Irish Times - Rag

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

You see here you go again with more of these straw man arguments. Point out anywhere in this thread where anyone has said that any laws should be "freely ignored".

Well you did for a start. For example in response to this:

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Having lived and cycled in Dublin city centre for years now, I'm still amazed at how some people can claim the only way to cycle safely is by breaking road traffic laws, such as breaking lights or going the wrong way down a one way street.

You said:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your comment indicated that you have a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy.

Are you back pedalling now (to pardon the pun;)) and agreeing that people don't need to break lights or go the wrong way down a one way street in order to cycle safely.

Raam

galwaycyclist wrote: »

the law on contraception...<snip> life is way too short.

There is a joke in there somewhere.

Chips Lovell

enas wrote: »

But I do claim indeed that the law should be changed to exempt cyclists from one-way restrictions. Mentioning other countries is merely a way to add weight to my argument, to show that it's something perfectly reasonable and that I'm not an old ranter who's lost it.

But we're not talking about changing the laws, we're talking about people who feel they are entitled to break existing laws on safety grounds.

enas

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

But we're not talking about changing the laws, we're talking about people who feel they are entitled to break existing laws on safety grounds.

Sorry, but, as galwaycyclist is also trying to tell you, I will have to respectfully observe that you're the only one talking about this (in the quotes you show, galwaycyclist makes the same point I'm making).

Jawgap

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes this is a fair point but the problem is that in Ireland our officialdom does not do the whole "adapt the rules to changing situation" thing very well.

The analogy I draw is with the law on contraception in this country. The state jumped through hoops trying to keep it illegal. Some campaigners tried to get the law/situation changed against trenchant opposition from established interests - there is a clear parallel here with the one-way street situation.

In the meantime the rest of the population made up their own minds and just got on with life - finding Irish solutions to an Irish problem. Eventually the situation got so ludicrous that the state had to give in. Asking the general population to wait 20-30 years for the Irish state to catch up with the rest of the world just wasn't going to happen - life is way too short.

Are the Catholic Hierarchy engaged in clandestine lobbying of Leo to prevent the introduction of contra-flow cycling on one-way streets for cyclists??????

It's simple, as a road user a cyclist should follow the law of the land - or go do something else.

Chips Lovell

enas wrote: »

Sorry, but, as galwaycyclist is also trying to tell you, I will have to respectfully observe that you're the only one talking about this (your quotes of galwaycyclist posts make the same point I'm making).

The original post I made on the topic, which galwaycyclist responded to, is quoted above.

galwaycyclist

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

But we're not talking about changing the laws, we're talking about people who feel they are entitled to break existing laws on safety grounds.

No you were the only one trying to talk about this, you were arguably tr****ng, the rest of us have been trying to be polite about it and keep the conversation going.

Ole Rodrigo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Yes this is a fair point but the problem is that in Ireland our officialdom does not do the whole "adapt the rules to changing situation" thing very well.

The analogy I draw is with the law on contraception in this country. The state jumped through hoops trying to keep it illegal. Some campaigners tried to get the law/situation changed against trenchant opposition from established interests - there is a clear parallel here with the one-way street situation.

In the meantime the rest of the population made up their own minds and just got on with life - finding Irish solutions to an Irish problem. Eventually the situation got so ludicrous that the state had to give in. Asking the general population to wait 20-30 years for the Irish state to catch up with the rest of the world just wasn't going to happen - life is way too short.

Well, with respect, the contraception issue was sullied by the relationship between church and state, and this is a practical matter of traffic flow management which will hopefully be solved (or left as is) by a few technocrats rather than state representatives.

manwithaplan

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Wrong, I described a situation this morning where a truck switched into the left lane without indicating, driving up on the footpath in the process.

That forced me to brake suddenly. If I had held my line, and assumed that the driver was following the rules.....that would have been me goosed. The point here being that the assumption you are making is that at a busy junction, if I hold my line in the traffic I will be ok......not if the drivers around me behave like that.

