Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

monument

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When was the last time you saw a car weaving in and out of pedestrian crowds at high speed on the footpath?

Not that often but cars blocking footpaths often force people, prams and wheelchair users out onto the road -- to mix with often fast traffic.

Also: A car, van or truck parking on a footpath can injure somebody badly without speed.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For cyclists to suggest that cars are a greater danger to pedestrians in cities is complete bullsh!t. Cycling through a pedestrian crossing is simply unacceptable. I have rarely if ever seen a car do this, and I see cyclists do it every single day on Dame Street.

I also think it's unacceptable, but besides for cyclists you must have blinkers on!

While stuck with most using a pram for the first six month's of my son's life cars broke red lights all the time and often at speed. It happened daily. I live in the city centre and was traveling with the pram daily within the city centre and walked around the city a lot. It really opened my eyes to how much people park on footpaths.

And it was not just for those six months, I see all road users breaking lights on a daily bases.

magicbastarder

just dug out some figures - between 1997 and 2006, 124 pedestrians were killed in dublin city. i can't remember when the fatality linked to a cyclist occured, but if we place it within that time frame, that means that a pedestrian was 123 times as likely to be killed by a car than by a cyclist.

also:

Being hit by a car travelling at 30kmh carries a 5pc risk of a fatality, compared with 45pc for 50kmh and 85pc for 60kmh.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pedestrian-deaths-fall-despite-daredevil-antics-2892428.html

bikes rarely get much above 30km/h in cities - so the chance of being killed by a cyclist, even in a 'fast' bike collision is small. cars regularly exceed 50km/h. please don't try to argue that bikes are a greater danger.

FionnK86

The Gardaì and RSA should put up road safety ads on the telly for taking roundabouts for both drivers and cyclists. Its only a fender bender when drivers don't follow the rules, but I've twice gotten hit(and to add these were the only road accidents I've been involved in.) while cycling using my arm as indicator because some fool tries to overtake.You take your life in your hands using one as a cyclist. Both cyclists and drivers don't have enough knowledge on how to use roundabouts.:mad: Im angry!

Undercover Elephant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For cyclists to suggest that cars are a greater danger to pedestrians in cities is complete bullsh!t. Cycling through a pedestrian crossing is simply unacceptable. I have rarely if ever seen a car do this, and I see cyclists do it every single day on Dame Street.

Are we doing Dame Street stories? Yesterday evening a driver decided it would be a good idea to turn right straight across me. On the bright side, I broke the record for the most stopping power ever achieved by the brakes on a dublinbike.

Because I was then stopped, the car behind it also turned across me, scattering pedestrians crossing the side street as it accelerated. An equal opportunities menace.

magicbastarder

the number of pedestrianised areas in dublin is lower than it should be.
and they should try the model of removing all road markings and traffic signs and signals, too - but maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

UCDVet

Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists can all be jackasses and break the law.

Percentage wise though - I see far more jackasses on bicycles.

magicbastarder

percentage wise, jackasses on bicycles are far less dangerous than jackasses in cars.

magicbastarder

it just ****ing bugs me that if i have to weave through traffic on my bike, due to insufficient facilities supplied for cyclists, i'm all of a sudden classed as the danger.
i'm not the one who is clogging up the roads in a one and half ton vehicle, sitting in it on my own (i once read that for every 100 cars in dublin city centre, there are 121 people being transported), polluting the atmosphere.

part of the reason people want to cycle - and part of the reason they should be able to cycle - is that it's faster and cheaper than running a car. but there are so many roads that are simply dangerous for cyclists (unless they were to use the footpath, but that seems to warrant financial penalty), and some of the methods by which cyclists try to obviate this danger gets them treated roughly the same as drunken idiots pissing in doorways.

why should we prioritise the person who takes up 2.5m of road over the person who takes up 1m of road?
if cyclists got decent cycling facilities, you'd see a lot of the risky behaviour fall away.

UCDVet

magicbastarder wrote: »

it just ****ing bugs me that if i have to weave through traffic on my bike, due to insufficient facilities supplied for cyclists, i'm all of a sudden classed as the danger.
i'm not the one who is clogging up the roads in a one and half ton vehicle, sitting in it on my own (i once read that for every 100 cars in dublin city centre, there are 121 people being transported), polluting the atmosphere.

part of the reason people want to cycle - and part of the reason they should be able to cycle - is that it's faster and cheaper than running a car. but there are so many roads that are simply dangerous for cyclists (unless they were to use the footpath, but that seems to warrant financial penalty), and some of the methods by which cyclists try to obviate this danger gets them treated roughly the same as drunken idiots pissing in doorways.

why should we prioritise the person who takes up 2.5m of road over the person who takes up 1m of road?
if cyclists got decent cycling facilities, you'd see a lot of the risky behaviour fall away.

