a day, when I'm in the city. I wish they wouldn't but it wasn't a big danger. By contrast, I see motorists jumping "stale" reds almost never - and because of the danger posed by mostly cyclists, I have to observe carefully the actions of all other road users when I'm crossing a central Dublin street.

Amazing. Breathtaking hypocrisy.

Cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum', but when I show two white van men blowing through stale reds within one week, your only response to two 'exceedingly rare' incidents happening within sight of one cyclist over a few days is to talk about the danger posed by mostly cyclists?

Can I suggest that, just possible, the only reason that you don't see this kind of red light jumping happening around you all the time is because you don't want to see it happening.

Otherwise, my two incidents would be just one hell of a coincidence, wouldn't it?

SeanW wrote: »

I'm going to let you in on a little secret - people sometimes make mistakes and old people sometimes do silly things - because they're old people. Over 70s are subject to restrictions on the renewal of their license. Further, in this case, no deaths or injuries occurred (like 98% of cyclists jumping red lights or your likely false claim of 98% of motorists breaking "urban" speed limits). This incident provides precisely zero evidence that Irish drivers are unique in needing regular driving tests. Anyone who doesn't understand that has no business commenting about transport policy.

Again, amazing to see how cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum' terrorising you and everyone else on the footpath, but when someone loses control of a tonne of metal, well, sure that's just a little mistake because they're old, they couldn't really be expected to stay in control of the car ALL the time now, surely? That's one of those unreasonable standards you keep talking about.

And again, the international comparisons are entirely irrelevant. You doing a strawman arguement about the uniqueness of Irish motorists. I didn't say there was anything unique about Irish motorists.

But I am seeing a trend where motorists who don't seem to have the ability to control their vehicle are out on public roads. Are we going to wait for another mother to be killed in front of her child before we take action to ensure that drivers are actually capable of controlling their vehicles?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/microsleep-driver-who-killed-mother-and-injured-infant-launches-sentence-appeal-35371763.html

Was this incident 'unavoidable'? Any sign of any more examples of those 'mostly unavoidable' deaths that you mentioned?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Pretty sure I spelt out exactly what was missing at the time.

Oh, you mean this post, which actually came before I asked for that clarification?

You seem to be looking for someone else to do your research for you. If you need additional data, go get it from the NTA under FOI legislation and see what it tells you.

The questions you ask don't change the underlying facts though, that 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles.

It's interesting to see how motorists break lights "on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red" and your serious concern about how cyclists break lights".

Presumably now that you've seen the two videos I posted, two incidents happening around one cyclists in one week, you're going to update your view to reflect this new information about how often motorists (or perhaps white van men in particular) break stale red lights?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah I know, that's why I always feel that it's a tad disingenuous when cyclists say bring in red light cameras, when they know full well that it wont affect their behavior, however, we weren't talking red light cameras then we were discussing

Disingenuous? So if cyclists suggest any action or regulation on motor vehicles (the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week) that don't also impact cyclists (the ones who kill 2 people each 20 years), they're being disingenuous?

Maybe they're just actually trying to solve a problem by focusing on those who cause the problem?

I really wonder how some of you people survive in the real world with these kinds of problem solving skills. If you're house is burning down, is it 'disingenuous' to not decide that this is good time to go weeding the driveway?

meeeeh

I will be serious for moment. Population density explains a lot. It make certain infrastructure less viable, roads outside cities empty and in cities packed and speeds slower. In my opinion that parents here tend to be also more protective about their kids. My nieces walk/cycle/roller skate to school since they were ten (younger one probably longer)about 2km on small local roads on their own. No cycling tracks but not much traffic.

Holland is good example for certain things but if you expect the infrastructure you also need certain population density.

Edit: I see somebody is getting very excited.

07Lapierre

According to "Connoroconner" in the comments...cycling on the pavement is not illegal? Damn! All these years cycling on the road when I could have been terrorising peds on the pavement!

https://www.thejournal.ie/trinity-college-request-dublin-city-council-cycling-walking-5126303-Jun2020/

micar

Since 2015 the laws governing cycling have been regulated into specific fixed charge offences. Gardaí have the power to stop and fine a cyclist if they commit a fixed charge offence.

Cycling on a footpath is not a fixed charge offence.

However other laws do include it as an offence.

Article 11 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 prohibits you from cycling beyond a traffic sign that prohibits bicycle

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property

Article 45 of the 1997 Regulations (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations 1998), you must not cycle in a pedestrianised street or area during the period indicated by the sign

Although it is not a fixed charge offence to cycle on a footpath a cyclist could be fined for doing so if a Garda deemed their cycling to be without ’reasonable consideration‘.

meeeeh

This is a genuine question. Why would any normal person read comments under articles? No matter what the article is about they are written by morons.

The second question is what is the fascination with crime and accidents. Unless you are looking if someone you know died or are entertained by individual tragedies they have very little informational value for society. (They do when they become part of statistical data but not the actual description of people's suffering).

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

My nieces walk/cycle/roller skate to school since they were ten (younger one probably longer)about 2km on small local roads on their own. No cycling tracks but not much traffic.

