Cycling & walking: Can anybody stop councils from mixing both?

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you are saying that cyclists will shaare pedestrian facilities whenever and where ever they feel the need, Soooooo why are people complaining when they are beimng allowed to share the facilities legally.... see the hypocrisy being exhibited by posters here!

I'm saying that if cyclists are not properly facilitated they will adapt accordingly.

It's a common sense observation, based on an understanding of human nature.

It is somewhat related to the axiom that "if you pay peanuts you'll get monkeys." I can think of one or two other comparisons that would illustrate the point, but boards.ie wouldn't like them.

Iwannahurl

Daith wrote: »

I definitely missed your answer apparently.

You'll keep missing the point. Horses, water etc.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You'll keep missing the point. Horses, water etc.

Perhaps we all missed where you answered his simple Yes or No question with a Yes ... or No ... answer?

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps we all missed where you answered his simple Yes or No question with a Yes ... or No ... answer?

I certainly missed it, all I see is answers relating to monkeys and peanuts, horses and water etc. !

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Spook_ie -- any change of you answering any of the questions in my last post?

Even just answer this question: Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?




If you bothered to read the opening post, you'd see that the thread is the opposite of a call to mix cyclists and pedestrians.




Your last few posts you have had some rather strange statements which seem to have no link with this thread.

You then refuse to answer questions about how your random statement links with the topic at hand and then you post more randomness. There's a pattern to this and it's what got you banned here before and got banned permanently from the cycling forum.

Answer 1. By slowing down and if required stopping to do so, when joining a different flow of traffic it is often a good idea to ensure that a faster stream of traffic is calmed, cyclists might not like it but I don't like having to slow down either. I just do as and when required by either common curtesy, commen sense or law. Of course they could always use the alternative route of the road


EDIT I notice from the construction photos that they appear to be installing a lowered kerb at the disabled ramp access to the bridge, anyone in Balina prepared to go out and take some relevant photographs
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=54.110219,-9.155122&spn=0.191202,0.441513&cbp=12,11.65,,0,17.87&layer=c&panoid=m80jDLeOOqwng27Gva-8KA&cbll=54.110219,-9.155122&t=m&z=11

2 Yes and my point is that cyclists will complain even when they openly share facilities that are not supposed to be shared, hypocrisy anyone?

3 I think you'll find all my posts have something to do with or against shared facilities, perhaps you'd like to dictate to me what my views should be?

No Pants

I do get Daith and Spook's point here. Regardless of the lack of design, thinking or whatever, if the bridge is a pedestrian only bridge and marked as such, no one has any business cycling across it. In my view it's no different from cycling on the footpath.

Sheldons Brain

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm saying that if cyclists are not properly facilitated they will adapt accordingly.

It's a common sense observation, based on an understanding of human nature.

How about if drink drivers are are not properly facilitated they will adapt accordingly. It's a common sense observation, based on an understanding of human nature. After all why should people respect laws when it doesn't suit them?

Iwannahurl

No Pants wrote: »

I do get Daith and Spook's point here. Regardless of the lack of design, thinking or whatever, if the bridge is a pedestrian only bridge and marked as such, no one has any business cycling across it. In my view it's no different from cycling on the footpath.

Why disregard design/planning/proper engineering/joined-up thinking, or lack of same?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

How about if drink drivers are are not properly facilitated they will adapt accordingly. It's a common sense observation, based on an understanding of human nature. After all why should people respect laws when it doesn't suit them?

What exactly are the parallels (in your mind and in terms of public policy) between alcohol, motor vehicles, drink-driving and the facilitation of sustainable modes of travel?

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What exactly are the parallels (in your mind and in terms of public policy) between alcohol, motor vehicles, drink-driving and the facilitation of sustainable modes of travel?

Drink driving is illegal.

So is cycling on the Sean O'Casey bridge. Both are illegal. Clearly so.

Now, would you be so kind as to answer Daiths simple question, with a Yes or No answer?

monument

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

How about if drink drivers are are not properly facilitated they will adapt accordingly. It's a common sense observation, based on an understanding of human nature. After all why should people respect laws when it doesn't suit them?

When was the last time a council and the department of transport allowed drink drivers to use footpaths?

For the record: I don't support footpath cycling -- I dislike it. But there's a massive problem with official Ireland saying this is ok for cyclists:



But this isn't:



Just in case there's any confusion, please read the opening post -- I don't support mixing cyclists with pedestrians and I'm not for cyclists to be retrospectively allowed access to these pedestrian bridges.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

When was the last time a council and the department of transport allowed drink drivers to use footpaths?