On a road with zero traffic, i dont have to worry about bad driver behaviour.

On a road with lots of traffic, I do have to worry about it. Ergo it is less safe.

I can point to instances where drivers and other road users have done all sorts of stupid things in all sorts of situations involving all sorts of road infrastructure and traffic configurations. It doesn't mean the places where those things happened are inherently unsafe.

You must know that you can negotiate that junction perfectly safely. If you can't, I'm not sure what you're doing on a bike.

enas

Jawgap wrote: »

a cyclist should follow the law of the land - or go do something else.

Or the cyclist could keep cycling while trying to change things he's not happy with. As Georges Bernard Shaw (an Irishman) put it:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Beasty

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No you were the only one trying to talk about this, you were arguably tr****ng, the rest of us have been trying to be polite about it and keep the conversation going.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Do not accuse anyone of trolling in thread - that's back-seat modding

Where a mod is actively involved in a thread as is clearly the case here one of the other mods will look to deal with any reoprted posts

Now let's keep it all civil

Any questions, PM me - do not respond in thread

Qualitymark

Jawgap wrote: »

An article discussing the best way to lock and secure bikes would be better for all concerned - it's a totally preventable crime.

Not from what I've been reading; you can go through all modern locks like butter with a gadget the size of a can of WD40, or so I'm told.

(Rape too is totally preventable; you just have to dress in a long, tent-like grey frock and keep your eyes to the ground at all times.)

Jawgap

enas wrote: »

Or the cyclist could keep cycling while trying to change things he's not happy with. As Georges Bernard Shaw (an Irishman) put it:

Absolutely, but in the mean time, they should stick to the rules, rather than pre-emptively ignoring them in anticipation of them being changed

enas

Jawgap wrote: »

Absolutely, but in the mean time, they should stick to the rules, rather than pre-emptively ignoring them in anticipation of them being changed

Which, contrarily to the allegations, none of us here suggested we should do.

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

Not from what I've been reading; you can go through all modern locks like butter with a gadget the size of a can of WD40, or so I'm told.

(Rape too is totally preventable; you just have to dress in a long, tent-like grey frock and keep your eyes to the ground at all times.)

there's only one response to that analogy.......

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No you were the only one trying to talk about this

So you responded to my initial post, which said it was was possible cycle safely is without breaking lights or going the wrong way down a one way street and are now saying that isn't the topic of our conversation at all? OK. I'm not sure what I can do with that.

enas

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So you responded to my initial post, which said it was was possible cycle safely is without breaking lights or going the wrong way down a one way street and are now saying that isn't the topic of our conversation at all? OK. I'm not sure what I can do with that.

I'm sure you're genuinely missing the point, so I'll try once more to make that clearer. You're claiming that some people feel it's OK to deliberately break the rules they find inconvenient, and that this is what we're talking of. You even claimed that galwaycyclist himself defends that view, by quoting some of his posts (see your post 152). Except that in this post, and indeed in none of the posts in this thread, is this view defended. The view that is being defended is that there is no valid reason to impose one-way restrictions to cyclists, and indeed, there are many valid reasons (security and convenience) not to impose them on cyclists. Simple as that.

Chips Lovell

You'll have to forgive me in that case for thinking "Your comment indicated that you have a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy" was somehow not disagreeing with me.

enas

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me in that case for thinking "Your comment indicated that you have a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy" was somehow not disagreeing with me.

Oh, he surely disagreed with you. But not in the way you pretend.

I'm summarising the exchange (so sorry for paraphrasing): you say you can cycle perfectly safely while respecting all one-way restrictions and red lights (your opinion, you're entitled to it obviously), he says no you can't, claiming so means you don't understand cycling safety (his opinion, maybe a bit too assertively defended), you conclude by accusing him of saying that people are free to break any law they don't like. Do you still not see where you lost us?

Either way, it's coming to an standstill, so I'll try to stop here, and give the thread a chance to get back on topic.

