Destroyed my tube, tyre & rim on a kerb at a cycletrack.

ruprect

I was going along the N11 into town before you get to the dus depot in donnybrook. It was dark and I must have been going a good 30mph at least, Then out of nowhere after a bus stop the cycletrack takes an immediate tiny left turn, 90 degree turn, no nice curve into it. Before this there were a few other dangerous turns. Anyway it was dark and I didnt spot it in time due to my speed, and my foolish presumtion that a cycletrack would be reasonably designed for cyclists other than kids going 5mph.

So I went full force into a full kerb, they wouldnt even put a lick of cement down as a ramp. Rim is destroyed, tyre ripped and tube exploded.

Be careful out there, luckily I stayed on the bike.

chicoben

what about your forks etc?

jman0

I wonder could you claim damages off the Council.

While it sounds like you were going at a reckless speed, there are no posted speed limits.

BeardyGit

jman0 wrote:

I wonder could you claim damages off the Council.

While it sounds like you were going at a reckless speed, there are no posted speed limits.

I wonder would it not be better to learn the lesson, cough up for the repairs, and move on?

Why would anyone think that after they push it (30mph on a cycle-path is pushing it) and end up hitting something unexpected because of excessive speed and poor visibility, that they'd have a right to claim for it?!

OP, sorry about the hassle but now you know better for the future I guess - If you happen to need a 26" MTB wheel, I have a practically new one you're welcome to take if you're stuck - It's one of those Halfords bolt on alloy jobs that I bought to keep me going while I got a new front built after a crash. Dundrum area - You collect.

Gil

blorg

30mph is well below the speed limit on that road, I see it as a problem with the "facility" not the rider. It is a big problem that sudden obstacles are just "accepted" as inevitable on cycle tracks (posts/signs/kerbs/etc) which would be branded as insane if you put them in the middle of a road.

Of course if using said "facilities" was optional ruprect could have just been doing his 30mph on the road and would not have had any problems.

Where exactly was this out of interest? There are parts of that cycle track I simply just don't use (including the bit immediately after Nutley Lane where it weaves in and out of the trees.)

jman0

Gil_Dub wrote:

I wonder would it not be better to learn the lesson, cough up for the repairs, and move on?

Why would anyone think that after they push it (30mph on a cycle-path is pushing it) and end up hitting something unexpected because of excessive speed and poor visibility, that they'd have a right to claim for it?!

I wonder why cyclists would accept poor cycling facilities (which are mandatory to use) and then NOT claim to recover damages incurred for using those very facilities.

Edit:
on this forum it sounds like motorists have claimed off the Council in similar circumstances
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/archive/index.php/t-22769.html
However it appears the Council might have to be aware of the pot-hole or what have you, before being found negligent.
But i doubt that is always the case.

BeardyGit

jman0 wrote:

I wonder why cyclists would accept poor cycling facilities (which are mandatory to use) and then NOT claim to recover damages incurred for using those very facilities.

Edit:
on this forum it sounds like motorists have claimed off the Council in similar circumstances
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/archive/index.php/t-22769.html
However it appears the Council might have to be aware of the pot-hole or what have you, before being found negligent.
But i doubt that is always the case.

Hey man,

Okay, I understand what you're saying but it's more about anticipating the possible obstacles and tempering your pace and riding style accordingly - Not whether or not our cycle-paths are up to scratch....

I think the OP learned an unfortunate lesson and has tried to warn others lest they fall into the same trap. As usual though, this is starting to turn into yet another instance where boards.ie/cycling contributors try using it to do no more than bemoan the state of our 'cycle-paths'. I know they're crap - We ALL know they're crap. But does everything have to constantly swing back around to moaning about them? It's not getting anyone anywhere - Take your frustration to your local councillors or TD.....

OP - PM me if you need that wheel by any chance.

Cheers,

Gil

CASEsensitive

I'd write to the council, if you are obliged to cycle on the cycle path then it shouldn't be a danger to you to do so. I had a similiar problem a while back, where I hit a pothole and came off my bike. I wrote to the council and they refunded the repair. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054970562&referrerid=&highlight=pothole+accident

junii

At least it wasn't one of these you bust....

http://www.cyclesuperstore.ie/shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=89&idproduct=7870

cyclopath2001

CASEsensitive wrote:

I'd write to the council, if you are obliged to cycle on the cycle path then it shouldn't be a danger to you to do so.

