is there still a dublin critical mass ride?

slap/dash

and if so, where is the ride?

rp

slap/dash wrote: »

and if so, where is the ride?

Na, it died a death. Apparently, the sight of people on bicycles offended motorists, so they had to stop it.

seamus

Another victory for the reputation of the Irish cyclist. Let's hope CM stays dead.

Harrybelafonte

rp wrote: »

Na, it died a death. Apparently, the sight of people on bicycles offended motorists, so they had to stop it.

Ah spare us

Chips Lovell

Did anyone from here ever go to these yokes when they were still on? Did they ever get much of a turn out?

PeadarofAodh

I'd never heard of this before googling it now...seems a wee bit confrontational doesn't it?

Morgan

I attended it once - was a nice spin around town and then went to the pub. These days I don't really see the point of it. The best way to achieve a "critical mass" is just to encourage people to ride their bikes and get greater numbers out on the road on a regular basis.

fish-head

Probably for the best. It's getting a bit out of control over in the States.

Húrin

Morgan wrote: »

I attended it once - was a nice spin around town and then went to the pub. These days I don't really see the point of it. The best way to achieve a "critical mass" is just to encourage people to ride their bikes and get greater numbers out on the road on a regular basis.

Well a lot of people don't cycle in Dublin because they think it's too dangerous. The point of CM was, as far as I know, to enforce safety for cyclists temporarily.

Harrybelafonte

Húrin wrote: »

Well a lot of people don't cycle in Dublin because they think it's too dangerous. The point of CM was, as far as I know, to enforce safety for cyclists temporarily.

Pointless, like DCC's last PR attempt

Chips Lovell

There must be scope for a more balanced approach. For example, a group of a few hundred cyclists, riding legally i.e. in double file, would still create a big impression without all the antagonism that comes with blocking the entire road to traffic.

seamus

Húrin wrote: »

Well a lot of people don't cycle in Dublin because they think it's too dangerous. The point of CM was, as far as I know, to enforce safety for cyclists temporarily.

The problem is respect. Few drivers have respect for cyclists and their safety. So cyclists retaliate and show little respect for the road and its laws. So drivers have even less respect.

This prevents people from getting on the bike because there's an overall view that the only people who cycle are either crusty, save-the-world types, poor people, children and competitive cyclists, and if I join them, then no-one will have any respect for me and I won't be safe.

Critical Mass only serves to enforce this stereotype and further gives drivers an excuse to disrespect cyclists. The very idea of cyclists, "Reclaiming the streets" immediately puts the whole thing on a hostile footing and so is doomed to failure.

Until someone comes up with an idea that doesn't put cycling into an "Us -v- Them" perspective, you're never going to get the general public to agree that cycling is a good thing.

Gavin

Teach children to cycle in reasonable sized groups on a road. A bunch of adults and a bunch of kids. Drivers see kids being educated how to use the road properly, in a reasonably safe environment with knowledgeable cyclists around them.

Everyone gets used to seeing groups of cyclists on the road. Drivers take care because kids are super fragile and breakable. It removes the krusty, poor, etc other stereotypes. It's not confrontational, it's about teaching kiddies.

And apparently, everyone loves kids.


Or another thing along the same lines, take groups of tourists around the city on bicycle tours. Same as above, but swap learning to cycle with learning about the city and kids with tourists.

seamus

Actually, one thing that came into my head was to apply the idea of the lollipop man/woman to cycling. So you have say four adults "guiding" a group of kids on their cycle to school, then collecting them again and guiding them home.

I'm not sure just how practical this is, but I can't see too many motorists getting irritated at a group of kids riding respectfully to school.

thesunwashot

seamus wrote: »

This prevents people from getting on the bike because there's an overall view that the only people who cycle are either crusty, save-the-world types, poor people, children and competitive cyclists, and if I join them, then no-one will have any respect for me and I won't be safe.

In my experience people's worry about safe cycling has nothing to do with being mistaken for a member of the great unwashed and then heartlessly being run down by motorists who dislike one of the groups you mentioned.

I think that there is a genuine issue with cycling safety in Dublin. The infrastructure is poorly designed and largely in poor condition. There are various previous threads on here about better design of cycle paths and from personal experience I know that London made huge improvements in this area under Ken Livingston. The problem here seems to be that it is not a priority for the government, local authorities or police to raise cyclist numbers and so safety is not high on the agenda.

When I had a near miss with a motorcyclist driving dangerously in a solid line (no motor vehicle) cycle lane the gardai seemed interested in his abusive behaviour but not at all that he was in the cycle lane. There are often obstructions in lanes in my commute and never have I seen any action being taken against offenders.