EDIT: That reminds of another quote from Georges Bernard Shaw:

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

There's an awful lot of self-righteousness on this thread.

I don't mind admitting it - I break the law all the time (including when cycling and - I regret to say - when driving). There are countless 'laws' in this country that I don't respect and I don't intend to obey. And frankly, anyone who says otherwise is lying.

So let's stop the holier-than-thou nonsense.

In my defence, what I will always do is cycle and drive with the greatest possible respect for other road users. So if I am cycling down a one-way street, I'll do it with care and I will always yield with no fuss to oncoming traffic. If I break a red light, it will be in a way that ensures nobody is harmed or inconvenienced by it.

BTW I know that road in phibsboro and it is dangerous, and I would far rather my children cycled the wrong way down Munster Street to avoid it.

Lastly this is interesting. Not conclusive, but interesting. I believe it is a valid theory, that's for sure: http://road.cc/content/news/76510-stats-reveal-londons-deadly-cycling-zone%E2%80%A6-if-youre-woman

"One finding from such studies is that females may be more at risk because they are more likely to stop at red lights and to ride to the left to keep out of the way of traffic – something that then puts them in the danger zone of a left turning lorry."

dogsears

enas wrote: »

You're claiming that some people feel it's OK to deliberately break the rules they find inconvenient, and that this is what we're talking of. You even claimed that galwaycyclist himself defends that view, by quoting some of his posts (see your post 152). Except that in this post, and indeed in none of the posts in this thread, is this view defended.

What about:

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd be quite happy to point to instances where it is safer to break the rules.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I suspect that many potential cyclists would disagree with you. Clearly many people do feel the need to use one-way streets in both directions otherwise we wouldn't be hearing complaints and sneers from people such as yourself.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The point I made is that it is safer to drive cycle down an empty street, with no traffic on it, even if its going the wrong way down a one way street, than it is to cycle down a busy street with lots of traffic on it that is swerving from lane to lane and leaving no room for cyclists

enas wrote: »

Why am I saying all that? You asked for examples where breaking the rules makes sense from the point of view of the cyclist's security and comfort.

enas wrote: »

Furthermore, until it becomes legal, I won't morally blame those (of which I'm not) who do it any more than I used to blame those cyclists who illegally refused to use cycle lanes before the latest change in the law (of which I was).

Perhaps the position you're advocating now on the thread is that it makes sense to allow certain things that aren't allowed now, so the relevant rules should be changed. That's fine, but its pretty clear from the above that the initial point being defended was that its OK to break the rules now i.e. before they're changed.

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't mind admitting it - I break the law all the time (including when cycling and - I regret to say - when driving). There are countless 'laws' in this country that I don't respect and I don't intend to obey. And frankly, anyone who says otherwise is lying.

I particularly like the quotes you put around 'laws'.

TinyExplosions

Deleted User wrote: »

So let's stop the holier-than-thou nonsense.

There really hasn't been -at no point did anyone give out about people breaking the law -the entire thrust of the conversation has been on the justification of it as being ok for safety reasons.

You have one camp that contend it is perfectly safe to cycle in and around Dublin while obeying red lights, one way streets etc, and you have the other camp saying that for safety's sake they take a different view.

The bone of contention is that it's got nothing to do with safety at all, but that people are choosing to break the law for convenience, laziness, or some other reason and that to try and wrap it in a blanket of 'safety' is wrong. It's the wording and justification causing the discussion, not the acts themselves!

TinyExplosions

TinyExplosions wrote: »

There really hasn't been -at no point did anyone give out about people breaking the law -the entire thrust of the conversation has been on the justification of it as being ok for safety reasons.

You have one camp that contend it is perfectly safe to cycle in and around Dublin while obeying red lights, one way streets etc, and you have the other camp saying that for safety's sake they take a different view.

The bone of contention is that it's got nothing to do with safety at all, but that people are choosing to break the law for convenience, laziness, or some other reason and that to try and wrap it in a blanket of 'safety' is wrong. It's the wording and justification causing the discussion, not the acts themselves!

