Cyclist.ie launched

Fnord · 04-11-2008 06:30PM #1

Statement issued by Cyclist.ie on behalf of Dublin Cycling Campaign, Cork Cycling Campaign, Galway Cycling Campaign, Limerick Cycling Campaign, Maynooth Cycling Campaign, Skerries Cycling Initiative and Waterford Walk Cycle Campaign. These Irish cycling lobby groups have combined to form a new umbrella body, "Cyclist.ie". Its main concerns are ensuring a dramatic improvement in road safety and traffic conditions for cyclists. It views the realisation of these aims as vital to facilitate a marked increase in the numbers of people choosing the bicycle as a means of daily transport.

DATE: 4 November 2008

CYCLING IN IRELAND: THE TIME TO CYCLE IS NOW!

The seven Irish cyclist advocacy groups have combined to form a new lobbying body called “Cyclist.ie” to raise the profile of cyclist issues and to campaign for action. Given rising transport costs, severe urban traffic congestion and a marked increase in the incidence of overweight and obese children, this is an ideal opportunity for Ireland to promote commuting and leisure cycling.

Most children live within 6 km of their school, a very manageable cycling distance for a healthy child. As a society we need to facilitate and encourage more children to cycle to school and to use their bicycles to socialise and explore their neighbourhoods.

With the 2006 census showing a mere 1.9% of adult commuters travelling by bicycle, cycling to work, school or college has become almost extinct. This is principally due to roads being cyclist-hostile due to (1) excessive traffic speeds and volumes, (2) badly designed and maintained cycling facilities, (3) proliferation of cyclist-hostile road infrastructure such as multi-lane one-way streets and multi-lane roundabouts, (4) poor cycle-parking provision and (5) poor driving standards, including close and dangerous overtaking.

In order for Ireland to meet its stringent Kyoto commitments, we urgently need to replace a large percentage of car journeys with cycling or walking. This applies particularly to journeys of under 6km. Such journeys can be accomplished relatively easily and quickly by bicycle in congested urban traffic. However, this modal shift can only happen if the roads are perceived to be safer, more pleasant places for newcomer cyclists and walkers.

Cyclist.ie does not seek the construction of additional cycle lanes and paths. It recognises that the mere painting of lines and rolling out of red tarmac treatments does not guarantee cyclists’ safety. Safety will come via globally revised road design standards, traffic law enforcement, and modifying drivers' and cyclists' behaviour in each other's presence.

It seeks safer roads through (1) measures to restrict inappropriate traffic speeds and volumes and the introduction of a 30 km/h urban speed limit, (2) improved driver instruction, training and testing regimes that include safe interaction with cyclists, particularly for goods vehicle drivers, (3) enhanced road traffic law enforcement and new traffic regulations such as a defined minimum overtaking distance (1.5m) when drivers pass cyclists.

Cyclist.ie has already presented a detailed National Cycling Policy submission to the Minister for Transport, Mr. Noel Dempsey, TD under his Sustainable Travel and Transport Policy Initiative. Today, Cyclist.ie launches that document as a comprehensive guide for those interested in cycling in the Irish context. Cyclist.ie looks forward to co-operating with government and local authorities in selecting and applying the proven measures that its research shows to be most relevant to promoting cycling in Ireland.

NOTES:

[Cyclist.ie is at http://www.cyclist.ie
The NCP submission to Department of Transport can be read at these URLs:
http://galwaycycling.org/files/publication_draft_191008_no_edits.pdf (2.67 MB)
http://seaview.mckillen.com/Cycling [It's a pdf file titled NCP-Submission-19-10-08]
http://www.cyclist.ie/documents/National%20Cycling%20Promotion%20Policy%20Position%20Document%20-%20October%202008.pdf

Key measures to promote cycling include:

* motorised traffic speed reduction
* traffic volume reduction
* driver instruction and testing regimes that include safe interaction with cyclists.
* traffic skills training for cyclists starting at school level
* comprehensive provision of secure cycle parking
* elimination of urban multi-lane one-way streets
* two-way access for cyclists to one-way streets
* elimination of cyclist-hostile road features such as slip roads and large roundabouts
* bicycle friendly adaptations to traffic signals
* adequate road surface drainage and maintenance
* creation of a “cyclist permeable” urban environment
* restrictions on HGV access to urban areas
* shared bus/cycle lanes of appropriate safe width
* where appropriate, cycle lanes/hard shoulders of adequate width (2m minimum)

Junior · 04-11-2008 06:49PM

errr nothing there to launch dude ? it's just a few links to other sites ?

flickerx · 04-11-2008 07:02PM

Great idea. Crap name. Cyclist.ie should be the name of the website yeah, but something like "Ireland Cyclists Union" as the umbrella organisation sounds much better. Just me 2c!

barrabus · 04-11-2008 07:03PM

Cyclist.ie] launched over the handlebars and not working .... as far as I can see

Fnord · 04-11-2008 07:05PM

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website. I should probably have made that clear, since they have the same name. The website is presently just a holding page with links to the umbrella group members. The policy document is where the group's activity has mostly been invested so far.