Respect is one thing (and the majority of motorists seem to have respect for other road users) but creating safe infrastructure so that motorists respectful or not are not a threat is really the key to raising numbers.

rp

Verb wrote: »

Teach children to cycle in reasonable sized groups on a road. A bunch of adults and a bunch of kids. Drivers see kids being educated how to use the road properly, in a reasonably safe environment with knowledgeable cyclists around them.
...
Or another thing along the same lines, take groups of tourists around the city on bicycle tours. Same as above, but swap learning to cycle with learning about the city and kids with tourists.

Excellent ideas in this post. How can this be made to happen?

Chips Lovell

thesunwashot wrote: »

Respect is one thing (and the majority of motorists seem to have respect for other road users) but creating safe infrastructure so that motorists respectful or not are not a threat is really the key to raising numbers.

I'd disagree. I think it is precisely cycling specific infrastructure that creates a lack of respect among motorists. It reinforces their belief that bikes don't belong on the road and that they should be segregated away from other traffic. The more bike lanes we get painted onto footpaths, the more motorists there are going to be beeping at us because we are 'in the way'.

rp wrote: »

Excellent ideas in this post. How can this be made to happen?

We'd have to borrow a few children for a start. Does any place rent them out by the hour?

Harrybelafonte

I think that people have so many more positive ideas and attitudes to the situation on this board is a sign that something can change, and I agree with el tonto's point that cycling infrastructure emphasies a view that bikes don't belong on the road.

Cycling needs better PR. The image of the krusty, self-righteous world saver needs to be done away with and more promotion given to the image of someone cycling being exactly that, someone. Someone a driver could identify with and see the positives of cycling in a non-judgemental way.

The amount of kids out on bikes in general is huge, they all tend to be on those full suspension Jeep things, but if the government could make things ready for them to continue in the sma eway and not lose that affinity with cycling as a way of geting around, they might be less tempted to use a car so much when they grow older

Seaswimmer

As a commuting cyclist myself with teenage children I am constantly encouraging them to cycle and 2 of them (ages 12 and 14) do use their bikes 2 -3 times a week. However it is very hard to know what advice to give them. Adults know the rules of the road as the vast majority of them drive but children do not have this advantage. Do you tell them to cycle on the road with all its hazards. Tell them to use the path with probably more chance of an accident or just do what most of us do and tell them to be careful. Also both parents need to be in agreement that the kids can cycle because in the event of an accident you dont one blaming the other.
Riding in groups with adults is a great idea however most teenagers want to be as far from adults as possible. Maybe a cycling version of " the walking bus" to and from school for primary kids would be ideal but as always it requires adult volunteers (who are also cyclists!!) The amazing thing is once kids get use to a bike they love the freedom and independence it gives them.

Kids like cycling. We need to make it easier for them and they will be the adult cyclists of the future.

Gavin

rp wrote: »

Excellent ideas in this post. How can this be made to happen?

I'm sure some of the cyclists on this forum have been unlucky enough to get stuck with a few of the parasites. They could meetup, pick a route and cycle it. Tell their mates, stick it here etc and others could join in if they wished. A relaxed cycle around obeying lights, cycling properly etc.

Unfortunately it's probably not the best time of year. A summer evening cycle around the city with the sprogs would go down well I'd imagine, not so much a dark wintery evening.

I think DCC did something like this recently actually come to think of it. There was definitely some children/parent cycle event organised.

School runs is a good idea too, maybe.

DirkVoodoo

el tonto wrote: »

We'd have to borrow a few children for a start. Does any place rent them out by the hour?

I always find that if I am on the road and there is a cycle path beside me which is "uncyclable", passing motorists tend to overtake very close and try and cut in in front of me. If I then make a turn onto a smaller road, without any cycle path I seem to be gifted twice the space and motorists are in general more "aware" of my presence on the road.

This is one of my fundamental disagreements with bike specific lanes: they are never designed specifically for cyclists, but rather "painted on" as you say to accomodate cyclists within the existing traffic network. An afterthought.

Because of this, we end up with a convoluted network for cyclists that moves from road, to footpath and sometimes even disappears altogether. Since motorists are essentially unaware of cyclists when they are on the footpath "bike lane", when these fantastic intersections of bike lane and road appear, they place the rider in an incredibly dangerous situation. It woulf be safer for everyone if cyclists were allowed to use the bus lane, that way they are recognised as part of the traffic flow.

