Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Options
1…9293959798…125

Comments

  • Options
    #2822
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Do you think that possibly there wasn't a need for them to circumnavigate around a cycle lane that wasn't there or are you just intent on stretching the credibility of you not knowing what's taking place with regard to not being able to take the most direct route to a lifeboat station?

    Hope you never need rescuing, those few minutes might save someones life!

    Do you think that they've never had a problem with traffic before the cycle lane existed? Never?

    Maybe they should be getting bikes for their crews, or eBikes if they're a bit further away.


  • Options
    #2823
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Agreed... we should ban all private cars from our roads... if it saves just one life it will be worth it right?

    So instead of driving to the lifeboat station they can run/jog/cycle, trouble is you're likely serious about it!


  • Options
    #2824
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So instead of driving to the lifeboat station they can run/jog/cycle, trouble is you're likely serious about it!

    Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.


  • Options
    #2825
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Do you think that they've never had a problem with traffic before the cycle lane existed? Never?

    Maybe they should be getting bikes for their crews, or eBikes if they're a bit further away.

    I don't think they had as many problems as they are having to contend with the traffic chaos caused now by the cycle lanes.

    Maybe you'd like to volunteer going out on a leaky rowboat twice and we test the results see if cycling to the rescue station is better than driving, you never know you might survive both and be able to relate the experience here.


  • Options
    #2826
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.

    But they're not are they (allowed to use blue lights), instead they have to drive like normal people and deal with the traffic and diversions now in place, something which AJR seems to think isn't affecting them even though the RNLI station manager is quoted as saying they are trying to find an 'amicable' solution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2827
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.

    One thing I forgot in my previous rebuttal, if there are half the amount of cars and only half the amount of road space then there is no change to the traffic density, if anything due to the extended routes necessitated because of the cycle lanes it could well take much longer to get from AB as they now have to go AB via C


  • Options
    #2828
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    One thing I forgot in my previous rebuttal, if there are half the amount of cars and only half the amount of road space then there is no change to the traffic density, if anything due to the extended routes necessitated because of the cycle lanes it could well take much longer to get from AB as they now have to go AB via C

    Then all RNLI crew should live in the boathouse. After all, if it saves just one life right?


  • Options
    #2829
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Then all RNLI crew should live in the boathouse. After all, if it saves just one life right?

    Sure why not, they're only volunteers anyway, so fvck 'em

    Your attitude to what equates to the 4th emergency service does you no favors at all.


  • Options
    #2830
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,817 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Thargor wrote: »
    Uh-oh looks like Seans regressed back to his totally non-idiotic "someone doing something on a bicycle is exactly as dangerous with exactly the same potential consequences as doing it in a 2 ton car, I am very clever" phase...
    There are degrees. Say for example, you're a pedestrian that at times has to jump out of the way of lawbreakers on two wheels (like me) or regularly gets hit by them (like another poster here). Which should one be more concerned about:
    1. Two wheeled lawbreakers who regularly menace and hit pedestrians in core urban centres?
    2. A motorists who sails past a 60kph speed sign at 65kph (or even 55kph past a 50kph sign) in the middle of nowhere, in an "urban area" where they're surrounded by green fields and the odd one-off house. (That's all that's necessary to become part of Andy's 98%).
    I won't hesitate to condemn a motorist who genuinely takes the piss, in no uncertain terms. Too bad cyclists can do the same for the lawbreaking scum in their ranks that regularly menace and hit pedestrians and can only respond with "but, but, but, whatabout"
    https://www.thejournal.ie/wexford-crash-witness-appeal-5159922-Jul2020/