Holland is good example for certain things but if you expect the infrastructure you also need certain population density.

i used to cycle two miles to school (it were miles back then), but an example of the difference in the traffic volumes - this was when the M50 was being built, and they closed the road between blanchardstown and castleknock to motorised traffic for something like six months. that would be unimaginable now.
that same journey would be quite a bit riskier on the bike now.
in most of the cities, i'd wager that the majority of students live within cycling distance of school, and the cities and greater urban areas would make up half the population of the country. yet we have 2% - one in *fifty* - students cycling to school.
and only 800 female secondary school students in the entire country cycling to school (though there are other issues there)

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

This is a genuine question. Why would any normal person read comments under articles? No matter what the article is about they are written by morons.

The second question is what is the fascination with crime and accidents. Unless you are looking if someone you know died or are entertained by individual tragedies they have very little informational value for society. (They do when they become part of statistical data but not the actual description of people's suffering).

I read them for entertainment.

Pinch Flat

07Lapierre wrote: »

I read them for entertainment.

I read them to reinforce my decision not driving 10km to work. Sends people batty.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I suppose that's the main reason why the legal requirement for cars to have insurance is rarely enforced for the 100k - 150k vehicles with no insurance - just too much hassle.

Nah that's more likely to be the need to actually catch them driving without insurance or parked in a public place but honestly WTF has that to do with IDs

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i used to cycle two miles to school (it were miles back then), but an example of the difference in the traffic volumes - this was when the M50 was being built, and they closed the road between blanchardstown and castleknock to motorised traffic for something like six months. that would be unimaginable now.
that same journey would be quite a bit riskier on the bike now.
in most of the cities, i'd wager that the majority of students live within cycling distance of school, and the cities and greater urban areas would make up half the population of the country. yet we have 2% - one in *fifty* - students cycling to school.
and only 800 female secondary school students in the entire country cycling to school (though there are other issues there)

There is a huge difference in traffic volumes where I come from although that road might be about the same. However cycling infrastructure is better but so is population density. I went to a country-ish national school (outside town, but there were apartment buildings) and there were 120 to 150 kids per year, over 1000 in total, my kids go to the school that covers similar area and there are about 200 in the whole school. You can live away the same distance but it is a lot harder to provide same infrastructure for 5 times less kids (or people in general).

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nah that's more likely to be the need to actually catch them driving without insurance or parked in a public place but honestly WTF has that to do with IDs

Similar enough to the need to actually catch cyclists cycling badly AND not be satisfied with their ID, I guess.

You seemed to be suggesting that the lack of cyclists having their bike confiscated was some grand conspiracy to go easy on cyclists, rather than just a simple operational prioritisation to deal with the most dangerous risks.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Amazing. Breathtaking hypocrisy.

Cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum', but when I show two white van men blowing through stale reds within one week, your only response to two 'exceedingly rare' incidents happening within sight of one cyclist over a few days is to talk about the danger posed by mostly cyclists?

Can I suggest that, just possible, the only reason that you don't see this kind of red light jumping happening around you all the time is because you don't want to see it happening.

Otherwise, my two incidents would be just one hell of a coincidence, wouldn't it?



Again, amazing to see how cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum' terrorising you and everyone else on the footpath, but when someone loses control of a tonne of metal, well, sure that's just a little mistake because they're old, they couldn't really be expected to stay in control of the car ALL the time now, surely? That's one of those unreasonable standards you keep talking about.

And again, the international comparisons are entirely irrelevant. You doing a strawman arguement about the uniqueness of Irish motorists. I didn't say there was anything unique about Irish motorists.

But I am seeing a trend where motorists who don't seem to have the ability to control their vehicle are out on public roads. Are we going to wait for another mother to be killed in front of her child before we take action to ensure that drivers are actually capable of controlling their vehicles?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/microsleep-driver-who-killed-mother-and-injured-infant-launches-sentence-appeal-35371763.html

Was this incident 'unavoidable'? Any sign of any more examples of those 'mostly unavoidable' deaths that you mentioned?



Oh, you mean this post, which actually came before I asked for that clarification?

You seem to be looking for someone else to do your research for you. If you need additional data, go get it from the NTA under FOI legislation and see what it tells you.

The questions you ask don't change the underlying facts though, that 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles.

It's interesting to see how motorists break lights "on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red" and your serious concern about how cyclists break lights".

Presumably now that you've seen the two videos I posted, two incidents happening around one cyclists in one week, you're going to update your view to reflect this new information about how often motorists (or perhaps white van men in particular) break stale red lights?


Disingenuous? So if cyclists suggest any action or regulation on motor vehicles (the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week) that don't also impact cyclists (the ones who kill 2 people each 20 years), they're being disingenuous?

Maybe they're just actually trying to solve a problem by focusing on those who cause the problem?

I really wonder how some of you people survive in the real world with these kinds of problem solving skills. If you're house is burning down, is it 'disingenuous' to not decide that this is good time to go weeding the driveway?