I don't know about that.

I used to cycle in Dublin along Wilton Terrace. It has dedicated bicycle lanes and even traffic lights for the cyclists. Literally, they have 'Red lights' with cyclists on them - but even still, the cyclists regularly disregard them and ride into traffic or cross when the pedestrian lights are on.

I can't imagine much better cycling facilities, short of building a roof to block the rain....

JuliusCaesar

magicbastarder wrote: »

percentage wise, jackasses on bicycles are far less dangerous than jackasses in cars.

From the Guardian:

in accidents were a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases. The vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time while 39% of the time it wasn't clear.

seamus

^^ Was just about to post it.

More important I think than the actual figure is that it's a perfect example of how lazy stereotyping ("most cyclist accidents are caused by cyclist law-breaking") can lead to unnecessary action like the current Garda campaign.

They're UK figures, but the UK cycling environment is very similar to our own, though I get the impression that drivers in London are a bit more hostile than in Dublin.

UCDVet

magicbastarder wrote: »

percentage wise, jackasses on bicycles are far less dangerous than jackasses in cars.

Absolutely.

But that's no reason to *not* enforce the law when a jackass is breaking it. Smoking weed isn't very dangerous, but we should still enforce the law, shouldn't we? Shoplifting isn't very dangerous either.

magicbastarder

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't know about that.

i did say 'some'; i've seen actions of stupid cyclists myself.
one of my favourites - i used to cycle on sandford road in ranelagh, southbound in the mornings.
at the junction of sandford road and marlborough road - where the bus stop sign is here:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.322126,-6.246956&spn=0.00181,0.005284&t=m&z=18
i'd regularly get caught by the lights, but several times, was passed by a chap who would cycle through the lights like they weren't there.
one day, i was waiting at the lights, and he sailed past - at speed, and straight into the bumper of a car which was coming off marlborough road onto sandford road; if the car had been one foot further along, he'd not have been able to avoid slamming into the side of the car.
anyway, he managed to make junk of his (expensive - deore XT, i think) rear derailleur and take a few other chunks out of his bike.

the idiot turned to me to demand i take his side and act as witness against the driver. he wasn't impressed with me when i told him where to go.

SiegHeilNosey

magicbastarder wrote: »

to echo the post above - in the last 20 years in ireland, at most one pedestrian fatality can be linked to a cyclist.
i'm not even going to guess what the number of pedestrians killed by cars is.

If you include injuries in that, i guarantee you the figure isnt that low, and also, you arent taking into account the proportion of cyclists to cars.

The amount of crazy cyclists breaking all sorts of lights, pulling out in front of buses, cars. Mounting foot paths then pulling back off into cycle lanes and wondering why the bus driver is angry behind him...


If you even take the red light breaking... i see atleast 20-30 bikes A DAY doing it in a 25 min walk to work, no cars..


(there are alot of crazy motorists too, but they dont show blatant disregard for laws, they are just retards)

JuliusCaesar

Road design may be a good part of the problem. (not sure how to upload pics)

JuliusCaesar

^^ The quote is

Who would build such a street? They would be declared insane. Yet this system of traffic control is applied for cycle paths – which are then claimed to be safe.

magicbastarder

SiegHeilNosey wrote: »

If you even take the red light breaking... i see atleast 20-30 bikes A DAY doing it in a 25 min walk to work, no cars..


(there are alot of crazy motorists too, but they dont show blatant disregard for laws, they are just retards)

you don't see motorists breaking lights? you don't see motorists showing blatant disregard for laws? do you live in 1857?

SiegHeilNosey

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't see motorists breaking lights? you don't see motorists showing blatant disregard for laws? do you live in 1857?

there was no motorists back then...

and no very little.... jaysus... talk about ignoring the point of my post.

OK, to simplify for you, for every motorist i see breaking a law, i see 30 cyclists break a law. Id have no problem on monday morning recording my journey and you could see for youself...

let me put it this way, while walking to work, a car has never broke a red light and nearly hit me in the last 6 months im walking this route, it happens atleast once a week if not more with cyclists.