I keep meaning to photograph it, but the junction that highlights this point for me is at the N11 and Kill Ave, next to foxrock church. The cyclists, kept away from motorists attention, are suddenly thrust into the middle of a busy intersection even though I believe they maintain the right of way.

slap/dash

well i started doing it in boston a few years ago where it was a real fun kind of event that was just exhillerating. i never really viewed it as a change the world type thing, although there are those who do, especially the anarchist crew with their u lock justice type stuff....
there was increasing hassle so i stopped doing it except under the unfortunate circumstances of acquaintances of mine dying on their bikes as memorial rides....

i also did it once in nyc and there were nypd everywhere trying to arrest people and helicopters above us...(there were about 40 people and it was january haha)


its kinda an empowering exercise, or can be, and lets be honest, the chances of mutual respect on the roads is slim in the foreseeable future, so in the abscence of being a total dick to people, i dont really buy the idea of it being so awful, but then again im a contrary bastard

rp

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Do you tell them to cycle on the road with all its hazards.

This week I just started my eldest riding to school (9 years), accompanied by me (with a trailer with the two smaller ones in). Some of our route has to be on the road, and in housing estates, she's safer there (cars pulling out of drives don't see midgets speeding along the pavement).
At the start of the week, I used a Barbie(tm) toy bike (pink) and an Ikea rug with a town street plan on it, and went over road positioning with her. So far, so good...

blorg

I agree with Tonto, I'm quite happy on the road thanks and don't need any "facilities." I don't have a problem with them, they can be useful for children or in rare cases when actually well designed for other cyclists too, but don't make them compulsory.

Just back from a holiday cycling across France and the difference in attitude there was a real eye opener. Noticed these two signs at the side of the road, reminding drivers to leave at least 1.5m when overtaking, but even without this sort of thing drivers were universally courteous and overtook carefully. I've cycled in Spain a fair bit before and thought that a lot better than here but France was just cycle heaven in terms of motorist respect.

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

I've cycled in Spain a fair bit before and thought that a lot better than here but France was just cycle heaven in terms of motorist respect.

I much prefer cycling in Spain and its not just the weather. I don't think I've ever been beeped and in the past few years I can only think of one or two instances of motorists passing too close. They have shag all cycle lanes over there, none at all in the built up urban areas I'm familiar with. When they do have cycle lanes they do them in style. Here's a blown up version of my avatar:



It's more like a cycle road and runs alongside a dual carriageway for about 30km. There's no footpaths nearby and you can only access it via the road, which means it doesn't double up as the local dog walking, jogging track. It's continuous too, which means that it runs over or under junctions and roundabouts. In Irish terms, it would be the equivalent of having a separate road for bikes along the length of the M50.

unionman

el tonto wrote: »

It's more like a cycle road and runs alongside a dual carriageway for about 30km. There's no footpaths nearby and you can only access it via the road, which means it doesn't double up as the local dog walking, jogging track. It's continuous too, which means that it runs over or under junctions and roundabouts. In Irish terms, it would be the equivalent of having a separate road for bikes along the length of the M50.

Class. It looks like cycling heaven.

rp

el tonto wrote: »

When they do have cycle lanes they do them in style.

Now *thats* the kind of bike lane I could live with!
BTW, why are all the clouds a funny blue colour?

Harrybelafonte

Here's an idea of how he public view cyclists. It's not just drivers either

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=33149

rp

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Here's an idea of how he public view cyclists. It's not just drivers either

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=33149

(I wouldn't put much value to what's written on internet forums)

Pollution. Congestion. Daily carnage on the roads. And what is getting all these people worked up? Cyclists. I guess a simple Pareto analysis is beyond them?

Chips Lovell

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Here's an idea of how he public view cyclists. It's not just drivers either

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=33149

I've just read the first page or two there and I'd tend to agree with most of the posters there. The majority of cyclists on the roads in Dublin are either ignorant of the rules of the road or don't feel they should apply to them.

Gavin

hahah some quality anti-cyclist propaganda on that link

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

drcopernicus

el tonto wrote: »

I've just read the first page or two there and I'd tend to agree with most of the posters there. The majority of cyclists on the roads in Dublin are either ignorant of the rules of the road or don't feel they should apply to them.

That NotDevsSon is a liar of outstanding gumption, however. My hat is off to him.

Chips Lovell

drcopernicus wrote: »

That NotDevsSon is a liar of outstanding gumption, however. My hat is off to him.

Have you clashed with him before?

drcopernicus

el tonto wrote: »

Have you clashed with him before?

