Jogging in the Bicycle Lane?

Robdude

Does anyone know the legal status of pedestrians utilizing bike lanes? I don't walk in the bike lane, but I go at a brisk jog speed. Not as fast as most bicycles, but most bicycles don't go as fast as the cars they share the road with.

I thought it would be no big deal, but I was jogging home today and a cyclist took offense to my being in 'his' lane.

I used to ride my bicycle, but it's recently broken. My commute was only about 1.5km, so it's a nice and short jog.

Doctor Bob

On-road cycle lane? No.

Cycle track physically segregated (i.e. not just a painted line, but a kerb or a verge) from both the road and the footpath? No.

Cycle lane on the footpad? Legally, no, but they're so rubbish as cycle facilities that they're generally a messy free-for-all, so go for it.

In short, if you want to use cycle lanes, fix your bike. And utilize it.

kenmc

you're a pedestrian. use the path.

Beasty

I guess if we're not always going to use cycle lanes where provided it's a bit rich of us to tell pedestrians to stay out of them. It doesn't give us much of a defence when motorists then tell us to get off the road and into the cycle lane

Inbox

I really hate that particulary when they are jogging towards the traffic. Because I'm the one that has to move out into the traffic to pass them. I also hate it when I'm in the car because I could kill them. I just think what ****ing eejit jogs on the road beside the path.

kenmc

actually you're right beasty, the more peds in the cycle track the better the excuse we have for not using them. jog on. and bring your friends too.

Wishbone Ash

Beasty wrote: »

I guess if we're not always going to use cycle lanes where provided it's a bit rich of us to tell pedestrians to stay out of them

But we're not using them because of the pedestrians!

Captain Havoc

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

But we're not using them because of the pedestrians!

and the poor design, broken glass, drains, kerbs.................

megafan

Robdude wrote: »

Does anyone know the legal status of pedestrians utilizing bike lanes? I don't walk in the bike lane, but I go at a brisk jog speed. Not as fast as most bicycles, but most bicycles don't go as fast as the cars they share the road with.

I thought it would be no big deal, but I was jogging home today and a cyclist took offense to my being in 'his' lane.

I used to ride my bicycle, but it's recently broken. My commute was only about 1.5km, so it's a nice and short jog



Should be done for jaywalking(/running) totally irresponsible.... the footpath is for pedestrians (not cycles, motorbikes) the cycle lane for pushbikes (not motor vehicles or pedestrians)

650Ginge

I guess if u are going slower u could be causing an obstruction which may force cyclists out of the lane to get passed and into the space where the cars are. So to my mind, for your own convenience you are creating danger that there is no need for.

Keep_Her_Lit

Robdude wrote: »

I used to ride my bicycle, but it's recently broken.

Sure what do you expect? Bicycles in this part of the world are pure junk. You wanna get yourself one of those $60 Walmart jobs. They're the business, they are.

ted1

Inbox wrote: »

I really hate that particulary when they are jogging towards the traffic. Because I'm the one that has to move out into the traffic to pass them. I also hate it when I'm in the car because I could kill them. I just think what ****ing eejit jogs on the road beside the path.

There on the road/cycle lane as it's tarmac as oppose to the concrete paths because Concrete paths destroy knees and ankles where as the tarmac is more forgiving as its got a bit of a spring.

Chips Lovell

It doesn't bother me, except for those people who run contra-flow on on-road cycle lanes. That's a bit dangerous.

Robdude

650Ginge wrote: »

I guess if u are going slower u could be causing an obstruction which may force cyclists out of the lane to get passed and into the space where the cars are. So to my mind, for your own convenience you are creating danger that there is no need for.

Is that also true when I would ride my bicycle in the street?

Certainly, I'm not as fast as a car and cause an obstruction....but we expect that motorists are reasonable people who can drive around cyclists in a safe fashion.

Robdude

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Sure what do you expect? Bicycles in this part of the world are pure junk. You wanna get yourself one of those $60 Walmart jobs. They're the business, they are.

In my experience, yes, that is absolutely true. I realize some might disagree. Regardless; I don't have the money for a new bicycle, regardless of where it comes from.

rollingscone

Robdude wrote: »

Is that also true when I would ride my bicycle in the street?