    Make sure that you never attribute any responsibility to the driver. Always use language like 'the truck lost control'. Never say anything like 'the driver lost control'.
    Well, I'm assuming the driver didn't set out to cause a collision so we can assume this was an accident. Beyond that however, at the time the article was written, little else was known. Was it:
    • Did the driver cause the collision due to their own actions, e.g. fiddling with their mobile phone and losing focus?
    • Did the vehicle have some defect? If so, was that defect known? Should it have been? Was the driver and the owner of the truck the same person?
    • Did the driver encounter some unexpected event that induced them to turn quickly?
    • Did the driver suffer some unexplained/unexplainable occurance that caused them to lose control and which could not have been foreseen? Something like an unexplained understeer of oversteer? (I know that this can happen).
    • Did the truck driver crash on purpose (in which case, it was not an accident).
    In the absence of causal information, neutral terminology makes sense.
    https://www.buzz.ie/news/man-killed-in-tipperary-road-crash-in-which-driver-failed-to-remain-at-the-scene-378160
    Don't use 'misleading' terms like hit-and-run, make sure you smooth it out as much as you can by saying nice things like 'failed to remain at the scene'. Another of those 'exceedingly rare' events I guess.
    I'm not sure who said hit-and-runs were "exceedingly rare" but I said that in the case of a fatal accident, it's normal for the responsible party to be determined (i.e. that when the driver is responsible they don't usually hit and run). At least that's what the RSA found in its study of pedestrian fatalities. Clearly they do happen. And I think I can speak for 99% of fellow motorists when I say, I hope whoever did this is caught, and punished. Hard.
    When you see lots of relatively few people being killed dying, due to various causes on the road, make sure that you don't attribute any responsibility to drivers those who may not be responsible Say things like 'we're all baffled as to how this could possibly happen (even though we all see drivers speeding, using their phones, and busy pub car parks all the time) because we don't always know the cause of every single collision and the causes vary wildly.
    FYP.


  • Options
    #2831
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Sure why not, they're only volunteers anyway, so fvck 'em

    Your attitude to what equates to the 4th emergency service does you no favors at all.

    Don't be stupid! You need to learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it. Your twisted logic that one way systems and cycle lanes are worse than streets clogged with cars doesn't do you any favours either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2832
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,397 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    SeanW wrote: »
    I won't hesitate to condemn a motorist who genuinely takes the piss, in no uncertain terms.
    but you said, in different thread:
    SeanW wrote: »
    the absolute worst I've encountered from Irish motorists is that they can sometimes be inconsiderate.
    *the*
    *absolute*
    *worst*

    that is a properly astonishing statement, if you wish us to take it seriously. or else you were taking the piss, in which case i'm not sure what to make of any of your statements.

    if you've never seen anything above the level of 'inconsiderate' from an irish motorist, i suspect you've never been a passenger in a car, let alone a driver.
    i drove from the ballymun junction on the M50 the other day to the sandyford exit, and in that one trip, i saw three comprehensively dangerous stunts, one which could have caused a full blown pileup (someone swerving with a trailer full of cavity blocks where the trailer tilted dangerously, such was the swerve). that was one dangerous incident every 10km, roughly.

    you *do* drive, do you?


  • Options
    #2833
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,929 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    SeanW wrote: »
    There are degrees. Say for example, you're a pedestrian that at times has to jump out of the way of lawbreakers on two wheels (like me) or regularly gets hit by them (like another poster here).
    Sorry but its just too funny at this stage, I cant imagine what its like live like that, surely our generous social welfare system would provide some kind of assistance for people like you and the other lad who are regularly "menaced" or knocked down by cyclists? How common do you think this problem is for the average person? You are ridiculousy prejudiced about one form of transport to the point where you're making up threats to your person on social media day in day out, its absolutely bizarre.


  • Options
    #2834
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,817 ✭✭✭SeanW


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but you said, in different thread:

    *the*
    *absolute*
    *worst*

    that is a properly astonishing statement, if you wish us to take it seriously. or else you were taking the piss, in which case i'm not sure what to make of any of your statements.
    I was thinking in the context of my experience as a routine pedestrian in Ireland's major cities.

    the absolute worst I've ever seen in that context is two things:
    1. Motorists being cheeky and going through a red light that's just turned red. This is an inconvenience because it means I sometimes have to wait 2 seconds at a green man crossing.
    2. Motorists and bus drivers blocking specific pedestrian crossings at peak times due in part to traffic being backed up. I referred above to the junction I've had problems at. Sometimes you get the green man but then you and 20 other pedestrians have to shimmy between the bumpers of stationary cars, other times a bus will be blocking the crossing so comprehensively that you can't even see the green man on the opposite traffic light post.
    In the latter case, I really wish the guards or DCC would send out a traffic warden out to that junction in particular (and any others where this happens) to tell these drivers to cop the f*** on, maybe hand out a few fines, but that's by far the worst I've seen (as a pedestrian) from Irish motorists.

