Irish Times - Rag

tomasrojo

A parallel series “On Your Bike” evoked a negative response from some in cyberspace because it was deemed (unfairly) to be pursuing an anti-cycling agenda.

It's great that the Irish Times gets to be the umpire in the debate between boards 410 and ... the Irish Times.

biomed32

Anti cyclig rag continues in themetro this morning for the third week running. This time its a pedestrian saying perhaps the threat of legal action would prevent cyclists from mounting kerbs to avoid lights. On a brighter note she does add that "many cyclists do obey the rules of the road and its selfish idiots that give you all a bad name"

Kav0777

biomed32 wrote: »

Anti cyclig rag continues in themetro this morning for the third week running. This time its a pedestrian saying perhaps the threat of legal action would prevent cyclists from mounting kerbs to avoid lights. On a brighter note she does add that "many cyclists do obey the rules of the road and its selfish idiots that give you all a bad name"

Alright, which one of you panzer formation, downhill free wheeling, pedestrian terrorizing ,spawn of satan, is it that is giving our whole group a bad name?

*points the imaginary finger around the cybserspace room accusingly*

Tombo2001

Jawgap wrote: »

Today's editorial is pretty well balanced - it sums things up nicely!.......

With apologies in advance to the late Bill Shankly:
“Some people believe cycling is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

Of course the sharp-tongued Liverpool FC manager never uttered those words – at least not all of them. His much-abused quote related instead to the importance of soccer which, for obvious reasons, endeared itself to him. But, allowing for a degree of licence, it seems to sum up the depth of feeling that cycling has generated on print and web pages over the last 10 days.
In a precursor to National Bike Week (which concludes tomorrow), the tone was set – at least in part – by Fintan O’Toole. Rising to a hyperbolic height that is a polemicist’s stock in trade, he denounced cyclists as the spawn of the devil. What rendered his views most cutting was the core truth – however uncomfortable on the approach to a week intended to promote bike use – that some cyclists show little regard for pedestrians (not to mention their own safety). At last count, O’Toole’s column had attracted more than 400 comments on irishtimes.com. A parallel series “On Your Bike” evoked a negative response from some in cyberspace because it was deemed (unfairly) to be pursuing an anti-cycling agenda.

......I wonder who they might be referring to?:)

Two points on this

(i) the 'core truth' he refers to is suitably vague - 'some cyclists show little regard for pedestrians'.......how many, what percentage, what does little regard mean, what evidence does he have to make this claim in a meaningful way.

I cycle around all the time.....I see cyclists breaking the rules yes. I dont see cyclists showing disregard for pedestrians.

(ii) It was made quite clear to him (the features editor) that this thread was not accusing the Irish Times of an anti cycling agenda. It was and is accusing the Irish Times of an anti-cyclist agenda. Quite a different thing.

Grudaire

Shure apparently the only thing the Times said wrong about cycling was that they didn't advocate helmets enough:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/on-your-bike-1.1442375

buffalo

Cliste wrote: »

Shure apparently the only thing the Times said wrong about cycling was that they didn't advocate helmets enough:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/on-your-bike-1.1442375

If only someone handsome and articulate would write a letter in response, and have it published in today's paper...

Kav0777

buffalo wrote: »

If only someone handsome and articulate would write a letter in response, and have it published in today's paper...

Oh wait,... look:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/on-your-bike-1.1443562

What an articulate chap too, we could do with someone like him on this forum.

smackyB

What happened to the whole feature on Ireland's worst cycle lanes? Or did I miss it?

Grudaire

Well done on the response

Well written, and you've managed to condense entire extended threads worth of arguments into it

bambergbike

smackyB wrote: »

What happened to the whole feature on Ireland's worst cycle lanes? Or did I miss it?

They didn't get very many of them in, but they have stuck up a few pics, here.

monument

bambergbike wrote: »

They didn't get very many of them in, but they have stuck up a few pics, here.

Christchurch Place design is actually very new. The inside cycle lane was there before in some way, but the rest is new.

bambergbike

Cemetery Road in Sligo is also very new - mysterious line-painting had started and new buildouts and speed-bumps were appearing in odd places when I was in Sligo in December and January, but I haven't seen the end result yet and can't say much about the confusion it seems to have created.

I do get the impression, though, that the designers used much the same design speed (25 km/h?) for the uphill and downhill cycle lanes. To me as a cyclist it seems very obvious that the design should reflect the gradient, rather than one side being more or less a mirror image of the other. I would have assumed that uphill cyclists would typically be doing 10-20 km/h and downhill cyclists 30 - 50 km/h. And then followed from that that downhill cyclists should be mixed with general traffic and uphill cyclists given their own extra-wide climbing lane.

On the downhill leg, I can't see myself using a cycle facility that leaves me stuck in a narrow space between traffic and parked cars while travelling downhill at 30, 40 or 50 km/h. I would want to be well away from the cars and out in the main traffic stream. Motorists don't need to overtake downhill cyclists who are travelling faster than 30 km/h in an urban area, so cycling with the flow of traffic should be as easy as freewheeling down a hill. If any paint markings at all are to be used on the downhill side, I would use them to mark the space next to the car parking spaces as unusable "buffer" road width, not to mark a cycling lane.

On the uphill leg, on the other hand, I can see why cyclists might appreciate being given an extra-wide climbing lane of their own to wobble around in. On a moderately steep hill like this one, cyclists will want to overtake other cyclists, and motorists will want to overtake cyclists, so there will be more interactions between different road users than on the downhill leg. I would mark some unusable "buffer" space next to the wall, and then make the cycle lane as wide as possible, effectively "stealing" width from the other side of the road.

Does anyone have an example of somewhere in Ireland where the designers have clearly taken account of the fact that cyclists travelling in one direction will be much faster than cyclists going the other way?