Dublin cyclist dies after collision with pedestrian

Richard D wrote:

Is there any way to block comments from certain users appearing?

I'm not going to advocate a ban - free speech and all that - but over the last couple of weeks the level of trolling from one particular individual has been both noticeable and is getting more vitriolic/personal.  I'd rather not have to see it anymore.  

Some forums and comment spaces I visit allow users to block comments from certain other users, so that they don't have to take the time to read something that has already proved itself to be intrinsically valueless.  The troll still gets to play his games, but users who have already got sick of it simply don't see it anymore.

Does BR allow me to do the same?  Or should I treat it like the Daily Mail comments section, where the level of bile is such that it's best not reading ANY of it?

I wholeheartedly disagree. Ban this tiresome wanker, whose absence none would miss.  There is no freedom of speech argument here. If he wants to prattle on about his useless guff, then he can go to Speakers' Corner. 

Bikebikebike wrote:

I wholeheartedly disagree. Ban this tiresome wanker, whose absence none would miss.  There is no freedom of speech argument here. If he wants to prattle on about his useless guff, then he can go to Speakers' Corner. 

I disagree completely.  I have no use for the assumptions or arguments held by said user.  But I completely disagree with banning him/her.  I don't think that there's any doubt that they see themselves as a provocative gadfly stirring the mindless groupthink of the cycling masses to a higher level of contemplation.  But what's wrong with that?  Smile and pass on.  Not everything needs to be banned.  In fact the more banning there is the less collective intelligence there is.  Dealing with people we perceive as unpleasant is just part of the price to pay for that.

Ush wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

I wholeheartedly disagree. Ban this tiresome wanker, whose absence none would miss.  There is no freedom of speech argument here. If he wants to prattle on about his useless guff, then he can go to Speakers' Corner. 

 

I disagree completely.  I have no use for the assumptions or arguments held by said user.  But I completely disagree with banning him/her.  I don't think that there's any doubt that they see themselves as a provocative gadfly stirring the mindless groupthink of the cycling masses to a higher level of contemplation.  But what's wrong with that?  Smile and pass on.  Not everything needs to be banned.  In fact the more banning there is the less collective intelligence there is.  Dealing with people we perceive as unpleasant is just part of the price to pay for that.

If I want ill thought out trolling on the subject of cycling I can turn to any non cycling medium and get my fill. I'm interested in what thoughtful cyclists think about cycling topics, and I'd rather read those comments than trolling or the responses to trolling. This is hardly an issue of fundamental rights, and I'm sure Voltaire had no love for annoying no-marks who just waste people's time. 

DaveE128 wrote:

I am amazed how someone sees that there was a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian in a park, and they assume it's a shared use path, when it was described as a cycle lane. Googling for inages of cycling in Phoenix Park in Dublin turned up this: https://idonotdespair.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dublin-skyline-from-ph... Looks a lot like a road without cars to me. But who knows what the "cycle lane" involved looked like?! Please stop passing judgement with no knowledge of the facts.

Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.

bendertherobot wrote:

Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.

Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship ... I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her.

I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment.

It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck's sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us.

Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world.

I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident.

Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling.

Regards

L.Willo

L.Willo wrote:

Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship ... I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her

I note that you haven't established how close too close is, on the NSW thread - or what punching distance might be, so you have no idea how close the rider was. Yet you continue asserting that the rider was too close, on a path you're 0% familiar with.

Do fuck off.

L.Willo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.

Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship ... I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her. I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment. It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck's sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us. Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world. I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident. Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling. Regards L.Willo

But that can't hold true if the parks authorities have actually set out 'this' is a cycle path / 'that' is not a cycle path.

Once they've done that, then surely it's not unreasonable to expect cyclists to have some sort of priority on the cycle path (and then for pedestrians to have priority on the other path/track)?

brooksby wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.

Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship ... I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her. I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment. It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck's sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us. Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world. I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident. Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling. Regards L.Willo

But that can't hold true if the parks authorities have actually set out 'this' is a cycle path / 'that' is not a cycle path.

Once they've done that, then surely it's not unreasonable to expect cyclists to have some sort of priority on the cycle path (and then for pedestrians to have priority on the other path/track)?

That is precisely why I posted my first message, I will repeat a part of it here:

Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately, especially when passing. Give space to allow them to pass safely.

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/park-management/park-regulations-and-polic...