No, but I know the amonial tang of bull**** when it does a Bisto gravy under my nostrils. His Drumcondra tale is hilarious. The sheer volume of crumpos among his immediate social circle is incredible. Everything on snopes happened to someone's friend too, dontchakno.

Also, discretion is better part of valour when considering a "clash" with someone on politics dot ie.

"Hey, I'm vulnerable here!":D

rubadub

el tonto wrote: »

The majority of cyclists on the roads in Dublin are either ignorant of the rules of the road or don't feel they should apply to them.

The majority of people in general are ignorant of a lot of the rules of the road, there is nothing special about siting on a contraption with 2 wheels that suddenly makes you an ignorant nutcase. Many roadusers know the rules and break them still, IME pedestrians are the worst for it (if you set foot on places intended for vehicles, including bicycles, I would class you as a roaduser), then cyclists, then motorcyclists, then other motorists.

And if you cannot realise why this is the case then I would be shocked, simple common sense tells me why people break these laws, and why the gardai do not enforce these laws to the letter. I would say every second or third day on my commute the gardai see me breaking the law, and are probably glad to see me do it, as my "law breaking" puts me and others in more safety and aids the flow of traffic. A lot of the time I have to break the law because of themselves!

Verb posted a video showing people breaking lights, nothing surprising at all there, dunno they they bothered recording it, a far greater % pedestrians break lights and I see pedestrians do far more dangerous stuff than what was shown in the clip. Thing is the majority of people are pedestrians so they cannot moan about them, they want a group they do not "belong to" that they can bitch about.

Húrin

seamus wrote: »

Until someone comes up with an idea that doesn't put cycling into an "Us -v- Them" perspective, you're never going to get the general public to agree that cycling is a good thing.

That's a good point, but do you think it is correct to portray the general public as a driving public? A huge amount of the public rely entirely on public transport.

el tonto wrote: »

I'd disagree. I think it is precisely cycling specific infrastructure that creates a lack of respect among motorists. It reinforces their belief that bikes don't belong on the road and that they should be segregated away from other traffic. The more bike lanes we get painted onto footpaths, the more motorists there are going to be beeping at us because we are 'in the way'.

That's ridiculous. Cycling lanes on roads are a convenient blessing for the most part. Cars and buses have their own lanes. Pedestrians have their lane (the footpath), so why shouldn't we get our own cycle lanes?

On dual carriageways, why would you want to be cycling on the road when you could get to cycle on a raised track? The cars are going quite fast on roads like that, and because of the infrequency of traffic lights I don't see a problem with these kinds of cycle track.

Chips Lovell

rubadub wrote: »

The majority of people in general are ignorant of a lot of the rules of the road, there is nothing special about siting on a contraption with 2 wheels that suddenly makes you an ignorant nutcase.

Unlike cyclists, most motorists are able to a.) stop at a red light, b.) signal when changing lanes, c.) understand the concept of yielding and right of way.

rubadub wrote: »

Many roadusers know the rules and break them still, IME pedestrians are the worst for it

Pedestrians are crap too, but the discussion was about cyclists.

rubadub wrote: »

...my "law breaking" puts me and others in more safety and aids the flow of traffic.

So you and not the law now are the arbiter of what to do on the road.

Húrin wrote: »

Cycling lanes on roads are a convenient blessing for the most part. Cars and buses have their own lanes. Pedestrians have their lane (the footpath), so why shouldn't we get our own cycle lanes?

They're completely useless because they are utterly unenforceable, often on the worst part of the road, and corral you into the edge even if you need to change lane.

Húrin wrote: »

On dual carriageways, why would you want to be cycling on the road when you could get to cycle on a raised track? The cars are going quite fast on roads like that, and because of the infrequency of traffic lights I don't see a problem with these kinds of cycle track.

Dual carriageways are some of the safest roads to ride on in my opinion. The hard shoulder means that you are well away from the traffic.

wahlrab

i was on a CM ride in budapest, 60,000 cyclists through the centre of the city, slow moving but amazing

Húrin

el tonto wrote: »

They're completely useless because they are utterly unenforceable, often on the worst part of the road, and corral you into the edge even if you need to change lane.

Often cycle lanes are not in the worst part of the road. I agree with the latter criticism, which is why the mandatory use rule is bad.

Chips Lovell

They're usually right at the edge, which seems to be the prime location for potholes and badly patched up roadworks.

slap/dash

obviously the mandatory use rule is stupid. bikers pay income and vat taxes just like drivers and damage roads far less per km use. same rights, same responsibilities with the caveat of safety of biker in mind. in other words take the lane if you need it and let the horns honk all they want