Quick question about running on narrow roads without footpaths...

statss

....around the Dublin mountain area.

On a long run the other week I got a bit of a fright. For those who know the South Dublin lower mountain area, I ran up Stocking Lane, turned left on Mount Venus Road, and headed towards Tibradden Road. I was running facing the traffic in a high vis jacket.

This was my first time running around here alone. On Mount Venus Road, there is a few sharp bends and little by way of a footpath. On one such bend, I was running facing the traffic on the right hand side, when a car came flying around the bend on the left hand side. I jumped aside without thinking, and was fairly shaken up, as there was no way the car would have had time to stop had I not got out of the way. Previous to this happening I was listening out for cars and stopping in out of the way as they approached.

I switched over to running on the left hand side and felt much safer, even though I had to look back over my shoulder a good bit when cars approached.

I could be wrong, but, I always thought you should run/walk facing traffic. Is this wrong?

It’s been playing on my mind since and I planning a similar run tomorrow, maybe up to Ticknock Forest and back down, and then again up Kilmasogue Lane and back down. If there are safer loops around South Dublin I can get a good hill run in do let me know.

Here’s the link to the route I took last time. Summary - what's the safest side to be running on?

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/277086513

BeepBeep67

Run facing the traffic and on blind bends switch over when safe to do so. On semi blind bends I always move out from the edge, the car sees you sooner and you have somewhere to move to.

menoscemo

I know this road really well and have never had any problems.

I think the trick when running on roads is to put yourself in the mind of the drivers. While running into the traffic is correct, that's only because you can see it and the driver can see you from afar. When entering a blind corner you can't see the car coming and the driver can't see you either, so always switch to the other side. At least that way the driver coming on your side of the road will be able to see you. On Mt Venus Rd and similar roads I am always switching back and forth across the rd to always stay on the safest side.

statss

ah, switch over for blind bends, that's total common sense alright. Very silly/dangerous of me not have copped on to that at the time. thanks guys.

nerraw1111

I know the road well and the turns are tight.

Switch over to the left side when approaching a tight bend. That way you won’t be wiped out be a car taking the corner tightly and you’ll also see the traffic coming behind you. You’ll find yourself switching a few times. But switch early.
If you can’t see the car coming, they can’t see you.

robinph

Yep, always switch to the outside of the bends where needed. Otherwise, run towards the traffic on straights or less bendy roads where the visibility is OK for oncoming traffic.

Walkedit

statss wrote: »

ah, switch over for blind bends, that's total common sense alright. Very silly/dangerous of me not have copped on to that at the time. thanks guys.

Glad you asked that, I've been like you and not considered crossing just tucked in on corners
I may survive a bit longer now

RoyMcC

It's a subject that bugs me. When growing up (admittedly a long time ago) ALL us kids were taught to walk facing the oncoming traffic where there was no pavement. It was on the back of all our exercise books and was one of several instructions known as the Kerb Drill. (This was in the UK right enough). All teachers and parents knew this.
Nowadays you never hear of this common sense approach being mentioned. You therefore get 50% of walkers/runners on the left, the other 50% on the right. And the motor traffic is squeezed down the middle.
Yet mention this to the left-sided people and they think you're a loony

robinph

RoyMcC wrote: »

It's a subject that bugs me. When growing up (admittedly a long time ago) ALL us kids were taught to walk facing the oncoming traffic where there was no pavement. It was on the back of all our exercise books and was one of several instructions known as the Kerb Drill. (This was in the UK right enough). All teachers and parents knew this.
Nowadays you never hear of this common sense approach being mentioned. You therefore get 50% of walkers/runners on the left, the other 50% on the right. And the motor traffic is squeezed down the middle.
Yet mention this to the left-sided people and they think you're a loony

We had Darth Vader come to our school to tell us about road safety, you don't argue with him.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

We had Darth Vader come to our school to tell us about road safety, you don't argue with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRUBMBi_lp4

statss

faced the road in question again this morning and I moved over for the bends....was grand...except for the fact it was foggy so could barely see anything ahead of me.... squeaky bum time for a while....

The_Nipper_One

I'd second the advice everyone else gave as it's what I do myself; cross over.

Technically you should be walking toward the traffic as you say, but if these drivers are on you so fast that they can't stop, it's them at fault.

I'm a learner myself, so it's fresh in my mind that the speed you do should be restricted by your visibility. That is to say, you should be able to stop in the distance you can observe ahead. If these guys are coming around a blind corner they should be going slow enough to stop and anticipating pedestrians.

walshb

The_Nipper_One wrote: »

Technically you should be walking toward the traffic as you say, but if these drivers are on you so fast that they can't stop, it's them at fault.
.