Certainly, I'm not as fast as a car and cause an obstruction....but we expect that motorists are reasonable people who can drive around cyclists in a safe fashion.

1. Very few cycle lanes are large enough to allow overtaking and multiple lanes.

2. Motorists are not always faster, living in the city centre for example I usually have to slow for traffic as they can't maintain a steady 30kmh with their stopping and starting up of engines and general awkwardness.

3. Cyclists don't expect pedestrians to be reasonable people. Good and even some not so good Cyclists check over their shoulders regularly to ensure they are aware of what's going on.

Only idiots cycle contraflow flow or blind to their surroundings - ergo only idiot pedestrians/runners would cause an unnescessary hazzard in the cycle lanes.

I ran for years until I ran out of good knees (not from running incidentally) and managed never to do it in the cycle lane. Perhaps you should try some variable speed techniques like Fartlek, Repeats and Sprints to help you with the slowdowns and speedups of navigating the footpath.

opti0nal

Robdude wrote: »

Does anyone know the legal status of pedestrians utilizing bike lanes?

The law is that pedestrians must use the footpath, where provided.

Robdude

opti0nal wrote: »

The law is that pedestrians must use the footpath, where provided.

Thank you for providing a legal (rather than moral) answer. It's much appreciated.

Darkglasses

Are scooters and mopeds illegal in the cycle lanes too? I'm occasionally stuck behind them at rush hour on my commute. Weird that they're so much slower even with a motor..

Doctor Bob

Robdude wrote: »

Thank you for providing a legal (rather than moral) answer. It's much appreciated.

You're welcome.

Donelson

We should start a campaign for separate running lanes, that way everybody would be happy. It would get my vote!

kenmc

just convert all the off road cycle tracks to running lanes, then everyone's happy

Cuddlesworth

Darkglasses wrote: »

Are scooters and mopeds illegal in the cycle lanes too? I'm occasionally stuck behind them at rush hour on my commute. Weird that they're so much slower even with a motor..

In three years I've seen two cyclists in "cycle lanes" hit pedestrians walking through traffic because they were travelling too fast. Can't get away with that on a moped or motorbike.

Dowee

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In three years I've seen two cyclists in "cycle lanes" hit pedestrians walking through traffic because they were travelling too fast. Can't get away with that on a moped or motorbike.

No doubt the pedestrians were following the safe cross code. It's all about how you want to look at these situations!

SHOVELLER

Robdude wrote: »

Does anyone know the legal status of pedestrians utilizing bike lanes? I don't walk in the bike lane, but I go at a brisk jog speed. Not as fast as most bicycles, but most bicycles don't go as fast as the cars they share the road with.

I thought it would be no big deal, but I was jogging home today and a cyclist took offense to my being in 'his' lane.

I used to ride my bicycle, but it's recently broken. My commute was only about 1.5km, so it's a nice and short jog.

You wouldnt jog in the middle of the road so dont jog in a cycle lane.

I use the cycle lanes around the canals and they are superb despite the council not bothering to install signs and markings yet. But it is astonishing how many think it is a new footpath. Pedestrians, joggers and prampushers do not belong on bicycle lanes.

The Phoenix Park is by far the worst. The cycle lane is nearest the road and there is a footpath over from the cycle lane yet it is incredible the amount of idiots using the cycle lanes is astonishing.

Methinks its an Irish thing. Anybody who has used bicycles in the Netherlands knows the rules.

lgk

ted1 wrote: »

There on the road/cycle lane as it's tarmac as oppose to the concrete paths because Concrete paths destroy knees and ankles where as the tarmac is more forgiving as its got a bit of a spring.

Studies have shown that's not true, and if you think about it, would you expect a surface that is designed not to yield under the weight of a 3.5+ tonne truck to offer any significant degree of spring to your average runner landing in a cushioned shoe? The physics of it goes don't add up.

nerraw1111

The new canal path is ridiculous for walkers. It annoys the hell out of me as there is a lovely path parallel to it, with trees, water and wildlife.

But no, pedestrians prefer to walk in the lane beside the road. Makes no sense at all.

