Re: Re: Dublin’s Bicycle Clutter

Home Forums Ireland Dublin’s Bicycle Clutter Re: Re: Dublin’s Bicycle Clutter


@Satrastar wrote:

The road traffic management system has been made for cars only with virtually no regard to cyclists. This is in evidence in the following respects.
1. One way roads are one way in order to manage motorised vehicle traffic. No contra-flow is evidence of lack of consideration for the existence of cyclists.

2. There would be no need for traffic lights if cyclists were the only vehicles

3. Cyclists cannot negotiate traffic the same way cars can as they cannot move at the same speed. You can’t pull out two lanes in order to make a right turn. The only way to do this legally is to dismount and walk; in effect, to turn yourself into a pedestrian.
The road that I cycle into town (R118) is also a bus lane, which both the bus and the cyclist can’t both fit into. The bus can’t overtake when the road is full of traffic jams, which it always is during rush hour. The only practical solution is to try and cycle onto the path (which is sparsely populated and it is completely safe to do this – in my opinion) and let the bus pass.
On any normal road, even when not on a cycle lane, parked cars force you to pull out and usually to do this safely means you have to slow down and look behind you or stop completely.
This is ridiculous.

It’s resorting to fantasy land to make assertions based on a world where there were only bicycles. Why not go all the way and say if everyone had helicopters we wouldn’t need roads. Have you noticed that the only person to provide evidence of a badly designed cycle lane was me? I’ve also pointed out how badly designed the roads are and how badly planned the location of bike stands are but you seem to have missed that. I’ve also said that the ultimate blame lies with the city planners. I’ve also suggested cases for lowering fines for cyclists. Did you notice that one?

@Satrastar wrote:

I am a cyclist who also drives and pays motor tax on two different cars. How dare you patronise people who cycle by implying that you are paying for their existence on the road!
As I drive often too, I realise that cyclists can be annoying even when they are obeying the law – especially when they are obeying the law- as they are much slower than cars (understandably), they get in the way when you are trying to turn left (as most of them have considerately kept to the left side of the road, and many other reasons.
However all of this is irrelevant as none of it is the fault of cyclists.

You’ve evaded any mention of the voluntary reckless behaviour that is the fault of cyclists themselves. Have you looked at the videos of cyclists without lights at night or cyclists travelling the wrong way on one way streets into traffic?
@Satrastar wrote:

This road tax paying citizen says: Roads are not exclusively for cars!
Where the hell did you get the idea that roads are for cars only in the first place?

That’s quite a muddled non sequitur. That you pay road tax on a car and have a bicycle is not an answer to the argument that cyclists pay no specific charge or levy as a result of owning and operating a bicycle. Quote where I said roads are for cars only? Some of your conclusions are just bizarre.

@Satrastar wrote:

FXR, your entire attitude is so very wrong in this respect and many others.
Why don’t you even address the points or anybody else made? Why do you resort to such stupid remarks as “the lycra crowd”?

Quote exactly where I used the term “lycra crowd” or apologise. You’re quoting another person and mixing them up with me.

@Satrastar wrote:

Do you not accept that for every cyclist breaking the law, there are plenty motorists breaking them too? Motorists break the law in heavy, metal objects that travel at high speed.

That’s been dealt with a number of times on this thread. Wearnicehats already addressed it as did I myself. This is not the Lisbon Treaty; bringing the same thing up again and again is not going to get a different answer. Someone caught shoplifting can’t be justified by the fact there are bank robbers.
@Satrastar wrote:

You say that you realise how dangerous it is to be a cyclist in Dublin. You say that it is because of this that you don’t cycle in Dublin. But then you ignore that point.
What about it? Do you think it’s acceptable that Dublin should be so dangerous for cyclists? It seems as if you do, given the fact that you do not develop upon your statement.

In light of the fact that I appear to be the only one with any evidence regarding the dangerous situation that pertains to cycling in Dublin your conclusions are just plain weird. You’ve evaded the fact that cyclists exacerbate an already dangerous situation by their own behaviour. Why don’t you address that?

@Satrastar wrote:

I found it hilarious that you wrote that you were “too tired” to address GrahamH’s entire post, and then proceeded to blather on for so long. Who are you anyway, that you are declining radio programmes? Why is your opinion so sought after?

You’re easily amused. No wonder there’s so much money in Stand Up. Point out where I said I was “too tired” to address GramaH’s entire post. What you read and what you see are two different things.
@Satrastar wrote:

You are right to decline the radio programme anyway as your loathsome self-importance and the massive chip on your shoulder would be obvious.
As would your disinterest in engaging in any real discussion about it.

That’s really convoluted logic. I turn down 5 offers to go on radio and one to go on TV and your conclusion is I’m suffering from self-importance. Well I ain’t no big city lawyer but that thar jes sounds plain whacky tah me sonny!

Latest News