That's not much comfort when you're 6 feet under. I know in some areas it's diffficult for people to run. I just can't see the need to run such a risk on narrow roads with no pedestrian footpath. Surely there is a field or area close to your home that you can get to and run on in relative safety? Running on these pathless roads is too dangerous. You can be as alert and careful as you want, but you cannot legislate for drivers.

robinph

I don't agree with the idea of pedestrians giving up the use of a road because of car drivers being idiots and driving too fast. By doing that you are just making it acceptable for the car drivers to drive inappropriately for the conditions because they then know there isn't any pedestrians going to be on the road around the next corner.

Similar to how cyclist now tend to ride on footpaths because they are scared of cars, so now it it the cyclists that are taking over the space designed for pedestrians. If more people on bikes carried on using the roads and people ran along the country roads and made use of them, that will make the cars have to drive more appropriately.

Of course I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything unsafe on the roads, but keeping away from using the roads makes them yet more dangerous for everyone.

PaulieC

robinph wrote: »

Similar to how cyclist now tend to ride on footpaths because they are scared of cars, so now it it the cyclists that are taking over the space designed for pedestrians.

Makes my f****n blood boil that does. It happened to me last week at the railway crossing at the Aviva. Myself and a cyclist were waiting for the gates to open and when they did, I ran across and onto the path on the other side of the tracks. Much to my amazement so did the cyclist. The path is very narrow and he basically ran me into the wall. He was shocked when a let out a volley of expletives at him and said he was entitled to go on the path because the road was so narrow. He's lucky he wasn't pushed off his bike tbh. Cyclists really annoy me with their holier than thou attitude towards both motorists, pedestrians and runners.

OP sorry for the OT

statss

Not to worry Paulie! As a runner, cyclist and motorist I can see all arguments, ha

To walshb, the only reason I am running around this area is that these narrow roads lead to hilly routes which I need to train on for a hilly marathon. Not ideal but I don't know of alternative safer route in my area.

PaulieC

statss wrote: »

Not to worry Paulie! As a runner, cyclist and motorist I can see all arguments, ha.

Yes, obviously all cyclists are not the same, neither all runners and pedestrians and motorists are saints. I suppose everyone is a little bit of each, but since I rode a scooter a few years back I am much more aware of cyclists and motorcyclists and obviously very aware of runners. This does make the bad ones very apparent though

robinph

PaulieC wrote: »

Yes, obviously all cyclists are not the same, neither all runners and pedestrians and motorists are saints. I suppose everyone is a little bit of each, but since I rode a scooter a few years back I am much more aware of cyclists and motorcyclists and obviously very aware of runners. This does make the bad ones very apparent though

A few years of riding a two wheeled vehicle on the roads should be compulsory before anyone is allowed to have a license for a four wheeled vehicle. Would make the roads a far safer place for everyone.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

I don't agree with the idea of pedestrians giving up the use of a road because of car drivers being idiots and driving too fast. By doing that you are just making it acceptable for the car drivers to drive inappropriately for the conditions because they then know there isn't any pedestrians going to be on the road around the next corner.

Similar to how cyclist now tend to ride on footpaths because they are scared of cars, so now it it the cyclists that are taking over the space designed for pedestrians. If more people on bikes carried on using the roads and people ran along the country roads and made use of them, that will make the cars have to drive more appropriately.

Of course I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything unsafe on the roads, but keeping away from using the roads makes them yet more dangerous for everyone.

It may not at all be an issue with speed. Simple: No footpath runs a massive risk to a runner. Yes, if drivers were perfectly safe and runners were perfectly safe then the risks reduce, but there are also other factors. Bad road, gust of wind etc etc. The slightest error on either part could see a fatality.

robinph

Cars are the massive risk to pedestrians on country roads, not the footpaths or lack of them. People have managed to get on perfectly OK walking on country roads for years, but in the last 5 years or so people for some reason seem to be more scared of using them. That lack of use does actually make the roads more dangerous. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Cars are the massive risk to pedestrians on country roads, not the footpaths or lack of them. People have managed to get on perfectly OK walking on country roads for years, but in the last 5 years or so people for some reason seem to be more scared of using them. That in lack of use does actually make the roads more dangerous. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

That's my point. And if it's true then it's logical to assume that being on a road with cars is dangerous. Always always has been. That is why we have footpaths. So pedestrians can be that bit safer. Now, in the absence of footpaths the pedestrian puts him/herself in more danger if they choose to go onto a road where cars will be. For running or walking. In a perfect world where everyone is so so alert and careful and mindful, and in perfect conditions, road conditions and weather conditions, the risks are reduced. We don't live in this world.