Some councils are deliberately omitting legally required signs & markings (or using non-legal ones). You'll find this is especially the case with hazardous tracks.

I think this means that in the event of a big claim, they can claim that the 'facility' was not a mandatory one.

cast_iron

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Some councils are deliberately omitting legally required signs & markings (or using non-legal ones). You'll find this is especially the case with hazardous tracks.

I think this means that in the event of a big claim, they can claim that the 'facility' was not a mandatory one.

Could you point any examples of this, or is it just rumour/hearsay/rubbish?

cyclopath2001

cast_iron wrote:

Could you point any examples of this, or is it just rumour/hearsay/rubbish?

I'm sure you yourself can find plenty of examples of cycle tracks that do not comply with the legal requirements. Just check the statutory regulations and go for a spin.

There is evidence in the evasive answers given the City Council (in response to questions put by public representatives) that is not observing the legal requirements and is aware that it is not doing so.

I am aware of cycling activists who have complained about such facilities only to be told that these were 'not cycling facilities within the law'. (Catch 22).

What would your explanation be?

ruprect

chicoben wrote:

what about your forks etc?

Forks were fine, it was a hybrid so was reasonable tough, rims were called "double walled". I hate to think what could have happened on a flimsy racer, the rim could have just collapsed and sent me flying.

This was not simply a moan about lanes, I'm warning people to watch out, they are even worse than I though. I am used to certain small kerbs that may cause a bad buckle. Before I came to this kerb there were other decently signposted warnings, little white board things with reflectors warning of danger. What pissed me off was it was there was no attempt to make this obviously dangerous spot a little safer. I would nearly go out and buy some cement myself and fix it, all it needs is a smooth ramp, I dont see the purpose for the small kerbs on any either.

I do think 30mph is a reasonable speed on a (up till then) straight section of cycletrack on a dual carraigeway. Dangerous bends on roads are clearly signed, and they would not put a dangerous bend on a road for no reason, there is no need for this sudden bend at all, it could have easily been designed far far safer.

I am not sure of the exact location name wise. Next time I am in that way I will take a picture.

robfitz

ruprect wrote:

I am not sure of the exact location name wise. Next time I am in that way I will take a picture.

Is this the location? http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_125956_0010.small.jpg

This is just before Donnybrook Close north bound on the Stillorgan Road, just passed the entrance to St Teresa's School.

ruprect

robfitz wrote:

Is this the location? http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_125956_0010.small.jpg

This is just before Donnybrook Close north bound on the Stillorgan Road, just passed the entrance to St Teresa's School.

No, much worse than that. The turn is a right angle, no curve in like that, the the kerb is at 90 degrees to the cycle track, not parallel like that one.

robfitz

ruprect wrote:

No, much worse than that. The turn is a right angle, no curve in like that, the the kerb is at 90 degrees to the cycle track, not parallel like that one.

What about one of these?
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_130022_0011.small.jpg
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_130050_0012.small.jpg

I haven't cycled that route in a good while these photo are from 2005.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

What about one of these?
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_130022_0011.small.jpg
http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_130050_0012.small.jpg

I haven't cycled that route in a good while these photo are from 2005.

The 'Cyclists Yield' sign in 011 is not a legally-prescribed road sign, more council tom-foolery I think.

Bunnyhopper

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The 'Cyclists Yield' sign in 011 is not a legally-prescribed road sign, more council tom-foolery I think.

Cyclopath2001, do you have any links/references for the legislation wrt signage, surface markings and the like? I know there's the DTO guidance (the "best practice" malarkay), and some stuff in the Road Traffic Acts about mandatory cycle tracks, but is there anything that actually specifies the correct markings and signage for a cyclepath?

I suspect there's not much, and that what there is is just guidance (i.e., ignore it if you want).

Also, is there a list anywhere of which cycle tracks have actually been designated as such by the relevant local authority?

cyclopath2001

Bunnyhopper wrote:

Cyclopath2001, do you have any links/references for the legislation wrt signage, surface markings and the like? ....but is there anything that actually specifies the correct markings and signage for a cyclepath?

