Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Idleater

Tea drinker wrote: »

Golf drivers are the absolute worst!

I've disliked golfers since they took a passing fancy to titanium in the 90s and pushed up the price of bike frames.

07Lapierre

The crap some people have to put up with!

https://twitter.com/velobetty/status/1289085454785093633?s=21

Pinch Flat

Shocking but not surprising behaviours from someone in a range rover. So many entitled driving them with some serious issues going on.

micar

Saw this the other day on C4 news.

Part most was interesting was "Can we teach drivers to understand cycling even if they don't cycle"


https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1288182788232040448?s=19

https://www.channel4.com/news/how-urban-cycling-could-be-made-easier

Charles Babbage

07Lapierre wrote: »

The crap some people have to put up with!

https://twitter.com/velobetty/status/1289085454785093633?s=21

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

Tea drinker

micar wrote: »

Saw this the other day on C4 news.

Part most was interesting was "Can we teach drivers to understand cycling even if they don't cycle"


https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1288182788232040448?s=19

https://www.channel4.com/news/how-urban-cycling-could-be-made-easier

I got laughed at uproariously here when I suggested several years back we should all do a one day trianing course every 5 years on how to understand other road users and see things from their perspective.
maybe if the Brits do it the cap doffers here will quickly follow suit in order not to be seen as stupid.

ebbsy

07Lapierre wrote: »

The crap some people have to put up with!

https://twitter.com/velobetty/status/1289085454785093633?s=21

She deserved it.

micar

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

Somehow you are trying to justify the behaviour of the motorist over some you've no evidence of.

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Did she? Why?

Both comments are completely idiotic.

Wonderful contribution.......wonderful

07Lapierre

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Of course she did? (WTF??)

shootermacg

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Inside the head of a psyco.

Duckjob

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

@micar - some minds just are too toxic to bother arguing with...

AndrewJRenko

micar wrote: »

Both comments are completely idiotic.

They're a lot more that idiotic, in fairness. As Duckjob says, they are toxic, at best. The depths to which some will sink to justify aggressive intimidation are fairly shocking. I can only assume they're the kind of people who's first reaction to a sexual assault is to blame the victim for having their skirt too short.

SeanW

Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Charles Babbage

micar wrote: »

Somehow you are trying to justify the behaviour of the motorist over some you've no evidence of.

Both comments are completely idiotic.

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.



We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

micar

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.



We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

If not, what was the intention of your post?

Would you call him a "delinquent" or is that something you only reserve of cyclists?

There is a difference in passing a pedestrian at 15km per hour on a bike and passing a cyclist at 50km to 100km p/h.

You cannot compare both. If someone is cycling on the footpath at 25km p/h passing pedestrians without due care and attention, the bike needs to be taken off them and crushed.

It strange that you never see an ad on TV asking cyclists to behave better. The ads focus on motorists

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

May be you and your posse should get together and get onto the RSA and ask them to do an ad campaign about "menacing intimidating cyclists terrorising the country"

micar

SeanW wrote: »

Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Get onto RTE about your conspiracy about the shortened podcast.......that's some leap you made.

That's some segment in fairness

Illegal to cycle on footpsths......it's not enforced.

Wish AGS would tell them that. If it was all the little 5 year olds would be fined and brought before the courts.

bikes having licence numbers ......... which will never happen

elderly having to jump out of cyclists way.......FFS.....cyclists just don't appear out of nowhere.

Profile of cyclist being male/female/young and old.......i seriously doubt it.

footpaths being taken over by cyclists where it would be better for them to walk on the road ....... ah here

To elderly people "probably" being seriously injured........

To the woman who is afraid to go outside because of cyclists and claims lots of mothers friends have been knocked down........ah here

Nobody likes to be criticised and will try to defend themselves. ......human nature....not just cyclists.

Joe Duffy........the nation's favourite moan.......exaggerate exaggerate exaggerate

I've seen groups of young lads cycling through phibsboro doing wheelies going all over the road.......complete idiots but I slowed down in my car and made sure I wasn't going anyway near them.

Young lads like that have no acceptance of personal responsibility. They will do what ever the fu€k they want.

It's the same as all the young people having house parties during Covid. They don't understand the impact that can have on other people .