BTW, plenty of people thru the years have not managed to get on perfectly well whilst walking on country roads with no footpaths. Plenty have died because the lack of a footpath placed them on the road with cars. I'll take my chances with a footpath every time. And, even then there's a risk, but there has to be more risk without one.

robinph

We are not actually disagreeing about what dangers there are.

I do disagree that the solution is to keep away from running on country roads though. The roads are there to be used by us all.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

I do disagree that the solution is to keep away from running on country roads though. The roads are there to be used by us all.

But there is no law banning a runner, is there? Sure, use them, but again, why run such a risk? I certainly wouldn't have that attitude: "It's probaly the car's fault if I get hit." It's of little comfort to me in a coffin or wheelchair.

As for solutions: I cannot see one (non-physical) that would come close to offering the saftety that footpaths off the road offer.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

But there is no law banning a runner, is there? Sure, use them, but again, why run such a risk? I certainly wouldn't have that attitude: "It's the car's fault of I get hit." It's of little comfort to me in a coffin or wheelchair.

Sitting around at home and being inactive because you have decided you can't risk leaving the house for a run/ walk/ cycle along the road is not an acceptable alternative for society.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Sitting around at home and being inactive because you have decided you can't risk leaving the house for a run/ walk/ cycle along the road is not an acceptable alternative for society.

Not sure what point you are making? Yes, take the risk if that is how you feel. But, no point in moaning then if that risk causes your death or permanent injury. I'd like to hear any solutions to a real risk reducer for running on narrow country roads? Apart for from the obvious ones that we employ.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

As for solutions: I cannot see one (non-physical) that would come close to offering the saftety that footpaths off the road offer.

The safety would come with more people making use of the roads.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

The safety would come with more people making use of the roads.

So more people running on narrow country roads will mean that safety will improve? Not sure I see this as a solution. Still means we have cars and runners on roads with no "barrier/path" separating them. That just has no element of safety for me. It promotes anti safety.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

So more people running on narrow country roads will mean that safety will improve? Not sure I see this as a solution. Still means we have cars and runners on roads with no "barrier/path" separating them. That just has no element of safety for me. It promotes anti safety.

Do you mean that you don't believe that more people using the roads as pedestrians/ runners/ cyclist/ horse riders would make the roads safer, or that you don't find that an acceptable improvement?

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Do you mean that you don't believe that more people using the roads as pedestrians/ runners/ cyclist/ horse riders would make the roads safer, or that you don't find that an acceptable improvement?

Placing extra obstacles and people on narrow country roads with moving cars with no footpaths does not at all instill a sense of safety improvement on those roads in my view!

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Placing extra obstacles and people on narrow country roads with moving cars with no footpaths does not at all instill a sense of safety improvement on those roads in my view!

Well that is exactly what it does do. The presence, or likely presence, of people or things in the road ahead will make the cars drive slower and pay more attention to what is going on around them.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Well that is exactly what it does do. The presence, or likely presence, of people or things in the road ahead will make the cars drive slower and pay more attention to what is going on around them.

Yes, I see that. But, also, it places more obstacles in the drivers' sight and leads to a chance that if the first runner escapaes, what about the rest? No, it doesn't make practical sense. I rarely rarely see runners on country roads anyway. I don't think a campaign to increase their presence on country roads will make things safer. Some of these roads barely accommodate cars on both sides.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I see that. But, also, it places more obstacles in the drivers' sight and leads to a chance that if the first runner escapaes, what about the rest? No, it doesn't make practical sense. I rarely rarely see runners on country roads anyway. I don't think a campaign to increase their presence on country roads will make things safer. Some of these roads barely accommodate cars on both sides.

Not suggesting a campaign to get runners on country roads. Just saying that they should not stop using country roads and that car drivers have the responsibility to be aware of other more vulnerable road users.

Now a campaign to get cyclists off footpaths and back on the road where they belong is needed to make both roads and footpaths safer for all, even if that "campaign" just consists of me moaning on here about them.

The_Nipper_One

walshb wrote: »

That's not much comfort when you're 6 feet under.

Which is why I said:

I'd second the advice everyone else gave as it's what I do myself; cross over.

I'd fall on the side which says people should continue to use the roads because they are allowed to. I live in an area where about 4 small towns are all connected by frequently walked roads. A responsible driver will never cause them any danger, and to say that those people shouldn't walk those roads because some bad driver might cause them danger is a destructive attitude to have not just in terms of this specific case of road safety, but in a lot of other areas of society. We may as citizens have the right to do X but we shouldn't because Y is making it unattractive.