    And most importantly, none of the above has anything to do with speed. 30kph or 50kph makes no difference when you're having to shimmy between the bumpers of two cars that are stationary, or find a way around a bus that's stationary half each side of the crossing, all within the 30 seconds or so that you have a green or yellow man to cross. So far as I am concerned, motorists can do (within reason) whatever speed they like as long as they obey traffic controls, stay off the footpath and keep pedestrian crossings clear.
    if you've never seen anything above the level of 'inconsiderate' from an irish motorist, i suspect you've never been a passenger in a car, let alone a driver.
    i drove from the ballymun junction on the M50 the other day to the sandyford exit, and in that one trip, i saw three comprehensively dangerous stunts, one which could have caused a full blown pileup (someone swerving with a trailer full of cavity blocks where the trailer tilted dangerously, such was the swerve). that was one dangerous incident every 10km, roughly.

    you *do* drive, do you?
    Yes, though mostly off-peak. Come to think of it, I have seen crazy stuff as a motorist, but most not very memorable and it did not come to mind when discussing my experience as a pedestrian.


  • Options
    #2835
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,397 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Madre de dios.


  • Options
    #2836
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,397 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Your safety is regularly threatened by lawbreaking cyclists, but as a pedestrian you've never seen any dangerous behaviour from a motorist, at least nothing that counts as worse than inconsiderate. Wow.


  • Options
    #2837
    Shai
    Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭Shai


    SeanW wrote: »
    I was thinking in the context of my experience as a routine pedestrian in Ireland's major cities.

    the absolute worst I've ever seen in that context is two things:
    1. Motorists being cheeky and going through a red light that's just turned red. This is an inconvenience because it means I sometimes have to wait 2 seconds at a green man crossing.
    2. Motorists and bus drivers blocking specific pedestrian crossings at peak times due in part to traffic being backed up. I referred above to the junction I've had problems at. Sometimes you get the green man but then you and 20 other pedestrians have to shimmy between the bumpers of stationary cars, other times a bus will be blocking the crossing so comprehensively that you can't even see the green man on the opposite traffic light post.
    In the latter case, I really wish the guards or DCC would send out a traffic warden out to that junction in particular (and any others where this happens) to tell these drivers to cop the f*** on, maybe hand out a few fines, but that's by far the worst I've seen (as a pedestrian) from Irish motorists.

    And most importantly, none of the above has anything to do with speed. 30kph or 50kph makes no difference when you're having to shimmy between the bumpers of two cars that are stationary, or find a way around a bus that's stationary half each side of the crossing, all within the 30 seconds or so that you have a green or yellow man to cross. So far as I am concerned, motorists can do (within reason) whatever speed they like as long as they obey traffic controls, stay off the footpath and keep pedestrian crossings clear.
    Yes, though mostly off-peak. Come to think of it, I have seen crazy stuff as a motorist, but most not very memorable and it did not come to mind when discussing my experience as a pedestrian.

    I have no desire to participate in the nth iteration of this topic. Nevertheless I am going to quote this for no other reason than that I do not want Sean to remove this beautiful snippet of crystallised insanity.


  • Options
    #2838
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Don't be stupid! You need to learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it. Your twisted logic that one way systems and cycle lanes are worse than streets clogged with cars doesn't do you any favours either.

    You need to leave off the sarcasm then


  • Options
    #2839
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    But they're not are they (allowed to use blue lights), instead they have to drive like normal people and deal with the traffic and diversions now in place, something which AJR seems to think isn't affecting them even though the RNLI station manager is quoted as saying they are trying to find an 'amicable' solution.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I don't think they had as many problems as they are having to contend with the traffic chaos caused now by the cycle lanes.

    Maybe you'd like to volunteer going out on a leaky rowboat twice and we test the results see if cycling to the rescue station is better than driving, you never know you might survive both and be able to relate the experience here.
    Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. This is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the RNLI service. When RNLI staff were getting caught in the chaotic traffic in Dun Laoghaire for years, there wasn’t a peep of concern coming out from you or others, who suddenly, when a short cycle lane is built, have huge concerns about the abilities of the RNLI volunteers to travel, but not concerned enough to consider alternative ways of making the same journey faster.
    This is jumping on a bandwagon to take a swipe at cycling in general, or provision of dedicated cycling facilities in particular.
    What exactly are the RNLI trying to find an amicable solution to?
    meeeeh wrote: »
    So your intellectual superiority is such that it took decades, global pandemic and Greens in government for cycling infrastructure to start improving. Basically the attitude like yours is hated so much that just about anyone will be listened to before you and people like you.