For the record: I don't support footpath cycling -- I dislike it. But there's a massive problem with official Ireland saying this is ok for cyclists:



But this isn't:



Just in case there's any confusion, please read the opening post -- I don't support mixing cyclists with pedestrians and I'm not for cyclists to be retrospectively allowed access to these pedestrian bridges.

And just what is the actual problem of cyclists that are competent using the road ( with a bus lane ! ) and leaving those that want to preamble along a shared footpath if they want. After all you are'nt actually being forced to use them in any case!

Edit

Hate predective text on phones when editing, please don't write preambles when you're cycling it's as bad as texting

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

And just what is the actual problem of cyclists that are competent using the road ( with a bus lane ! ) and leaving those that want to preamble along a shared footpath if they want. After all you are'nt actually being forced to use them in any case!

Some (a minority of) bus and taxi drivers act aggressively around those who use the bus lane and even if they did not mixing cyclists and buses on a narrow lane on a 60km/h road is far from ideal from a safety and comfort point of view.

What else can be said?... Other aggressive drivers use bus lanes (out of hours or illegally) ; some gardai are unaware of the law; and even many of those who don't want to "preamble along" don't want to mix with large buses or traffic going at 60km/h+.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

And just what is the actual problem of cyclists that are competent using the road ( with a bus lane ! ) and leaving those that want to preamble along a shared footpath if they want. After all you are'nt actually being forced to use them in any case!

Use the road and you'll often get an ignorant taxi driver pointing you to the cycle lane with his Herald while having a whinge about dem bleedin cyclists to an unfortunate passenger if he has one.

Sheldons Brain

When was the last time a council and the department of transport allowed drink drivers to use footpaths?

That's not the point. My point was that every delinquent group have some excuse for their behaviour. In the case of cyclists their delinquent behaviour is facilitated by local authorities and law enforcement agencies and supported by a powerful lobby who advocate that they should be allowed mow down pedestrians at will.

monument

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That's not the point. ..., supported by a powerful lobby who advocate that they should be allowed mow down pedestrians at will.

I don't know what your point was but with baseless nonsense like that in your post, there's little or no point reply to the rest of your post.

No Pants

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

supported by a powerful lobby who advocate that they should be allowed mow down pedestrians at will.

You what?

Can you please point me towards something, anything at all really, that's evidence of this?

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Some (a minority of) bus and taxi drivers act aggressively around those who use the bus lane and even if they did not mixing cyclists and buses on a narrow lane on a 60km/h road is far from ideal from a safety and comfort point of view.

What else can be said?... Other aggressive drivers use bus lanes (out of hours or illegally) ; some gardai are unaware of the law; and even many of those who don't want to "preamble along" don't want to mix with large buses or traffic going at 60km/h+.

So if they don't want to amble along on a shared pathway then it is down to the fact they want to maintain a speed rather than slow down amid pedestrians, is this not what you and others objecting to shared pathways are really concerned about?

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

It would be very unusual for a cyclist not to be able to stop in the distance that he/she can see as their speed is considerably less than cars, but more importantly the weight is much less and therefore the momentum is less.

However, at really low speeds bicycles can become unstable. So, using the picture that I referred to above, a cyclist is making a right-angled turn into a gap containing approaching pedestrians in no particular order at low speed. Hardly a desirable position to be in.

Imagine if Henry Street was opened for cars, yet still left open for pedestrians. Add to that that you could only drive on two wheels, Dukes of Hazzard/Knight Rider style. So to travel safely, you'd have to lower your speed, but that would reduce the stability of your car while on two wheels.

If some are so unstable on a bicycle at slower speeds then perhaps they should reconsider their prefered mode of transport until such time as they can control a bicyle. After all we aren't talking about track standing here just cycling at a slower speed.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

If some are so unstable on a bicycle at slower speeds then perhaps they should reconsider their prefered mode of transport until such time as they can control a bicyle. After all we aren't talking about track standing here just cycling at a slower speed.

Right. :rolleyes:

SeanW

monument wrote: »

But this isn't:



Just in case there's any confusion, please read the opening post -- I don't support mixing cyclists with pedestrians and I'm not for cyclists to be retrospectively allowed access to these pedestrian bridges.

To be honest, I'd be somewhat sympathetic to this, but the second picture is a bit misleading. I used to use the Sean O'Casey bridge almost daily, roundtrip for communting on foot and sometimes for other reasons, and I have never seen it with only 3 pedestrians on it.

In fact I've never made a crossing over that bridge but that there were not at least 4 cyclists clearly breaking the law by forcing large numbers of pedestrians including myself to "negotiate" with them. Indeed the last time I used the bridge, I had to jump out of the way of 3 feral yobs on bikes that were cycling at high speed, screaming and hollering, doing wheelies and the like.

Sheldon's comment is not as far from reality as some would like to think.