Gavin · 04-11-2008 07:05PM

Well written statement. I would have thought there would be something about cyclist education?

edit- sorry, I see it there !

blorg · 04-11-2008 07:13PM

I think the name is fine, all very 2.0 and all that.

To be honest I would stick the above statement up as a holding page, it would be better than what you have now.

flickerx · 04-11-2008 10:26PM

Fnord wrote: »

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website.

My point exactly.
Irish Cyclists Union.
with cyclist.ie as your website.

Bunnyhopper · 04-11-2008 11:46PM

Any specific position on the law regarding mandatory use of cycletracks? (I've had a quick read over the statement and can't spot it.)

Best of luck with it.

Gavin · 05-11-2008 05:39AM

It's in the policy document, one of the immediate goals, repealing the mandatory cycle lane use law.

fergalr · 05-11-2008 02:10PM

Look, excellent work putting something like this together, great to see people out actually doing something to try and help the cycling situation, rather than just complaining, etc...

It's the group that's being officially launched, rather than the website. I should probably have made that clear, since they have the same name.

But you guys really should not have launched a group called 'cyclist.ie' which has the same name as the website without the website being ready to launch too.
That's really not a good idea - the first thing everyone interested is going to do when they hear 'cyclist.ie' is go to the website, see it's not very good, and maybe dismiss the idea - instant loss of credibility/influence.
You only get to launch once, so if at all possible, maybe try get even a basic pretty website on there asap - especially if this announcement is going to appear in print media etc.

(This is just my .02, I'm no expert in these areas, and again, very well done for trying to sort things)

Fnord · 05-11-2008 02:47PM

The PR has been added to the website holding page.

In an ideal world the website would be fully laid out to coincide with the official group launch. But all of this is being done on a voluntary basis by people in different parts of the country with job commitments, family responsibilities and other demands on our time. If we were to wait for everything to be fully prepared and perfectly timed before we proceeded, it would never happen.

Thanks to everyone who has offered encouragement or helpful criticism. The policy document will be updated when the time is right and when circumstances allow, so any constructive feedback on its contents is welcome.

oobydooby · 05-11-2008 03:41PM

Hope this is successful, will help out if I can. One other point (I agree with the points above), will you have a discussion forum on the website? I'm fairly happy reading about all things bike related here, but it might be viable to discuss commuter-specific issues on your website. (Some of these issues seem to generate a lot of general interest)

fergalr · 05-11-2008 03:48PM

The policy document will be updated when the time is right and when circumstances allow, so any constructive feedback on its contents is welcome.

One of the suggestions that jumped out at me from the press release on the website, and the policy document, was the 30km/h speed limit.

It seeks safer roads through (1) measures to restrict inappropriate
traffic speeds and volumes and the introduction of a 30 km/h urban speed
limit,

It's got quite a prominent placing. Is it politically expedient to seek this as the first goal for safer roads? I ask, because this is surely a measure that will have an almost certainly perceived large negative impact on drivers, and hence may not bolster support for the campaign.
Like, I'd be very surprised if politicians were willing to back legislation (or local authorities introduce limits) which could so easily be attacked as being against the car owning majority - so is this really an achievable goal to be leading with? And I'm not asking the question rhetorically - I genuinely know very little about how these things go.

blorg · 05-11-2008 04:32PM

There have been suggestions that the other DCC (Dublin City Council) plan on a 30km/h default speed limit within the canals in any case, it's hardly radical looney stuff. Note this is for the city centre, the M50 is not going to be limited to 30km/h.

Lumen · 05-11-2008 04:47PM

blorg wrote: »

There have been suggestions that the other DCC (Dublin City Council) plan on a 30km/h default speed limit within the canals in any case, it's hardly radical looney stuff.