I occasionally run on cycle paths. Only
when they're empty which they frequently are off peak. Easier on the legs.

ted1

lgk wrote: »

Studies have shown that's not true, and if you think about it, would you expect a surface that is designed not to yield under the weight of a 3.5+ tonne truck to offer any significant degree of spring to your average runner landing in a cushioned shoe? The physics of it goes don't add up.

Point me in the direction of this study. Concrete is more dense and stronger.
tarmac/asphalt has air gaps which allow displacement. and hence acts as a suspension.

not sure where you studies physics, but i question its teaching.

Robdude

SHOVELLER wrote: »

You wouldnt jog in the middle of the road so dont jog in a cycle lane.

I use the cycle lanes around the canals and they are superb despite the council not bothering to install signs and markings yet. But it is astonishing how many think it is a new footpath. Pedestrians, joggers and prampushers do not belong on bicycle lanes.

The Phoenix Park is by far the worst. The cycle lane is nearest the road and there is a footpath over from the cycle lane yet it is incredible the amount of idiots using the cycle lanes is astonishing.

Methinks its an Irish thing. Anybody who has used bicycles in the Netherlands knows the rules.

A lot of what someone would or wouldn't do is just relative to what they've done and what they believe is normal.

For example, where I grew up, most people considered bicycles to be toys for children. I distintly remember being told NOT to ride my bicycle in the street (except for the streets of our residential area).

Think about it this way - there are a LOT of laws mandating safety requirements for cars. Presumably because it's important for those vehicles to and it's passangers to have those safety laws. A bicycle meets none of those. And, in the vast, vast majority of situations, a bicyclist can not keep pace with the flow of traffic. It's easy to see how people would conclude cyclists *shouldn't* be on the road.

But, I've since learned that cyclists do just fine on the road, provided everyone is a little accomidating. In some cases there are bicycle-lanes, but even without bicycle-lanes, bicycles are welcome to ride in the road. I've heard numerous people tell me that cyclists deserve the same rights to the roads as motorists....despite being smaller, slower, and less safe.

Once I accepted that, and began to ride my bicycle; I realized the relationship between cars and cyclists is very much the same as pedestrians and cyclists.

Most cyclists are slower than most motorists.
Most joggers are slower than most cyclists.

I found it interesting that the same cyclist who (presumably) expects bigger, faster cars to 'go around' him had a problem doing the same for someone who is smaller and slower than him. It struck me as very hypocritical.

Anyway, I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. A society that says bicycles have no business on the road seems just as valid to me as a society that allows them. What I really wanted to get at, was the legal status of it in Ireland.

Since it's illegal, I won't do it.

kirving

ted1 wrote: »

Point me in the direction of this study. Concrete is more dense and stronger.
tarmac/asphalt has air gaps which allow displacement. and hence acts as a suspension.

not sure where you studies physics, but i question its teaching.

Concrete is harder yes, but not in noticable terms.

How much do you think tarmac will displace under the pressure of a runners foot? If it did move a perceptible amount, cyclists would notice it under braking and acceleration. The pressure exerted by a cyclists weigh alone would be a few times greater than a person's foot. Yes, bikes aren't exactly impacting the ground, but it's not like a bouncy castle we're talking about.

To get the same grip levels though, I'd think concrete would have to have a rougher surface finish. I notice no difference in hardness between the two, running or cycling. Grip levels, yes, since water can be displaced better.

dave_o_brien

Robdude wrote: »

A lot of what someone would or wouldn't do is just relative to what they've done and what they believe is normal.

For example, where I grew up, most people considered bicycles to be toys for children. I distintly remember being told NOT to ride my bicycle in the street (except for the streets of our residential area).

Think about it this way - there are a LOT of laws mandating safety requirements for cars. Presumably because it's important for those vehicles to and it's passangers to have those safety laws. A bicycle meets none of those. And, in the vast, vast majority of situations, a bicyclist can not keep pace with the flow of traffic. It's easy to see how people would conclude cyclists *shouldn't* be on the road.

But, I've since learned that cyclists do just fine on the road, provided everyone is a little accomidating. In some cases there are bicycle-lanes, but even without bicycle-lanes, bicycles are welcome to ride in the road. I've heard numerous people tell me that cyclists deserve the same rights to the roads as motorists....despite being smaller, slower, and less safe.