Again, I'd like to ask IWH to answer Daith's question - are you OK with cyclists illegally travelling on pedestrian facilities to save time?

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

I had to jump out of the way of 3 feral yobs on bikes that were cycling at high s

Yeah, representative of the average commuter alright. You might as well say they should ban teenagers from the bridge.

No Pants

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, representative of the average commuter alright. You might as well say they should ban teenagers from the bridge.

Should definitely ban hollering. That was introduced by American tourists. Before that, all the Irish had was shouting. But we were content.

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You'll keep missing the point. Horses, water etc.

The point being that you can't answer a yes or no question? I don't think I've missed that at all.

What about people on mopeds going across the bridge? Is that ok? I know it says no mopeds allowed but if they're in a rush like?

Also would it be ok for me to use the cycle paths to run on?

Iwannahurl

Daith wrote: »

Also would it be ok for me to use the cycle paths to run on?

I think people ought to have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as illegally parked vehicles, lack of pedestrian crossings, speeding, excessive traffic volumes or the needless presence of capable adult cyclists who should be on the road.

I think people ought to have access to facilities where they can cycle for the purposes of commuting or leisure without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as lack of direct and convenient routes, speeding, excessive traffic, illegally parked vehicles or the needless presence of runners, joggers or walkers who should have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise...

I think public servants who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking should be fired, or failing that reassigned to some department where they can do no more harm to the public realm.

I think citizens who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking (let's not forget public transport either) and who expect cyclists and pedestrians to behave like robots or sheep -- in the absence of such provision -- are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think people ought to have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as illegally parked vehicles, lack of pedestrian crossings, speeding, excessive traffic volumes or the needless presence of capable adult cyclists who should be on the road.

I think people ought to have access to facilities where they can cycle for the purposes of commuting or leisure without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as lack of direct and convenient routes, speeding, excessive traffic, illegally parked vehicles or the needless presence of runners, joggers or walkers who should have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise...

I think public servants who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking should be fired, or failing that reassigned to some department where they can do no more harm to the public realm.

I think citizens who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking (let's not forget public transport either) and who expect cyclists and pedestrians to behave like robots or sheep are living in cloud cuckoo land.

So it's a no then? Thanks.

It's funny that you use the phrase cloud cuckoo land but unable to give a straight answer to what I think are fairly basic questions.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think people ought to have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as illegally parked vehicles, lack of pedestrian crossings, speeding, excessive traffic volumes or the needless presence of capable adult cyclists who should be on the road.

I think people ought to have access to facilities where they can cycle for the purposes of commuting or leisure without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as lack of direct and convenient routes, speeding, excessive traffic, illegally parked vehicles or the needless presence of runners, joggers or walkers who should have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise...

I think public servants who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking should be fired, or failing that reassigned to some department where they can do no more harm to the public realm.

I think citizens who don't understand the need for proper provision for both cycling and walking (let's not forget public transport either) and who expect cyclists and pedestrians to behave like robots or sheep are living in cloud cuckoo land.

And the majority of people realise that there are limited resources of both money and space and people who don't realise this are indeed in cloud cuckoo land.

Daith

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I think people ought to have access to facilities where they can cycle for the purposes of commuting or leisure without having to contend with hazards or obstacles such as lack of direct and convenient routes, speeding, excessive traffic, illegally parked vehicles or the needless presence of runners, joggers or walkers who should have access to places where they can run, jog or walk for enjoyment or exercise...

Here's the crux though. I go running every day. I go down to a park and run. This takes me time to get to the park. About a 10 minute walk. I could of course go running along a cycle path which would save me time.

Yet I don't because I see a cycle track and that's for cyclists.

You however don't have a problem with cyclists using a pedestrian bridge to cross rather than the cycle lanes to the other bridges. All because of time.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

And the majority of people realise that there are limited resources of both money and space and people who don't realise this are indeed in cloud cuckoo land.

Where road space is finite you would need to be from CCL to believe that facilitating the most inefficient use of that space is the way to go, even if typical Irish populist politics ("majority of people" etc) demands otherwise.

Daith wrote: »

You however don't have a problem with cyclists using a pedestrian bridge to cross rather than the cycle lanes to the other bridges. All because of time.

Quote/link please.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Where road space is finite you would need to be from CCL to believe that facilitating the most inefficient use of that space is the way to go, even if typical Irish populist politics ("majority of people" etc) demands otherwise.

No actually the most efficent is called ( believe it or not ) SHARING

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

No actually the most efficent is called ( believe it or not ) SHARING

Spook_ie wrote: »

limited resources of both money and space

Which of these is the least efficient use of both (a) road space and (b) non-renewable energy?

(1) Car
(2) Bicycle
(3) Bus.