Is it finally time to tax our Lycra clad cyclists ?

[Eamonnca1]

did I just read it right that because someone paved a footpath 100 years ago for a bicycle route, that every road, even those that are reinforced specifically for HGV carriage, will always be fair game?

I'd suggest the Orange Order's right to match the Queen's Highway holds a greater claim.

----

As for single file. Eamon, you don't live in Ireland so let me remind you that the majority of country roads over here were built so that two lorries can pass safely on either side, with not a whole lot of room beyond that.

Therefore in the majority of these cases, a car can pass a pedestrian or a single file cyclist on their side of the road, with a little caution, without having to adjust speed significantly.

Okay, I stopped reading here because I call BS. I grew up in Ireland and I'm well aware of how wide the roads are. They are not wide. It is NOT! safe to pass a cyclist on the vast majority of roads without having to cross the centre line if you're going to give the requisite clearance. In other words, it's not safe to pass when they're riding single file, ergo the only thing riding two abreast does is makes it easier to get past because it shortens the group.

[punt kick]

2 abreast vs. single file - the guideline is very clear, as pointed out by Tony Baloney. But the lycra troop overwhelmingly insist on riding 2 abreast in all circumstances, including on very narrow roads and on bends. It seems to have become a dogma for them and from their rhetoric it's clear that it's a militant claiming of equality with motorised traffic.

That's just very stupid, as wobbler pointed out, not to mention the basic good manners argument. You don't see pedestrians walking two-or-more abreast on roads where there is no footpath, militantly claiming their right to hold up traffic whose normal pace is much higher than theirs. There's a practical reason beyond good manners for that. Pedestrians understand a simple logic that seems to evade cyclists as an organised group.

Another basic example of good manners that I've never seen cyclists use - when they're out in large groups, why do they insist on forming a continuous line, be it single file or two-or-more abreast? A basic courtesy would be to travel in pairs with gaps of 50 metres or so. But I suppose that wouldn't look like a peloton.

Oh and to the argument that there are arseholes behind the wheels of many cars - who has ever denied that? This thread, though, is about arsehole cyclists.

I'm going to explain this nice and slowly because it's clear that you're a simpleton. Riding in a single group, two abreast, makes it quicker, safer, and easier to overtake. Riding in a single line makes the group twice as long and hence almost impossible to get past on winding roads with short overtaking opportunities. Breaking the group up into small sections would make it even harder for you to get past because you'd have to repeat the process several times. You're welcome.

And shut up about runners. They can't cruise at 20MPH or get up to 40MPH, plus they have to go against traffic where there's no footpath. Stop opening your mouth and revealing to the world how stupid you are.

You really are, without any apparent effort as it seems to come naturally to you, confirming the stereotype of cyclist as arrogant w**ker.

The truest post on this thread.

[haveaharp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fKof31u-2o

Is that Hardy or Wobbler in the aul Peugeot ?

[dclane]

https://youtu.be/JtV51NUtg4Y
Including cyclists on phones even though crazy Eamonn says it doesn't happen.

[dclane]

https://youtu.be/mILv0v_FrEI

[haveaharp]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

[dclane]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

I agree. Cyclists are very arrogant.
Especially the lycra clad knobs.

[haveaharp]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

I agree. Cyclists are very arrogant.
Especially the lycra clad knobs.

Righto

[Hardy]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

[haveaharp]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Idiotic ? Get hit by a cyclist or a truck or jeep, hmmmnn which one is least likely to kill you ?

[punt kick]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Idiotic ? Get hit by a cyclist or a truck or jeep, hmmmnn which one is least likely to kill you ?

So if a cyclist breaks a red light and gets mowed down, is that the motorists fault, or if the motorist swerves to avoid said p***k and hits another car is that the motorists fault?

[haveaharp]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Idiotic ? Get hit by a cyclist or a truck or jeep, hmmmnn which one is least likely to kill you ?

So if a cyclist breaks a red light and gets mowed down, is that the motorists fault, or if the motorist swerves to avoid said p***k and hits another car is that the motorists fault?

Of course it isn't.

[Hardy]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Idiotic ? Get hit by a cyclist or a truck or jeep, hmmmnn which one is least likely to kill you ?

If that was the only consideration in determining the rules of the road then, yes, as you stated in your first quoted post, that would be "the point".

I think the point of this thread is the fact that a large proportion of cyclists flout the rules of the road with effective impunity, causing danger to themselves and, more importantly, others. If you want the point to be the comparative capabilities of bikes and buses to hurt people, fire away and start a thread with that point.

[Milltown Row2]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Idiotic ? Get hit by a cyclist or a truck or jeep, hmmmnn which one is least likely to kill you ?

If that was the only consideration in determining the rules of the road then, yes, as you stated in your first quoted post, that would be "the point".

I think the point of this thread is the fact that a large proportion of cyclists flout the rules of the road with effective impunity, causing danger to themselves and, more importantly, others. If you want the point to be the comparative capabilities of bikes and buses to hurt people, fire away and start a thread with that point.

The point of the thread would be the title? should they pay tax? Yes, as long as its put back to cycle safety like road tax would be for road safety of cars... next some people be looking for taxing people to wald the pavements as you get plenty pricks doing that also.

threads get hijacked along the way and most go on the petty route and its lost, people take it thick and a lot of name calling to annoymous posters... found a nice video of our careful drivers out there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmALmLjWIN4

[johnneycool]

The point is if a cyclist is an idiot (of which clearly there are some) they are moving at relatively low speed on a machine weighing under 10kgs. If a motorist is an idiot he is likely in a machine weighing enough to maim, crush, kill someone should they hit a cyclist. The arrogance of some on this thread is quite astounding.

Some! Have you looked at those videos? What strikes one about those clips is that they are perfectly everyday. The behaviour illustrated is not exceptional - we see it all the time. In every example, more cyclists are breaking red lights than aren't.

So it's not just SOME cyclists who are dangerous, arrogant idiots. It's a very large proportion, if not a majority in some cases. They insist on equal status with motorised traffic by militantly asserting their supposed right to hold up road users whose normal pace is higher than theirs, but at the same time insist on ignoring the laws and rules that all but a minuscule percentage of the rest of road users obey.

How many cars, buses or trucks did you see breaking red lights while cyclists were merrily ignoring them? That's the whole point of what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but the argument that it's OK as they're small and won't do much damage is idiotic.

Hardy,
   if you saw this cycling up the Navan Road I'm sure you'd soon change your mind on the lycra!!