"It's simple, as a road user a cyclist should follow the law of the land - or go do something else. "

that's on the last page. I am sure I could find plenty more if I could be bothered.

Read the link I posted on the safety or otherwise of breaking the law. Evidence suggests that male cyclists who break red lights are safer. It isn't conclusive, but I will tell you now - if I am at a traffic light and a lorry pulls up next to me with his left turning indicators on, I'll break those lights all day long.

dogsears

Deleted User wrote: »

but I will tell you now - if I am at a traffic light and a lorry pulls up next to me with his left turning indicators on, I'll break those lights all day long.

No need. If you're at the front of the queue, go to the centre of the lane, in front of everyone, then any lorry that comes along has to be behind you.

If you're further back, and so away from the turn, all you have to do is let the lorry go before you.

Still safe, but perhaps a little inconvenienced.

MrCreosote

Deleted User wrote: »

It isn't conclusive, but I will tell you now - if I am at a traffic light and a lorry pulls up next to me with his left turning indicators on, I'll break those lights all day long.

dogsears wrote: »

No need. If you're at the front of the queue, go to the centre of the lane, in front of everyone, then any lorry that comes along has to be behind you.

If you're further back, and so away from the turn, all you have to do is let the lorry go before you.

Still safe, but perhaps a little inconvenienced.

Seems to me he's suggesting he's already at the lights when a left-turning lorry pulls up alongside. What to do then? Cycle back 20m just so the lorry can safely complete the turn or get a headstart/break the light like any normal person would?

dogsears

dogsears wrote: »

No need. If you're at the front of the queue, go to the centre of the lane, in front of everyone, then any lorry that comes along has to be behind you.

If you're further back, and so away from the turn, all you have to do is let the lorry go before you.

Still safe, but perhaps a little inconvenienced.

Most cyclists will tell you that taking up the entire lane at any junction, whilst in theory good practice, = horns beeped, shouts of "get off the f**king road" and quite possibly deliberate 'near misses' from angry motorists. Not worth it.

galwaycyclist

Deleted User wrote: »

"One finding from such studies is that females may be more at risk because they are more likely to stop at red lights and to ride to the left to keep out of the way of traffic – something that then puts them in the danger zone of a left turning lorry."

This was controversial at the time and I am not sure that it was ever published. However, somewhere in my files I have a report on injuries at pedestrian (traffic light) crossings that was done in the 1980s and was published - if not widely publicised.

The finding was that for female pedestrian casualties 77% were hit while they had the "steady green man" signal. This was greater than the proportion of women who waited for the green signal. It was apparently more dangerous for female pedestrians to obey the rules than not.

Note: this not the same thing as saying male pedestrians are safer.

Edit: On the women being more at risk because they stop at lights theory - that link refers to new research by a concerned party - but there have been rumours of an official (but internal use only) report in London with similar findings a few years back.

Lumen

MrCreosote wrote: »

Seems to me he's suggesting he's already at the lights when a left-turning lorry pulls up alongside. What to do then? Cycle back 20m just so the lorry can safely complete the turn or get a headstart/break the light like any normal person would?

It is not possible to get run over by a left-turning vehicle if you are stopped behind the stop line, like any normal person would be.

galwaycyclist

dogsears wrote: »

What about:
Perhaps the position you're advocating now on the thread is that it makes sense to allow certain things that aren't allowed now, so the relevant rules should be changed. That's fine, but its pretty clear from the above that the initial point being defended was that its OK to break the rules now i.e. before they're changed.

No a claim was made that it is safer to cycle down one street in a particular direction than to use another street. That's it no more no less. Others have tried to extrapolate that into some kind of blanket accusation that people are saying that its ok to break the law whenever you want.

Thats a really, really, really, big stretch. I am still waiting for the "end of civilisation as we know it" and the "won't somebody please think of the children" arguments. I am sure we might also get some rosary beads and "down with that kind of thing" placards after a while as well.