Statutory instruments were used rather than actual laws so as to avoid the inconvenience of debating the details in the Dáil. These Stautory Instruments actually pervert the intention of the original law: The Roads Act 1993, Article 68 which provides

68.—(1) In this section "cycleway" means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

The SIs allow for part-time operation, parking and driving in Cycle Tracks, a use not intended by the act.

The legally required markings are in SI 181/1997: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI181Y1997.html

Use & parking is governed by SI 274/1998: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI274Y1998.html

I suspect there's not much, and that what there is is just guidance (i.e., ignore it if you want).

SI 274/1998 dictates that cyclists must use cycle tracks where provided. So, you cannot ignore them unless you've got a very good reason.

The councils can and do ignore the law as you'll see when you compare the legal definitions and what is actually on the road. It's a matter of debate whether or not the councils are acting illegally by ignoring the legal requirements for cycle track construction and doing their own thing instead. This is sometimes sometimes referred to by them as 'best practice'.

Also, is there a list anywhere of which cycle tracks have actually been designated as such by the relevant local authority?

Not online. But maybe in by-laws of the councils. Given their hap-hazard approach to the construction of cycle tracks, it would not surprise me if they'd omitted to enact the relevant by-laws or update them.

Trojan

http://273k.net/cyclegallery/images/2005-05-28/2005-05-28_130050_0012.small.jpg

is a perfect example of a cycle (lane|track|path) that I will try avoid using at all costs (might use it in bumper to bumper traffic but not flowing traffic). I'll take my chances with the law and hopefully if I'm pulled up I can either get out of it on the spot with a reasonable Garda, or later on one of the technicalities cyclopath2001 mentions.

In cycling as in everything you have to balance risk-reward. The worse risk between being successfully prosecuted versus being forced to use a danger increasing "facility" is clear to me.

Captain Trips

Gil_Dub wrote:

I wonder would it not be better to learn the lesson, cough up for the repairs, and move on?

Why would anyone think that after they push it (30mph on a cycle-path is pushing it) and end up hitting something unexpected because of excessive speed and poor visibility, that they'd have a right to claim for it?!

OP, sorry about the hassle but now you know better for the future I guess - If you happen to need a 26" MTB wheel, I have a practically new one you're welcome to take if you're stuck - It's one of those Halfords bolt on alloy jobs that I bought to keep me going while I got a new front built after a crash. Dundrum area - You collect.

Gil

I agree with the second paragraph - 50kph on a cyclepath shared with pedestrians is not totally cool really, if you are that fast you probably would be much *much* safer in the middle of a bus lane

DirkVoodoo

I was cycling home last night, in the freezing cold, and was amazed at the amount of broken glass (not car windshield glass, this was the razor sharp "broken bottle" variety) on the cycle path outside these new apartments on the N11 (past St.John of Gods). If i got a flat, I damn well know where I'd be seeking compensation from.

Cabaal

and on that subject....the amount of broken glass on the roads in Waterford is unreal, especially after the weekend.

Its bloody annoying, whats really stupid is Eircom still replace the glass in the phonebox's that dot the Cork Road and all the glass is broken within days.

Its gotten to the point where they need to put in plastic or something else.

Traumadoc

DirkVoodoo wrote:

I was cycling home last night, in the freezing cold, and was amazed at the amount of broken glass (not car windshield glass, this was the razor sharp "broken bottle" variety) on the cycle path outside these new apartments on the N11 (past St.John of Gods). If i got a flat, I damn well know where I'd be seeking compensation from.

I saw the glass too.
Further up was a Sierra worker who had all his tools on the cycle path and then parked his yellow truck on the cycle lane. i tried to contact Sierra but they dont answer.

blorg

Captain Trips wrote:

I agree with the second paragraph - 50kph on a cyclepath shared with pedestrians is not totally cool really, if you are that fast you probably would be much *much* safer in the middle of a bus lane

...until a manic bus driver comes along and tries to kill you for not being in the cycle lane of course. That's the whole problem with combining unsafe cycle lanes with a law forcing cyclists to use them anyway.

On an aside, I cycled along that whole stretch on Friday evening, from Foster's Avenue to Donnybrook, and I didn't come across this sudden kerb that the OP described.