Once I accepted that, and began to ride my bicycle; I realized the relationship between cars and cyclists is very much the same as pedestrians and cyclists.

Most cyclists are slower than most motorists.
Most joggers are slower than most cyclists.

I found it interesting that the same cyclist who (presumably) expects bigger, faster cars to 'go around' him had a problem doing the same for someone who is smaller and slower than him. It struck me as very hypocritical.

Anyway, I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. A society that says bicycles have no business on the road seems just as valid to me as a society that allows them. What I really wanted to get at, was the legal status of it in Ireland.

Since it's illegal, I won't do it.

Fair enough Rob, glad you elaborated on your point, and although I don't agree with it, at least it's better articulated than the "get off the road, you free loading, road-tax-dodging, hippie!".

The reason I don't agree with you comes down to a few related points.

Your assertion that cyclists cannot keep pace with cars largely depends upon the location. In highly urbanised areas, cyclists are more often than not quicker on average than motorists, and in less urbanised areas there is often either low density of traffic that offers plenty of adequate space for safe overtaking, as per the law, or facilities for peaceful coexistence between the two vehicle types.

By choosing to operate a vehicle such as a bicycle, you are implicitly agreeing to follow a common set of laws regarding the use of the infrastructure, which includes such rules as all traffic going in an agreed, predictable direction and not stopping suddenly, unnecessarily and without warning. No such rules apply to footpaths, obviously, and so the behaviour of pedestrians is far less predictable. I know that you are saying you jog only in the direction of traffic in the cycle lane, but I don't see how that makes you an operator of a vehicle.

Then the old "one less car" thing. Every cyclist is potentially one less driver causing a greater stress on our road network and creating a less pleasant pedestrian (and I include joggers as pedestrians) experience. Traffic would be increased, emissions would be increased, etc. The bicycle may still represent an inconvenience to the pedestrian, but a far smaller inconvenience than the motor vehicle, and as we all know, there is a necessity for personal modes of transport. On the whole, the bicycle represents the best method of economical transport over medium distances, particularly in urban environments, benefiting motorists and pedestrians alike; by respecting the meagre and often inadequate infrastructure provided for them, you are actually helping to improve the pedestrian and jogger experience, rather than cause points of potential conflict. So cyclists *should* be on the road.

On top of that, as you said, it's against the law. A bicycle lane is an exclusive piece of infrastructure that is designed to be used only by the bicycle, except in specific circumstances where it may be entered temporarily by the motorist. The fact that this law is often undermined by roads that are too narrow to allow both a bicycle and a car on it says a lot about the policy of implementation from the various councils, but that's for a different thread.

Regardless, since it's illegal, you won't do it, so that's good.

saa

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In three years I've seen two cyclists in "cycle lanes" hit pedestrians walking through traffic because they were travelling too fast. Can't get away with that on a moped or motorbike.

I nearly hit a kid running through traffic without looking, not because I was going too fast but because they didn't look because they thought oh the traffics not moving, it could have been a motorbike. I buckled my tires, wreaked my back and legs by pulling the brakes not to hit him, usually a cyclist isn't going more than 10-15kmph (maybe not for enthusiasts.) that is not too fast, it's quite difficult to go too fast and if you get hit by a bike the person gets thrown off and whats hitting you is nothing compared to something bigger and heavier going 5 times the speed, the UK have some stats on death caused by cyclists one every two years.1

Cyclist should have some kind of reg number, you need a licence for you tv or dog in fairness but not your bike, that is strange.

1 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/papers/legality/

average_runner

As you guess by my username, I am a runner, but the rules of the area all just takes a bit of common sense.

Why are you running in bike lane, if valid reason do the following:

If running in a cycle lane, ensure your not using headphones.

Your better off running towards the cyclists so both can see each other but remember the runner must give way to the cyclist.

Dont run in them in the dark mainly because some cyclists and runners are stupid, none will have high vis jacket or lights!! Bang!!!

If running in cycle lane with back to cyclists dont make sudden moves in the lane, stay as far as you can to the side.