IMO (and I might be alone on this) a 30kph limit is nuts. That would mean cyclists would be limited to the same speed, which would make my bike commute slower and less fun. I really like the "intervals" aspect of cycling in fast moving traffic.

I also don't think it will make people suddenly take up cycling - many non-cyclists are scared of cars at any speed.

FWIW I also enjoy driving faster when conditions allow (such as late at night) and don't see speed and safety as mutually exclusive things.

blorg · 05-11-2008 05:09PM

The proposed limit is a default 30km/h for the city centre only, within the canals. It's about changing the _default_ from 50; you could still have certain major arterial routes designated faster. This would calm traffic in the centre and increase safety, for pedestrians as much if not more than cyclists.

Most cyclists will not be going faster than 30km/h most of the time and in any case technically speed limits only apply to mechanically propelled vehicles so you could in fact go faster if you wanted.

Lumen · 05-11-2008 05:20PM

blorg wrote: »

The proposed limit is a default 30km/h for the city centre only, within the canals. It's about changing the _default_ from 50; you could still have certain major arterial routes designated faster. This would calm traffic in the centre and increase safety, for pedestrians as much if not more than cyclists.

It's possibly unarguable that lowering speed limits tends to reduce the speed of collisions involving vehicles travelling within the limit, and that enforcing limits increases the rate of compliance with those limits.

I have not seen good evidence that either of these measures increases safety overall.

blorg · 05-11-2008 05:32PM

Lumen wrote: »

It's possibly unarguable that lowering speed limits tends to reduce the speed of collisions involving vehicles travelling within the limit, and that enforcing limits increases the rate of compliance with those limits.

I have not seen good evidence that either of these measures increases safety overall.

Graz saw a 20%* reduction in accidents, there is plenty of data out there if you just have a look.

Since the late 1980’s Graz (Austria) 33 has implemented an integrated transport plan to make it a city of “gentlemobility” centred around safety, environmental efficiency and increasing the attractiveness of public spaces. In1992, a city-wide 30km/h speed limit was introduced, which contributed to a 20% reduction in accidents, as wellas significant reductions in emissions of air pollutants and noise.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0060en01.pdf

Lumen · 05-11-2008 05:56PM

blorg wrote: »

Graz saw a 20%* reduction in accidents, there is plenty of data out there if you just have a look.

I see correlation but no causation. At the same time they improved cycle lanes, pavements, reduced traffic volumes and increased pedestrianisation. These are all good things for safety.

The crux of my disbelief comes from my own experience - that I don't feel safer when driving more slowly, nor do I feel safer cycling around slower cars. I'd rather the focus was on civil engineering approaches, which are more expensive and therefore less politically appealing.

I'm honestly not being deliberately antagonistic and have no axe to grind, but it seems that these sort of studies are often pushed by anti-car lobby groups whose motives are less than scientific.

blorg · 05-11-2008 09:06PM

I presume you disagree with the oft-quoted statistic that a pedestrian stands a 10% chance of being killed hit by a car at 30km/h but a 50% chance of being killed hit by a car at 50km/h (and 90% at 60km/h)?

Lumen · 05-11-2008 09:11PM

blorg wrote: »

I presume you disagree with the oft-quoted statistic that a pedestrian stands a 10% chance of being killed hit by a car at 30km/h but a 50% chance of being killed hit by a car at 50km/h?

No, I agree with that one.

I don't agree with the "obvious" extrapolation that arbitrary speed limits reduce deaths and serious injuries.

Accidents are caused by human error, and as such have complicated psychological causes. Driving is afflicted with what Taleb would call "negative lumpy outcomes", and as such you can't just fiddle with a variable and expect a predictable response.

Much of the justification for speed cameras comes from "reversion to the mean" statistical nonsense combined with blind assertion.

Civilian_Target · 05-11-2008 10:23PM

Who, exactly, do you think will obey this 30kmph speed limit anyway, it's virtually unenforcable!

While I respect what these cycling groups are trying to do... maybe they need to do a little less talking and a little more action, having a press release to launch an copy of the press release at cyclist.ie is possibly the most crazy thing I've ever seen! Apart from press releases I have yet to see something practical. Learn a bit from the LCC, things like:

* Maps of city cycle routes, graded by safety. With a copy of map my ride, you can even get people to contribute them

* Raising public awareness of visibility at night. Many cyclists seem unaware that without good lights, you're practically invisible at night. Lights are better than a helmet, reflectors are better than nothing and availible free from any Gardai station

* Raising public awareness of how to cycle safely, basic tips like "Never overtake on the left" and "Don't pass HGVs at junctions, even if they're stopped" will save lives

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the big things too, but basic practical steps show you're serious and help everyone now. The LCC does all of these and has clout with the London authorities. The DCC / cyclist.ie, as I see it, does none of these, and has no clout.