Can you try that one again, I've read it several times and it doesn't make any grammatical sense to me.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Similar enough to the need to actually catch cyclists cycling badly AND not be satisfied with their ID, I guess.

You seemed to be suggesting that the lack of cyclists having their bike confiscated was some grand conspiracy to go easy on cyclists, rather than just a simple operational prioritisation to deal with the most dangerous risks.

You do read between the lines and come up with some complete and utter guff.

It was to do with the fact that if a Garda decides he isn't satisfied with your ID, MB said he could detain the bicycle until satisfied, there are no facilities for detaining bicycles but there are facilities for detaining people without satisfactory evidence of ID even if they are driving cars or cycling or walking.

Also if you are stopped for no insurance you get minimum of a FCPN and the car towed until insurance is shown, so no similarity there at all.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also if you are stopped for no insurance you get minimum of a FCPN and the car towed until insurance is shown, so no similarity there at all.

Agreed. No similarity between cycling and motoring offences. They are chalk and cheese!

SeanW

07Lapierre wrote: »

According to "Connoroconner" in the comments...cycling on the pavement is not illegal? Damn! All these years cycling on the road when I could have been terrorising peds on the pavement!

https://www.thejournal.ie/trinity-college-request-dublin-city-council-cycling-walking-5126303-Jun2020/

Yes, the law might (in theory) suggest that you stay off footways, but there is approximately zero chance you'll be penalised.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Amazing. Breathtaking hypocrisy.

Being guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy yourself, I will have to defer to your vast expertise :rolleyes:

Cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum', but when I show two white van men blowing through stale reds within one week, your only response to two 'exceedingly rare' incidents happening within sight of one cyclist over a few days is to talk about the danger posed by mostly cyclists?

I believe it was another poster that used the term "exceedingly rare." That's also my experience, but I used the term "unusual."

Can I suggest that, just possible, the only reason that you don't see this kind of red light jumping happening around you all the time is because you don't want to see it happening.

As a daily pedestrian in Dublin, if I "only saw what I wanted to see" I would not last very long ...

Again, amazing to see how cyclists are 'lawbreaking scum' terrorising you and everyone else on the footpath, but when someone loses control of a tonne of metal, well, sure that's just a little mistake because they're old, they couldn't really be expected to stay in control of the car ALL the time now, surely? That's one of those unreasonable standards you keep talking about.

To borrow your arguments, two-wheeled lawbreakers don't "accidentally" sail through a red light. They don't "accidentally" mount a kerb. They don't "accidentally" pass No Cycling signs to menace pedestrians on the Sean O'Casey bridge. Yet that's fine, according to you.

One oul fella/wan does something silly like leaving their car in reverse, and the only injury is a bruised ego. Yet according to you that's PROOF, ABSOLUTELY that Irish drivers are HORRIBLE and need to be subject to stupid, over the top nonsense that would just make millions of peoples lives insanely harder for no reason.

How's that for breathtaking hypocrisy? I wonder if it's not you that is "seeing what you want to see?"

And again, the international comparisons are entirely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to your and your little crusade, but relevant to anyone who cares about judging people fairly or comparing anything against best practice.

You doing a strawman arguement about the uniqueness of Irish motorists. I didn't say there was anything unique about Irish motorists.

Well that right there is a bald faced lie - your 98% claim (which in and of itself is deeply questionable) specifically targets Irish motorists. Your absurd demands that "drivers" be retested as a matter of routine is - again - specifically targeted at Irish drivers.

But I am seeing a trend where motorists who don't seem to have the ability to control their vehicle are out on public roads.

Perhaps the reason for all the lawbreaking cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge is that the cyclists are unable to control their bicycles? Maybe they see all the "no cycling" signs, but they're unable to control their bicycles? Is that proof that cyclists should be subject to regular road tests.

Are we going to wait for another mother to be killed in front of her child before we take action to ensure that drivers are actually capable of controlling their vehicles?

One of those things that the pesky facts show, is that a standard where nobody dies on the roads ever again is unattainable. Even in the Netherlands - which most here would agree is an example of best practice - they have more fatalities per billion km driven than Ireland (4.7 vs 3.8) although they do better by other measures. People will make mistakes.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

You do read between the lines and come up with some complete and utter guff.

It was to do with the fact that if a Garda decides he isn't satisfied with your ID, MB said he could detain the bicycle until satisfied, there are no facilities for detaining bicycles but there are facilities for detaining people without satisfactory evidence of ID even if they are driving cars or cycling or walking.

Also if you are stopped for no insurance you get minimum of a FCPN and the car towed until insurance is shown, so no similarity there at all.

Why would you say that "there are no facilities for detaining bicycles"? Every Garda jeep and van is a facility for detaining bicycles.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

One oul fella/wan does something silly like leaving their car in reverse, and the only injury is a bruised ego. Yet according to you that's PROOF, ABSOLUTELY that Irish drivers are HORRIBLE and need to be subject to stupid, over the top nonsense that would just make millions of peoples lives insanely harder for no reason.

Are you confirming there that millions of Irish drivers couldn't pass a driving test?