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't see motorists breaking lights? you don't see motorists showing blatant disregard for laws? do you live in 1857?

A 25 minute walk isn't that long, he probably only passes a handful of lights, and even then he would only arrive at the lights when they were already green/red rather than observing them changing, as someone using the road would.

There are 40-something sets of lights on my commute. For every junction I have to stop at and observe, 9 times out of ten a car will drive through an amber or red. Especially in the morning. In fact, in the morning the rule seems to be that if the car in front of you is part of a queue, then you can ignore lights altogether and just keep following the guy in front.

SiegHeilNosey

seamus wrote: »

A 25 minute walk isn't that long, he probably only passes a handful of lights, and even then he would only arrive at the lights when they were already green/red rather than observing them changing, as someone using the road would.

There are 40-something sets of lights on my commute. For every junction I have to stop at and observe, 9 times out of ten a car will drive through an amber or red. Especially in the morning. In fact, in the morning the rule seems to be that if the car in front of you is part of a queue, then you can ignore lights altogether and just keep following the guy in front.

i probably pass about 10-12 traffic lights so not that many. Listen i dont have a gripe with cyclists, in fact id do it myself if it wasnt for the weather in this feckin country.

But im not imagining things, cars do break amber lights, im not crossing a road when an amber light is showing though.

When the green man is showing and the light for traffic is clearly red, alot of cyclists seem to think its ok to fly through it. its crazy. Thats only 1 example

opti0nal

SiegHeilNosey wrote: »

OK, to simplify for you, for every motorist i see breaking a law, i see 30 cyclists break a law. Id have no problem on monday morning recording my journey and you could see for youself...

78% of motorists break urban speed limits, so by your calculation: 2,230% of cyclists break traffic laws?

Does not compute.

And that's before you count cars parked on footpaths or the drivers who don't stop for amber traffic lights.

magicbastarder

SiegHeilNosey wrote: »

Listen i dont have a gripe with cyclists, in fact id do it myself if it wasnt for the weather in this feckin country.

you'd be surprised; most people think cycling to work involves getting rained on every second morning.
on the east coast, it rains about one day in two. and your chances of being rained on during a day where there is rain is relatively small - so your chances of rain in a 30 minute commute is actually quite small.

Andy-Pandy

SiegHeilNosey wrote: »

Listen i dont have a gripe with cyclists, in fact id do it myself if it wasnt for the weather in this feckin country.

Wimp

SerialComplaint

SiegHeilNosey wrote: »

Id have no problem on monday morning recording my journey and you could see for youself...

I think you're way off the mark on your estimates about cyclist vs motorists offences here, but you might be onto something with your suggestion about recording. I might try it for one of my runs next week, and we can have a 'spot the lawbreaker' competition. Maybe you should do the same?

There does seem to be a huge amount of cycling lawbreaking in the city centre all right, but not so much in the 'burbs.

magicbastarder

anyway, rain is not the natural weather enemy of the cyclist - a headwind is.
on a commute i used to do - leopardstown to blanchardstown - my fastest time was 47 minutes (good tailwind), and the slowest was 1hr 25 mins, on a day where i was blown to a complete standstill three times. that was a soul destroying cycle.

yet i still managed to feel superior to all the plebs in the cars.

humbert

That's the thing about cycling.

You can cycle to work in a gale, face beetroot red from the icy cold rain, a miserable sight to behold, but still arrive at work and after a quick dry off/shower feel fantastic. Instead of feeling tired and frustrated after being stuck in a car in one long queue for 30 minutes.

opti0nal

SerialComplaint wrote: »

you might be onto something with your suggestion about recording. I might try it for one of my runs next week, and we can have a 'spot the lawbreaker' competition. Maybe you should do the same?

Let's get to metrics - we need to agree about how offences are counted. Clearly not stopping for a traffic light counts as one offence. But speeding? Should it be counted just once or should it be counted for every 50 metres the driver exceeds the limit?

That way, if a cyclist breaks traffic lights twice in 1000 metres, that would be two offences, but a driver exceeding the speed limit for 1km, should perhaps be counted as 20 offences? Footpath cycling could be counted in a similar fashion.

Similarly, illegal parking: 1 offence or more, say, for every 5 minutes the car is illegally parked?