Rant out.

Fnord · 05-11-2008 10:30PM

Lumen wrote: »

I don't feel safer when driving more slowly

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are caused by human error, and as such have complicated psychological causes.

Accidents are caused by a lot more than human error. For example: weather, mechanical failure, bad luck, speed...

The Galway City Community Forum adopted this position some years ago.

For the curious:
http://www.20splentyforus.co.uk/
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/
http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/twentysafe

Fnord · 05-11-2008 10:45PM

Civilian_Target wrote: »

While I respect what these cycling groups are trying to do... maybe they need to do a little less talking and a little more action, having a press release to launch an copy of the press release at cyclist.ie is possibly the most crazy thing I've ever seen! Apart from press releases I have yet to see something practical. Learn a bit from the LCC, things like:

* Maps of city cycle routes, graded by safety. With a copy of map my ride, you can even get people to contribute them

* Raising public awareness of visibility at night. Many cyclists seem unaware that without good lights, you're practically invisible at night. Lights are better than a helmet, reflectors are better than nothing and availible free from any Gardai station

* Raising public awareness of how to cycle safely, basic tips like "Never overtake on the left" and "Don't pass HGVs at junctions, even if they're stopped" will save lives

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the big things too, but basic practical steps show you're serious and help everyone now. The LCC does all of these and has clout with the London authorities. The DCC / cyclist.ie, as I see it, does none of these, and has no clout.

Rant out.

The umbrella group Cyclist.ie comprises the local groups, which carry out these actions and many more, to varying degrees and as resources allow. A little less ranting and a little more action (well, visiting websites, or enjoying a few moments' consideration) might have revealed this.

Goodnight all, and thanks for the input.

Lumen · 05-11-2008 11:28PM

Fnord wrote: »

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Accidents are caused by a lot more than human error. For example: weather, mechanical failure, bad luck, speed...

Accidents are almost never caused by bad luck, and almost always caused by human error of some sort (mechanical failure is usually due to poor maintenance, which is an error). For a trained police driver (the most skilled drivers on the road) all accidents are considered inexcusable lapses of judgement.

Speed does not cause accidents, but inappropriate speed can both cause accidents and make the consequences worse. Inappropriate speed can be above or below the posted limit, depending on conditions. That's precisely why enforcement of arbitrary limits makes little sense.

Progress and general reductions in traffic speed are mutually exclusive, in more ways than one. I don't get on a bike to go slowly, neither do I when I get into a car.

barrabus · 06-11-2008 01:11PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1106/1225893547136.html

zzzzzzzz · 06-11-2008 02:10PM

Fnord wrote: »

I would have thought that most people feel safer when driving more slowly, all other factors being equal.

Actually - I was just thinking about this the other day. I find that I am generally more focused on driving at higher speeds.

At a lower speed (i.e. in traffic or whatever) my mind will wander a lot more than when I'm doing 120 on the motorway or even 80/100 on the dual carriage way. I will pay a lot more attention to the radio and change the channel more frequently, etc.

Tackleberry · 06-11-2008 02:32PM

Cyclist.ie = moany aul b astards, stop crashing yer bikes, stop getting knocked down, stop complaining about a million and one things and just enjoy yer bike

DBCyc · 06-11-2008 02:37PM

Lumen wrote: »

I don't agree with the "obvious" extrapolation that arbitrary speed limits reduce deaths and serious injuries.

Driving at higher speeds reduces the time in which the driver can perceive a potential hazard and then react by braking, swerving etc. Also the higher the speed, the higher the braking distance required to stop.

Therefore reducing the speed of vehicles on the roads results in less accidents as drivers have more time to react to hazards and avoid them.

Lumen wrote: »

Accidents are almost never caused by bad luck, and almost always caused by human error of some sort

Yes, so with lower speeds drivers have more time to react to their error or the errors of other road users and avoid an accident.

niceonetom · 06-11-2008 03:13PM

Tackleberry wrote: »

Cyclist.ie = moany aul b astards, stop crashing yer bikes, stop getting knocked down, stop complaining about a million and one things and just enjoy yer bike

you're complaining about complaining? well done.

Cyclist.ie launched

Comments