    It must be some uber smart tactic to win people on your side that nobody really understands.
    Interesting how Seanie can go on about ‘menacing lawbreaking scum’ without any tone policing from yourself, but it is cyclists’ attitude that is ‘hated so much ‘apparently.


  • Options
    #2840
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    There are degrees. Say for example, you're a pedestrian that at times has to jump out of the way of lawbreakers on two wheels (like me) or regularly gets hit by them (like another poster here). Which should one be more concerned about:
    1. Two wheeled lawbreakers who regularly menace and hit pedestrians in core urban centres?
    2. A motorists who sails past a 60kph speed sign at 65kph (or even 55kph past a 50kph sign) in the middle of nowhere, in an "urban area" where they're surrounded by green fields and the odd one-off house. (That's all that's necessary to become part of Andy's 98%).
    Any quick review of any set of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) data will answer that question for you very clearly. One should be more concerned about the motorists who kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road than the cyclists who kill one person each decade.
    SeanW wrote: »
    I won't hesitate to condemn a motorist who genuinely takes the piss, in no uncertain terms. Too bad cyclists can do the same for the lawbreaking scum in their ranks that regularly menace and hit pedestrians and can only respond with "but, but, but, whatabout"
    Well, I'm assuming the driver didn't set out to cause a collision so we can assume this was an accident. Beyond that however, at the time the article was written, little else was known. Was it:
    • Did the driver cause the collision due to their own actions, e.g. fiddling with their mobile phone and losing focus?
    • Did the vehicle have some defect? If so, was that defect known? Should it have been? Was the driver and the owner of the truck the same person?
    • Did the driver encounter some unexpected event that induced them to turn quickly?
    • Did the driver suffer some unexplained/unexplainable occurance that caused them to lose control and which could not have been foreseen? Something like an unexplained understeer of oversteer? (I know that this can happen).
    • Did the truck driver crash on purpose (in which case, it was not an accident).
    In the absence of causal information, neutral terminology makes sense.
    This really is quite fascinating from a psychological point of view. You assume that cyclists on the pavement are ‘lawbreaking scum .... menacing’ and in the very next breath, you go to extreme lengths to assume that a motorist involved in a collision that resulted in one death and other injuries is just an accident.
    Seriously, what’s the back story? Did a cyclist get the ride with your missus or what is driving this intense, prolonged attack on cyclists or cycling? It’s quite Trumpian in nature, so far detached from the actual reality of what happens on the roads.
    And btw ‘accident’ is the complete opposite of neutral terminology.
    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm not sure who said hit-and-runs were "exceedingly rare" but I said that in the case of a fatal accident, it's normal for the responsible party to be determined (i.e. that when the driver is responsible they don't usually hit and run). At least that's what the RSA found in its study of pedestrian fatalities. Clearly they do happen. And I think I can speak for 99% of fellow motorists when I say, I hope whoever did this is caught, and punished. Hard.
    Aw gee, that’s just so reassuring, that you sit around waiting for fatal collisions to occur and then you want to punish the driver – but any preventative measure aimed at stopping these collisions happening, such as additional testing or additional enforcement is resisted by you as an outrageous imposition on the super-amazing drivers of Ireland.
    SeanW wrote: »
    FYP.
    Oh great, so they’re now ‘dying’ and not being killed on the road. Maybe we should be checking to make sure that they haven’t just died of old age or cancer immediately before being macerated by a truck or an SUV, just in case we cause any offence to the super-amazing drivers of Ireland.
    And actually, the causes don’t vary widely. The major causes of road deaths are well known in Ireland and around the world. They are speeding, failure to wear seat belts, drink driving and fatigue driving. There’s no mysteries here – just generally crap driving.


  • Options
    #2841
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,844 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    meeeeh wrote: »
    So your intellectual superiority is such that it took decades, global pandemic and Greens in government for cycling infrastructure to start improving. Basically the attitude like yours is hated so much that just about anyone will be listened to before you and people like you.