Dont recommend running in cyclist lane though.


As for cyclist on paths, they must give way to all walkers and runners, but if a group of runners/walker are hogging the path, just move over to let them by, providing there is no good cycle lanes available to them.

But cyclist should not be on the path and runners not on cycle lanes to be honest but some times it needs to be.

But for anyone cycling in the Eastpoint business park, use the cycle lane there, its brillant and keep off the footpaths.

As for runners running on the side of the road ensure you have a high vis jacket, they arent that expensive.


Some common sense and we all can do ok.

Saw a man last week on the quays towards custom house running in middle of the bus lane with the bus behind him. Driver should of ran him down

My five cents

Lumen

saa wrote: »

Cyclist should have some kind of reg number, you need a licence for you tv or dog in fairness but not your bike, that is strange.

Dogs, TVs and bicycles have absolutely nothing in common.

What about cats, snakes, laptops, and skateboards? I have all of those.

martyc5674

There on the road/cycle lane as it's tarmac as oppose to the concrete paths because Concrete paths destroy knees and ankles where as the tarmac is more forgiving as its got a bit of a spring.[/Quote]

This true??
Tarmac v concrete?? I suffer with my knees from running and would have thought that the give in Tarmac would be negligible
Marty.

average_runner

Yes tarmac is more forgiving on the knees.

Good runners also needed.

lgk

ted1 wrote: »

Point me in the direction of this study. Concrete is more dense and stronger.
tarmac/asphalt has air gaps which allow displacement. and hence acts as a suspension.

not sure where you studies physics, but i question its teaching.

As Kevin has pointed out, it's about noticable terms, how it affects the biomechanics of movement, what the shock rate is when landing.

The density of your average EVA sole is 200kg/M3 the density of asphalt varies from 2100-2400kg/M3 (depending on grade and whether hot-rolled), concrete is about 2400kg/M3. (Diamond is about 3500kg/M3 btw) Which do you think is going to absorb the impact? The shoe or the road surface?

You also need to take biomechanics into account, the body naturally absorbs much of the impact, and it has been shown that runners alter leg stiffness depending on the running surface to effectively negate any differences in the shock transmitted.

The impact energy of a runner's foot strike varies from 0.24 to less than 4 joules, that range of force exerted equates to that of an object of between 25 and 413g falling from a height of 1m. So take the heavier object, drop it on the sole of a running shoe sitting on an asphalt road. That same road can take the wieght of a 14+ tonne fully laden cement truck (albeit spread over a greater contact area) with minimal deflection.

Asphalt does not have air gaps by the way, not sure where you got that from. That would lead to faster surface degradation due to significant differences between the expansion/contraction of asphalt and air in daily heating/cooling cycles. Any deflection depends on the compression of the material itself or that of the substrates.

average_runner

Also it doesnt take rocket science to know that concrete is a harder surface than tarmac.

ciotog

average_runner wrote: »

As you guess by my username, I am a runner, but the rules of the area all just takes a bit of common sense.

Why are you running in bike lane, if valid reason do the following:

If running in a cycle lane, ensure your not using headphones.

Your better off running towards the cyclists so both can see each other but remember the runner must give way to the cyclist.

Dont run in them in the dark mainly because some cyclists and runners are stupid, none will have high vis jacket or lights!! Bang!!!

If running in cycle lane with back to cyclists dont make sudden moves in the lane, stay as far as you can to the side.

Dont recommend running in cyclist lane though.


As for cyclist on paths, they must give way to all walkers and runners, but if a group of runners/walker are hogging the path, just move over to let them by, providing there is no good cycle lanes available to them.

But cyclist should not be on the path and runners not on cycle lanes to be honest but some times it needs to be.

But for anyone cycling in the Eastpoint business park, use the cycle lane there, its brillant and keep off the footpaths.

As for runners running on the side of the road ensure you have a high vis jacket, they arent that expensive.


Some common sense and we all can do ok.