As father stack says "i've had my fun and that's all that matters"

magicbastarder

micar wrote: »

From it being illegal to cycle on footpsths.......which it isn't

I'll say that again as you referred to it.......It is not illegal to cycle on the footpath.

It is illegal to cycle on a footpath.
Dunno where you're getting the idea that it's not.

micar

magicbastarder wrote: »

It is illegal to cycle on a footpath.
Dunno where you're getting the idea that it's not.

You are correct

I subsequently correct my post

It is illegal but not enforced.

Apologies

Duckjob

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.

Funny, that bit about him being a prat wasn't screaming out of your first post, wasn't even whispering out TBF.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

SeanW wrote: »

Because cyclists are little angels, right?
Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems)..Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems)..
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.


And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:
And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout




SeanW, your post was a particular head-scratcher, because many parts of it fitted nicely into different categories and I couldnt decide which category was most deserving of the color, so, and I hope you dont mind but I just repeated those parts for all the relevant categories.


When you're afraid to argue the specifics of a specific case, just keep digging back into those nice safe generalisations, strawman arguments and what abouts...

As I said, toxic mindsets....

Spook_ie

micar wrote: »

<Snipped>

It strange that you never see an ad on TV asking cyclists to behave better. The ads focus on motorists

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

May be you and your posse should get together and get onto the RSA and ask them to do an ad campaign about "menacing intimidating cyclists terrorising the country"

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

Spook_ie

micar wrote: »

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

I'd far more like to get the cyclists responses so I can include them in any correspondence with the RSA and Transport Minister

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

It's Groundhog Day!

Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.

Pinch Flat

Love the way the toxic motorist mindset tries to equate a 30kph plus car and a 30kph plus bike. I'd love to see the reply back from the minister though. Be worth a laugh.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Studies of Strava

i.e. 'i looked at strava'

Spook_ie wrote: »

segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

there are 250 people who have exceeded 30km/h average from parnell street to the bridge. 12 have exceeded 40km/h. some of the records are over 11 years old.

or else; in over 11 years of existence, strava has recorded 53 cyclists who have managed to exceed 35km/h average on that segment, out of the near 3,000 cyclists who have attempted it. and that's their PRs, not a record of what they'd usually do it at.

whatever ham fisted point you're trying to prove, the strava data would appear to undermine your point, rather than support it.

What’s with so many of them using the motorway these days? The new bit past Enniscorthy etc is terrible for it.

AndrewJRenko

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

Maybe that's because cyclists aren't killing 30-40 pedestrians each year?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

Again, what problem are you trying to solve here? I sometimes get over 30 kmph, mostly on downhills. I can't imagine that I'd get over 30 kmph on O'Connell St, unless maybe I got a clear run all the way down from Parnell Square - but either way, what's the issue?

Of all the problems we have on our roads, where do cyclists over 30 kmph rank as an issue to be addressed?

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

It's Groundhog Day!

Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Love the way the toxic motorist mindset tries to equate a 30kph plus car and a 30kph plus bike. I'd love to see the reply back from the minister though. Be worth a laugh.

Not groundhog day at all, you listed 5 specifics, I'm asking you about them but typical avoidance tactic of picking on 1 item and ignoring the rest.

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not groundhog day at all, you listed 5 specifics, I'm asking you about them but typical avoidance tactic of picking on 1 item and ignoring the rest.

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

I didn't mention the other point 4 (you highlighted 1 and 4) because to me there's no argument that you should give decent space to pedestrians. It's a no brainer, as are the other points on the list.

That was Micar's list, not mine, but you responded to his post with a post which was all about cyclist speed, which, in case you didn't notice you're still chunnering on about ) . It was pointed out to you in some detail on the other thread that your physics was arseways at which point you ran away only to try to repeat the same nonsense argument here.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

i know this wasn't aimed at me, but i'm happy to answer it with a resounding yes.
if a motorist is distracted enough by a cyclist moving 5km/h faster than them, for it to be a genuine issue, i know of several garages they can bring their cars to, to sell them, because they should not be left with those cars.
i regularly overtake motorists on the left and on the right in slow moving traffic, this is something motorists have to be able to contend with anyway and if it's that much of an issue, they are incompetent to the point of serious danger.