    It must be some uber smart tactic to win people on your side that nobody really understands.

    Roy Rogers would say you're Triggered :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2842
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. This is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the RNLI service. When RNLI staff were getting caught in the chaotic traffic in Dun Laoghaire for years, there wasn’t a peep of concern coming out from you or others, who suddenly, when a short cycle lane is built, have huge concerns about the abilities of the RNLI volunteers to travel, but not concerned enough to consider alternative ways of making the same journey faster.
    This is jumping on a bandwagon to take a swipe at cycling in general, or provision of dedicated cycling facilities in particular.
    What exactly are the RNLI trying to find an amicable solution to?

    Interesting how Seanie can go on about ‘menacing lawbreaking scum’ without any tone policing from yourself, but it is cyclists’ attitude that is ‘hated so much ‘apparently.

    I don't know what the problem they are looking to find an amicable solution to, but would it be stretching coincidence too far to make the assumption that it's something to do with access, you know they say there's no smoke without fire, so perhaps put you cynical views to one side and consider that if a life boat station manager views they have a problem then they probably do have a problem and that problem is linked to DLR County Council and that as it's a new problem it might not have been as much of a problem as previous.

    Why would I worry about Sean's tone, it's you I have a problem with, with your silliness about twisting what I say to something you'd like to think i said


  • Options
    #2843
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,817 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. This is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the RNLI service. When RNLI staff were getting caught in the chaotic traffic in Dun Laoghaire for years, there wasn’t a peep of concern coming out from you or others, who suddenly, when a short cycle lane is built, have huge concerns about the abilities of the RNLI volunteers to travel, but not concerned enough to consider alternative ways of making the same journey faster.
    So the RNLI people are lying?
    Interesting how Seanie can go on about ‘menacing lawbreaking scum’ without any tone policing from yourself, but it is cyclists’ attitude that is ‘hated so much ‘apparently.
    If motorists drove their cars the way Irish cyclists cycle, you can be sure I'd have some harsh words for them.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Any quick review of any set of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) data will answer that question for you very clearly. One should be more concerned about the motorists who kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road than the cyclists who kill one person each decade.
    Leaving aside your gross oversimplification, you're saying it's OK for cyclists to hit pedestrians and force pedestrians to get out of their way on footpaths and at red lights? As long as they don't kill people, everything else is OK?
    in a collision that resulted in one death and other injuries is just an accident.
    Seriously, what’s the back story?
    In the story of the cattle truck driver, the only person hurt was the truck driver, and we don't know the cause of the collision. But we can be reasonably confident it was accidental. So yes, in the absence of evidence of intent, we can assume that it was, in fact, an accident..
    It’s quite Trumpian in nature, so far detached from the actual reality of what happens on the roads.
    I suppose it beats going to the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex school of statistics.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html
    It's more important to be morally correct that factual or accurate, eh? Who cares if every statement is either a lie or a gross oversimplification, just don't deviate from the dogma.
    And btw ‘accident’ is the complete opposite of neutral terminology.
    Do you need money to buy a dictionary or something? Are you unable to access online dictionaries for some reason? :confused:
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t
    Aw gee, that’s just so reassuring, that you sit around waiting for fatal collisions to occur and then you want to punish the driver – but any preventative measure aimed at stopping these collisions happening, such as additional testing or additional enforcement is resisted by you as an outrageous imposition on the super-amazing drivers of Ireland.
    Well, punishing millions of people for the actions of a small number of hit-and-run scumbags seems a little ... psychotic. Most sane people prefer to punish those who are actually guilty.
    The major causes of road deaths are well known in Ireland and around the world. They are speeding, failure to wear seat belts, drink driving and fatigue driving. There’s no mysteries here – just generally crap driving.
    You left out the part about collisions that drivers are involved in that they did not cause. E.g. pedestrians lying down in the road, other road users making maneuvers without looking, etc, etc, etc. But hey, like AOC, it's more important to be morally right than factual or accurate, eh?


  • Options
    #2844
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    shootermacg wrote: »
    Roy Rogers would say you're Triggered :)

    And I would say that only morons use term triggered. Weather that applies only to Roy Rogers or also yourself is up to you to decide.