Saw a man last week on the quays towards custom house running in middle of the bus lane with the bus behind him. Driver should of ran him down

My five cents

I have no problem with this and think it's an acceptable form of space sharing, much the same as a cyclist on road with motorists. It requires maturity, respect and attention to surroundings but there's no reason it can't work. I encounter pedestrians on an off-road cycle path regularly who are spread out across the pavements and cycle path - that's annoying to me because there's no consideration or attention being shown. I also encounter joggers and have never hard a problem with one, we stay clear of each other. Other than perhaps blinding one with my flashing front light I'd say it's an unremarkable interaction

ciotog

martyc5674 wrote: »

There on the road/cycle lane as it's tarmac as oppose to the concrete paths because Concrete paths destroy knees and ankles where as the tarmac is more forgiving as its got a bit of a spring.

This true??
Tarmac v concrete?? I suffer with my knees from running and would have thought that the give in Tarmac would be negligible
Marty.

I see it mentioned a lot by runners and I believe there are studies on the injury levels associated with running on concrete versus tarmac. I'm wondering if the issue is not the road surface deforming in response to the force exerted by the runner but the running shoe deforming differently on tarmac than concrete? The porous tarmac surface versus the non-porous concrete surface allowing the shoe to deform in a way that allows more energy to be exchanged with the surface instead of transmitted back up through the leg? Pure speculation from me ...

rich.d.berry

average_runner wrote: »

Also it doesnt take rocket science to know that concrete is a harder surface than tarmac.

That's a bit like saying that "it hurts more to be hit by a bullet with a copper jacket than with an all lead bullet because copper is harder than lead".

Technically yes, copper is harder than lead, but in respect to its interaction with the human body, that hardness difference is inconsequential. Ditto concrete and tarmac. However, this is my personal opinion.

There are numerous web discussions where opinions are given that tarmac is better to run on than concrete (some so ludicrous as to state that concrete is ten times harder than tarmac) but very few facts are given to back up these opinions and I could find no studies that proved/disproved them.

However, the unrefuted evidence is that injuries do occur from running on a cambered surface and runners are told to run on the crown or to alternate between left and right camber so as not to place undue stress on one side only. Here is a quote, by way of example, from Runner's World:

To answer your question: Asphalt is better than concrete, but not on a slanted surface. You are just asking for injury and/or blisters. Go to a dirt path, bike path, or grass in a park. Also, don't forget that your shoes will wear out sooner if you run often on a slanted surface.

This does not even take the potential threat of injury from other road users into account. If I was still a runner, I would continue to avoid running on the roads unless I was participating in an event on closed/marshalled roads.

kirving

average_runner wrote: »

Also it doesnt take rocket science to know that concrete is a harder surface than tarmac.

Way to dismiss an informed decision from lkg. Put simply, mechanical testing can show that concrete is harder than asphalt, but it's on an order of magnitude that means nothing in a biomechanical perspective. Go out and punch a concrete surface and an asphalt surface as hard as you can. You wont't be able to tell the difference in terms of pain.

I suspect that if there is any varition in injury rates, it's to do with how people run with different grip levels.

finisklin

As Chesterfield avenue, PP, is dug up and esp before Xmas I ran in the bicycle lane a lot. The cyclists didn't seem to mind as light was poor and it was quiet.

One cyclist I reprimeanded as she didn't have a light on her bike....she then proceeded to lash out at me being in the cycle lane. I asked her to explain that to the Garda or driver that stops her or knocks down due to no light on her bike.

On a separate note, cyclists with LED flashing, pulsing lights are annoying and dangerous to all road, cycle lane and foot path users. These pulsing lights are particularly powerful at night in dark areas. Plus they may trigger a reaction, spasm in some people. Please desist from having them flash!

SerialComplaint

There is a jogger that I see fairly often on my commute home through Milltown and Dundrum Road. He seems to think that it is OK for him to run on the road if the path is busy. I can usually manage to time my roar at him to send his arms flailing like a windmill as he jumps back onto the path.

Yesterday, there was a jogger all iPodded up while running along the road at Milltown. He didn't hear or see me until I was right along side him.

On the original question, runners should stay out of cycle paths. Unless they have eyes in the back of their head, they will be an obstruction to some cyclists.

Doctor Bob

Robdude wrote: »

I found it interesting that the same cyclist who (presumably) expects bigger, faster cars to 'go around' him had a problem doing the same for someone who is smaller and slower than him. It struck me as very hypocritical.