But I think it's just a symptom of the widespread bad driving practice in Ireland from what I've seen in my short time on the road. The people driving dangerously in regards to other road users on country roads are the same people who tailgate, do 50 in 30 zones, overtake you despite you doing the speed limit, etc.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Not suggesting a campaign to get runners on country roads. Just saying that they should not stop using country roads and that car drivers have the responsibility to be aware of other more vulnerable road users.

Now a campaign to get cyclists off footpaths and back on the road where they belong is needed to make both roads and footpaths safer for all, even if that "campaign" just consists of me moaning on here about them.

Of course. Car drivers do have a responsilbilty. And, many car drivers know this and try their best. But, like I said, even when everyone is cognisant and alert the inherent risk is always there. Much more so that when footpaths are in place.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

Of course. Car drivers do have a responsilbilty. And, many car drivers know this and try their best. But, like I said, even when everyone is cognisant and alert the inherent risk is always there. Much more so that when footpaths are in place.

Nobody has claimed otherwise.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Nobody has claimed otherwise.

So what are we debating? If we know this then surely it follows that running on narrow country roads should be discouraged mostly, or at least not encouraged! Drive the extra mile or two to find a safer area to run?

jake1970

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I see that. But, also, it places more obstacles in the drivers' sight and leads to a chance that if the first runner escapaes, what about the rest? No, it doesn't make practical sense. I rarely rarely see runners on country roads anyway. I don't think a campaign to increase their presence on country roads will make things safer. Some of these roads barely accommodate cars on both sides.

i run on country roads roads and regularly meet other runners.

robinph

walshb wrote: »

So what are we debating? If we know this then surely it follows that running on narrow country roads should be discouraged mostly, or at least not encouraged! Drive the extra mile or two to find a safer area to run?

No. Running on country road should most definitely not be discouraged, it just needs to be done with awareness of the risks and limiting them where possible by using the correct side of the road, hearing the traffic by not wearing headphones, dressing appropriately etc.

What is being discussed is how to limit the risks without resorting to getting in the car yourself. You just have a far lower level of risk threshold than others.

walshb

jake1970 wrote: »

i run on country roads roads and regularly meet other runners.

Well, where I live I rarely see it. And there are are narrow raods. Far far more people run on the footpaths and in the fields, and I know some who drive their cars to a location to do this. I know I would drive a few miles rather than take the risk.

As I said, even taking great care it's quite dangerous. Yes, 99 runs from 100 you will probably be ok. But, it only takes one to kill you.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

it just needs to be done with awareness of the risks and limiting them where possible by using the correct side of the road, hearing the traffic by not wearing headphones, dressing appropriately etc.

What is being discussed is how to limit the risks without resorting to getting in the car yourself. You just have a far lower level of risk threshold than others.

Yes, and I did mention that even when taking great care that it's still very risky. Lot more than the footpaths. So, for me, I would discourage it. If you have an alternative that isn't too much of an inconvenienece then use it.

ganmo

Hi there I'm a mountain local, there's nothing worse than coming across a big crowd of walkers and they go to both sides of the road! It scares the bejauses out of me when I meet a walker/runner on the inside of a corner!

Personally I'd never send anyone over Mount Venus road walking, its lethal!
but yes on narrow roads make sure that everyone has the best view they can.

As far as footpaths go...theres a bit of a footpath on the bottom of Kilmashogue Lane that is utterly useless! It has caused more crashes by narrowing the road than it has prevented.

I have a few years of cycling too and the cyclist that took to the footpath because the road was too narrow...he should of just cycled in the traffic not in the gutter. Reasonable motorist don't mind travelling behind a bike in traffic.

Button_y

I run on country roads, running where there is footpaths is not an option unless I drive 10 miles to run around a town.
I run on the right and switch as necessary with corners, large potholes etc. I do stay away from a couple of bad areas where there are steep hills and sharp corners. Where I do get concerned is on frosty days when a motorist gets a surprise to see you and brakes! Probably doesn't matter what side of the road your on then! What do others do in this situation, I love running on crisp days.

bambergbike

walshb wrote: »

[...] surely it follows that running on narrow country roads should be discouraged mostly, or at least not encouraged! Drive the extra mile or two to find a safer area to run?

I have neither a car nor a driving licence. And tbh I think that my carbon footprint is probably big and ugly enough already without them, I can't see how adding to it would do much for anybody's safety.