  • Options
    #2845
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,844 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    meeeeh wrote: »
    And I would say that only morons use term triggered. Weather that applies only to Roy Rogers or also yourself is up to you to decide.

    You'll have to take it up with Roy, bring a bale of hay too while you're at it :D


  • Options
    #2846
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »


    I don't know what the problem they are looking to find an amicable solution to, but would it be stretching coincidence too far to make the assumption that it's something to do with access, you know they say there's no smoke without fire, so perhaps put you cynical views to one side and consider that if a life boat station manager views they have a problem then they probably do have a problem and that problem is linked to DLR County Council and that as it's a new problem it might not have been as much of a problem as previous.
    He didn't actually say they had a problem. He said they were working towards an amicable solution - slightly different.

    And who knows what the solution was about the short wands (stubbies) that were temporarily installed while the farmer's market was moved to Queens Road - nothing to do with the cycle lane.

    I'm sure the RNLI are capable of working things out with the Council either way.

    But again, fascinating to see how many people jumped on the bandwagon of RNLI and emergency service needs to take a swipe at cyclists, though they never expressed a gram of concern about how heavy traffic has plagued Dun Laoghaire for decades.

    Spook_ie wrote: »


    Why would I worry about Sean's tone, it's you I have a problem with, with your silliness about twisting what I say to something you'd like to think i said
    That was directed at the quoted poster, not at you.


  • Options
    #2847
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    He didn't actually say they had a problem. He said they were working towards an amicable solution - slightly different.

    And who knows what the solution was about the short wands (stubbies) that were temporarily installed while the farmer's market was moved to Queens Road - nothing to do with the cycle lane.

    I'm sure the RNLI are capable of working things out with the Council either way.

    But again, fascinating to see how many people jumped on the bandwagon of RNLI and emergency service needs to take a swipe at cyclists, though they never expressed a gram of concern about how heavy traffic has plagued Dun Laoghaire for decades.



    That was directed at the quoted poster, not at you.

    Ah that ever elusive amicable solution to a non existent problem ( according to the AJR Bible of word play)

    Re Stubbies so now you suddenly do know what might be the problem, some infrastructure put in to facilitate a cycle lane, some infrastructure that the RNLI volunteer members aren't legally allowed to drive over, maybe.

    And isn't it FASCINATING that the Boat Station manager is the one looking for an amicable solution, a solution that he WASN'T looking for last year. Does that not suggest to even the most stubborn on here, that despite your allegations of heavy traffic causing them problems over the years that the situation is (somehow) different this year



    And as I've said before, keep your replies separate for separate posters, makes it easier for all to follow your incoherent thought processes.


  • Options
    #2848
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Ah that ever elusive amicable solution to a non existent problem ( according to the AJR Bible of word play)

    Re Stubbies so now you suddenly do know what might be the problem, some infrastructure put in to facilitate a cycle lane, some infrastructure that the RNLI volunteer members aren't legally allowed to drive over, maybe.

    And isn't it FASCINATING that the Boat Station manager is the one looking for an amicable solution, a solution that he WASN'T looking for last year. Does that not suggest to even the most stubborn on here, that despite your allegations of heavy traffic causing them problems over the years that the situation is (somehow) different this year
    I didn't say non-existent problem, though it's interesting yet again how far you have to twist my words to find something to argue with. And you seem to have missed the point about the stubbies, which were put in for the farmers market, not the cycle lane, as I mentioned above.

    And again, it is fascinating to see your assumptions about what the RNLI manager was doing last year? Have you had a good chat with him about this, or have you just jumped to conclusions based on one line of one article which mentions nothing about last year at all? All this article shows is that (surprise, surprise) some people get very uppity when facilities are provided for cyclists. But anyone who's spent any time on this thread would already know that.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    And as I've said before, keep your replies separate for separate posters, makes it easier for all to follow your incoherent thought processes.

    It seems to be just yourself that has a problem with this, so I can only suggest that you
    1) Try reading the full post before responding, or
    2) Take it up with the moderators and stop your back seat moderating.


  • Options
    #2849
    murph226
    Registered Users Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭murph226


    What about runners running on the road next to a perfectly good footpath?

    This is going on before any pandemic and the footpaths are usually empty, what is the reason for doing this?