I thought you weren't interested in the moral side of the argument?

Dowee

Robdude wrote: »

I found it interesting that the same cyclist who (presumably) expects bigger, faster cars to 'go around' him had a problem doing the same for someone who is smaller and slower than him. It struck me as very hypocritical.

I don't think you are comparing like with like here. In general where there is a cycle path there will be a footpath either alongside or very close by (no doubt there's an exception to this but I personally don't know of any) so the pedestrian / runner has the option to run (safely) on the path. However there isn't always cycle paths, thus requiring the cyclist to be on the road.

I cycle, run and drive. When I cycle I use the cycle paths (where possible and safe to do so) and the road where there's no cycle path or there is one but it is more dangerous for me to use. When I run I use the path. When I drive I use the road! .

It's not difficult to do. The issue here isn't cyclists, pedestrians, runners or drivers it's 'people' and what the choose to do. I regularly encounter runners and pedestrians on roads and cycle paths, cyclists on paths, cars parked on cycle paths and footpaths. All because that's what they chose to do, there are generally always alternative options but people don't always make decisions based on what's best for all / other road and path users, often a more selfish approach is taken!!

ThisRegard

finisklin wrote: »

One cyclist I reprimeanded as she didn't have a light on her bike....she then proceeded to lash out at me being in the cycle lane. I asked her to explain that to the Garda or driver that stops her or knocks down due to no light on her bike.

On a separate note, cyclists with LED flashing, pulsing lights are annoying and dangerous to all road, cycle lane and foot path users. These pulsing lights are particularly powerful at night in dark areas. Plus they may trigger a reaction, spasm in some people. Please desist from having them flash!

Seriously, pot, kettle and confused springs to mind. And how often are you stuck right behind a cyclist with such a LED for any length of time, they'll either pull away from you if you're walking or you'll simply overtake them.

Keep_Her_Lit

finisklin wrote: »

On a separate note, cyclists with LED flashing, pulsing lights are annoying and dangerous to all road, cycle lane and foot path users. These pulsing lights are particularly powerful at night in dark areas. Plus they may trigger a reaction, spasm in some people. Please desist from having them flash!

OK folks, you got that? Lights on steady mode only from now on.

Sorry about that finisklin. It's sorted now. Won't happen again.

Darkglasses

Dangerous to all? God, i'm bringing my lights back to the shop. They're a flipping death trap.

muckwarrior

finisklin wrote: »

As Chesterfield avenue, PP, is dug up and esp before Xmas I ran in the bicycle lane a lot. The cyclists didn't seem to mind as light was poor and it was quiet.

One cyclist I reprimeanded as she didn't have a light on her bike....she then proceeded to lash out at me being in the cycle lane. I asked her to explain that to the Garda or driver that stops her or knocks down due to no light on her bike.

Wow, what unbelievable arrogance! Yes she should have had a light so that she could be seen by other cyclists in the cycle lane. Were you wearing lights? Given your ignorance perhaps your in the habit of driving on the PP cycle lanes too. I can't see any other reason why you think she'd get knocked down by a driver there.

finisklin wrote: »

On a separate note, cyclists with LED flashing, pulsing lights are annoying and dangerous to all road, cycle lane and foot path users. These pulsing lights are particularly powerful at night in dark areas. Plus they may trigger a reaction, spasm in some people. Please desist from having them flash!

More crap. Flashing lights are more noticable and it's a cyclists job to be noticed. I jog, cycle and drive and not once do I recall being distracted or annoyed by flashing lights on a bike.

finisklin

ThisRegard wrote: »

Seriously, pot, kettle and confused springs to mind. And how often are you stuck right behind a cyclist with such a LED for any length of time, they'll either pull away from you if you're walking or you'll simply overtake them.

Who mentioned anything about being stuck behind a cyclist...these are the lights on the front, that are visible in the distance as you approach.

I think it's time these pulsating LED lights carried a flash warning, similar to news station that warn of flash photography. The strength of these pulse's may cause seizures. Please ensure that you have the appropriate sign on when the light is pulsing to warn fellow road users, pedestrians etc.

Maybe better still, leave them on constant!