In effect, the cycle path sign is there to warn pedestrians that cyclists might be using that area but it does not alter priorities. In UK Royal Parks pedestrians have priority everywhere.

@everyone:

cycling forum: 

a)  a place where like minded people who share identical opinions meet to have a circle jerk.

b) a place where people with a common interest (the advancement of cycling as a viable urban transport option), meet to share their often very diverse ideas and learn from each other.

I vote for b). I am not a troll. I love cycling and it saddens me that in the last 10 years or so, it has become politicised and wrapped in a fog of nauseating self-entitlement which has been 100% counterproductive. 

As for rudeness, after weeks of provocation I have taken the gloves off with very specific posters ... they know who they are. If they cannot take it, they really need to think again before they dish it out. They had my respect. They lost it. They need to behave themselves to get it back.

I look forward to continuing courteous discussions with everyone else.

L.Willo wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.

Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship ... I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her. I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment. It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck's sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us. Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world. I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident. Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling. Regards L.Willo

i was going to pick apart your argument. But there's no need, as you're just a tiresome individual. Do you need some sort of professional help?  Maybe a call to The Samaritans would be a start:

http://www.samaritans.org/how-we-can-help-you/samaritans-free-call-helpl...

L.Willo wrote:

Who is talking about the accident in Phoenix Park? 

The article and everyone else. But you have to turn another comments section into the Willo show because you're bored or something.

Go back to the Daily Mail.

davel wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

Who is talking about the accident in Phoenix Park? 

The article and everyone else. But you have to turn another comments section into the Willo show because you're bored or something.

Go back to the Daily Mail.

A waste of time in my opinion, speculating about an accident in a foreign country when none of the facts have been established.

Much more useful in my opinion to debate the responsibilities of cyclists around pedestrians generally and especially in UK parks.

I raised my initial post because in talking to younger cyclists i realise that many of them don't understand that the white bicycle sign in a park means, you may cycle here. It categorically does not mean, you should not / must not walk here.

Did you know that?

L.Willo wrote:

I raised my initial post because in talking to younger cyclists i realise that many of them don't understand that the white bicycle sign in a park means, you may cycle here. It categorically does not mean, you should not / must not walk here.

Did you know that?

Bollocks.

Talking to people means using your mouth and vocal cords to form words in the presence of someone (plural as suggested by you), and isn't just Internet texting.

Did you know that?

davel wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

I raised my initial post because in talking to younger cyclists i realise that many of them don't understand that the white bicycle sign in a park means, you may cycle here. It categorically does not mean, you should not / must not walk here. Did you know that?

Bollocks. Talking to people means using your mouth and vocal cords to form words in the presence of someone (plural as suggested by you), and isn't just Internet texting. Did you know that?

except various Parks Authorities can establish their own bylaws for said parks. Pheonix has a list of do's and don'ts so I'm nearly sure that pedestrians aren't allowed to use cycle lanes whenever a footway is provided. The problem is that the Park Wardens don't enforce it frequently enough. Meanwhile the Royal Parks stipulate that cyclists can't stray out of their lane but pedestrians can wander wherever they wish. Though we should be grateful for this as the Royal Parks were originally hunting grounds and us serfs would not normally be allowed on the land. 

L.Willo wrote:

Who is talking about the accident in Phoenix Park?

Ha ha. The first rule of trolling is to at least pretend that what you have to say is related to the subject that everyone else is discussing.

The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.

Is that serious or are you being humorous?

brooksby]</p>

<p>[quote=Ciarán Carroll wrote:

The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.

Is that serious or are you being humorous?

No, I'm serious

Ciarán Carroll]</p>

<p>[quote=brooksby wrote:

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.

Is that serious or are you being humorous?

No, I'm serious

Ciarán. I'm thinking Brooksby is looking at the grass verge  and going WTF!  That's a bike lane in Ireland. I'm never going to complain about the ones in the UK again!  Best point out to him that the footway is tucked in under thon trees!

giff77]</p>

<p>[quote=Ciarán Carroll wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Ciarán Carroll wrote:

The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.

Is that serious or are you being humorous?

No, I'm serious

Ciarán. I'm thinking Brooksby is looking at the grass verge  and going WTF!  That's a bike lane in Ireland. I'm never going to complain about the ones in the UK again!  Best point out to him that the footway is tucked in under thon trees!

? Oh, OK. If I zoom in I can see a hint of tarmac right out at the left side of the photo- is that the cycle path?