    I asked a few work colleagues that are into running and they said that the road is softer?!?!


  • Options
    #2850
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,939 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    So the RNLI people are lying?
    Certainly, the people jumping on the RNLI bandwagon (the same people who never cared a peep for the RNLI access to their station through chaotic traffic before) are being fundamentally dishonest, using the RNLI as a trojan horse to have a go at cyclists.

    SeanW wrote: »
    If motorists drove their cars the way Irish cyclists cycle, you can be sure I'd have some harsh words for them.
    If bicycles weighed 1-3 tonnes and travelled at 20-150 kmph resulting in 2-3 people being killed each week, then I'd fully agree with you. But they don't.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Leaving aside your gross oversimplification, you're saying it's OK for cyclists to hit pedestrians and force pedestrians to get out of their way on footpaths and at red lights? As long as they don't kill people, everything else is OK?

    You're saying that it's OK for motorists to break urban speed limits if they don't particularly like them, right? So we've established the principle that it's OK for road users to make their own case-by-case decisions about what laws they follow. That's the logical result of your approach to speed limits.

    Unless you're suggesting that we need MORE stringent laws on the LEAST dangerous road users, but that would be just crazy, right?
    SeanW wrote: »
    In the story of the cattle truck driver, the only person hurt was the truck driver, and we don't know the cause of the collision. But we can be reasonably confident it was accidental. So yes, in the absence of evidence of intent, we can assume that it was, in fact, an accident..
    Isn't it fascinating though, how we can 'assume it was an accident' when a driver of a 10-20 tonne truck manages to turn it over on a narrow bridge, but when a cyclist mooches along the footpath after being scared off the road by the presence of such trucks/drivers, they are 'menacing, lawbreaking scum'.

    Is there any particular reason for your extremely harsh treatment of the cyclists who don't kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road compared to your extremely liberal treatment of the motorists who do?
    SeanW wrote: »
    I suppose it beats going to the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex school of statistics.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html
    It's more important to be morally correct that factual or accurate, eh? Who cares if every statement is either a lie or a gross oversimplification, just don't deviate from the dogma.
    I've really no idea what this is all about. I presume it is some kind of further denial of the fact (which you confirmed yourself above) of motorists killing 2 or 3 people each week on the road. Chemical Ali lives on.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Do you need money to buy a dictionary or something? Are you unable to access online dictionaries for some reason? :confused:
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t
    You think that drivers 'accidentally' push the accellerator too hard? Do you think that they 'accidentally' have a few pints before they drive? Do you think that they 'accidentally' pick up their phone and compose that funny WhatsApp message while driving?

    I'll give you yet another reminder that you still haven't produced a single example of the 'mostly unavoidable' deaths on the road you mentioned. Isn't it strange how absolutely convinced you are that these are mostly unavoidable, but you still haven't been able to find one single example from a Court report or a Coronor's Inquest from recent years. Why's that?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Well, punishing millions of people for the actions of a small number of hit-and-run scumbags seems a little ... psychotic. Most sane people prefer to punish those who are actually guilty.
    Actually no - most sane people try to prevent the problems happening in the first place. That's the basis of most public policies, most safety programmes, and indeed most road safety programmes.

    But hey, we wouldn't want to 'punish' the poor drivers by getting them to prove their competency on anything. I presume you take the same approach for your GP or your surgeon, any ongoing validation that they do to prove their competence is some kind of bizarre punishment?
    SeanW wrote: »
    You left out the part about collisions that drivers are involved in that they did not cause. E.g. pedestrians lying down in the road, other road users making maneuvers without looking, etc, etc, etc. But hey, like AOC, it's more important to be morally right than factual or accurate, eh?

    Yes, I did leave that out, because those events are few and far between. Yes, they do happen - but as noted above, most road deaths are drivers killing themselves, other drivers or passengers - so you're going to find it fairly difficult to spin the blame on to cyclists or pedestrians for those ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2851
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Yes, I did leave that out, because those events are few and far between. Yes, they do happen - but as noted above, most road deaths are drivers killing themselves, other drivers or passengers - so you're going to find it fairly difficult to spin the blame on to cyclists or pedestrians for those ones.

    So drivers are killing people but you object to use of word accident because it is not neutral. Oh the irony...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement