Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

rubadub

laraghrider wrote: »

Get off the bike and walk.

If someone is cycling responsibly on grafton street when busy I would prefer it than seeing them walking the bike. Since the pedals are a hazard to people walking near them, some pedals could do serious damage to a shin. Walking alongside a bike also takes up more room.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

I just cannot fathom how anybody thinks it's OK to cycle in an area that is very clearly pedestrian-only.

Not sure if you are serious, but as with others who seemingly have this problem I would recommend asking a garda turning a blind eye why they are ignoring it. This might also shed light on why the person doing it thinks its OK.

And if you see garda cycling in areas where it would be illegal for the public to do so, maybe ask them too.

jon1981

irishrover99 wrote: »

Why does it seem ok to walk in a cycle lane. I use the Phoenix Park most days
and i wouldn't waste my time trying to use the cycle lanes as they are always been used by people pushing prams,jogging or walking. I can only imagine the response i would get if i told them off about what they were doing

The placement of the cycling lane and pedestrian lane is wrong in the Phoenix park imo. The cycle lane is roadside and the pedestrian lane is furthest away. So you park your car and then you have to walk across the cycle lane to get to the pedestrian lane.

I'm not surprised people don't use the pedestrian lane, especially if they have prams/buggies, as depending on where along that stretch you park you have to walk quite a bit to find the gap in the fence to cross over to the pedestrian lane.

I also cycle in the park weekly and equally frustrated but I kinda can see why it happens.

kazamo

Is walking in a cycle lane illegal ?

jon1981

kazamo wrote: »

Is walking in a cycle lane illegal ?

Dangerous not illegal.

kazamo

jon1981 wrote: »

Dangerous not illegal.

Sometimes walking on footpaths without cycling lanes are no safer.

jon1981

kazamo wrote: »

Sometimes walking on footpaths without cycling lanes are no safer.

Huh?!? I'm sorry, i've tried but I can't see the point you are trying to make.

kazamo

jon1981 wrote: »

Huh?!? I'm sorry, i've tried but I can't see the point you are trying to make.

How convenient

Alanstrainor

kazamo wrote: »

How convenient

nah mate, you're just making no sense...

HivemindXX

The problem with this "it's ok to cycle on the path so long as you're considerate of others" is that everyone's idea of that is considerate differs.

I'm sure the **** I see slaloming through pedestrians crossing at a green light don't think they are doing anything wrong too. Sure they didn't hit anyone right? And if they had it would have been their fault for not reacting the right way.

It's perfectly possibly to get around the city without cycling on the footpath or through a pedestrian area.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm sure the **** I see slaloming through pedestrians crossing at a green light don't think they are doing anything wrong too.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they don't care whether they are doing anything wrong.

I don't personally cycle through pedestrian areas, but I really don't care about people cycling along semi-deserted pedestrian zones with good sight lines at a slow speed. It's not important, it's not dangerous and it's not immoral. I concede that it is illegal.

Also, the point at which cycling through a pedestrian zone becomes an inconvenience or danger to pedestrians -- when there are quite a few pedestrians around -- is coincidentally pretty much the point at which it isn't really all that convenient to cycle there either.

I realise there are some reprobates who plough on regardless, but I'm not concerned that overall the hand of the law is light on this bit of rule-breaking.

Deedsie

I totally oppose anyone cycling on footpaths or pedestrian areas. Get off and walk or alternatively take a more suitable and considerate route. I am disappointed to say I still haven't seen one member of AGS policing my fellow cyclists on the N11.

galwaycyclist

Deedsie wrote: »

I totally oppose anyone cycling on footpaths or pedestrian areas. Get off and walk or alternatively take a more suitable and considerate route. I am disappointed to say I still haven't seen one member of AGS policing my fellow cyclists on the N11.

If you feel that strong about cycling in vehicle restricted areas you are free not to do it yourself. The fact remains that it is something that has been a well-established aspect of cycling policy in other countries for decades.

Allowing cycling in such zones was one of the recommendations of the Jacobs report on expanding the Coke zero bikeshare to other towns.

When shop street in Galway was closed to cyclists, it had the second highest volumes of cycle traffic in the city centre. No alternative routes were provided either then or since.

Attacking cyclists for continuing to use such routes comes across like the people in this.country who used to oppose making contraception available. There may be some kind of internal logic to that position but from the outside it just looks willfully backward.

Deedsie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If you feel that strong about cycling in vehicle restricted areas you are free not to do it yourself. The fact remains that it is something that has been a well-established aspect of cycling policy in other countries for decades.

Allowing cycling in such zones was one of the recommendations of the Jacobs report on expanding the Coke zero bikeshare to other towns.

When shop street in Galway was closed to cyclists, it had the second highest volumes of cycle traffic in the city centre. No alternative routes were provided either then or since.

Attacking cyclists for continuing to use such routes comes across like the people in this.country who used to oppose making contraception available. There may be some kind of internal logic to that position but from the outside it just looks willfully backward.

nonsense and double nonsense...

I would never cycle on a footpath or a pedestrian area. Who cares what other countries do, cycling infrastructure and behaviour in other countries far out weigh the facilities and behaviour of cyclists here. if you were to allow cyclists use pedestrian areas here most cyclists would be fine but unfortunately as some cyclist behaviour can be so bad they would just be racing down Grafton street at a totally inappropriate speed. Pedestrians should be entitled to a couple of shopping areas they don't have to worry about selfish inconsiderate 60 - 90kg tossers free wheeling towards them. Use Dawson street or Kildare street for goodness sake.

Grafton street is 400 metres long, will it really kill people to get off their bike and walk 400 metres?

They entire ethos of the new transport plans for Dublin is to create breathing space for people to live and use the city. Reducing the number of vehicles so cyclist can feel safer. Surely people can allow the same courtesy to pedestrians on one of the busiest shopping streets in the country? Actually stay cycling on it and drive everyone out to Dundrum. Let the Grafton street area die like the rest of Dublin city centre

galwaycyclist

Deedsie wrote: »

nonsense and double nonsense...

I would never cycle on a footpath or a pedestrian area. Who cares what other countries do, cycling infrastructure and behaviour in other countries far out weigh the facilities and behaviour of cyclists here. if you were to allow cyclists use pedestrian areas here most cyclists would be fine but unfortunately as some cyclist behaviour can be so bad they would just be racing down Grafton street at a totally inappropriate speed. Pedestrians should be entitled to a couple of shopping areas they don't have to worry about selfish inconsiderate 60 - 90kg tossers free wheeling towards them. Use Dawson street or Kildare street for goodness sake.

Grafton street is 400 metres long, will it really kill people to get off their bike and walk 400 metres?

They entire ethos of the new transport plans for Dublin is to create breathing space for people to live and use the city. Reducing the number of vehicles so cyclist can feel safer. Surely people can allow the same courtesy to pedestrians on one of the busiest shopping streets in the country? Actually stay cycling on it and drive everyone out to Dundrum. Let the Grafton street area die like the rest of Dublin city centre

So punish everyone for the behaviour of a few? If the behaviour of some is a problem then why not police that behaviour instead of banning everyone?

Your comments about pedestrians entitled to a couple of shopping areas comes across as classic Irish car centred thinking.. The Irish will deprioritise walking on all other routes and then give the pedestrians a couple of pedestrian ghettos on roads that had ceased to function for cars anyway. Hypocrisy in my view.

Your 400m argument is also spurious in my view. It is the same argument that is used to justify forcing cyclists to follow one-street systems that make no sense. Killing cycling by a death of a thousand cuts. Telling people to get of and walk for 400m is laughable in my view.

As with one-way streets, what is important is the total diversion imposed. If avoiding the 400m means travelling twice that distance extra then that is what is important.

Also do I take it that we are supposed to allow what suits the management of one street in Dublin to dictate policy for the entire country? Self centred much?

onmebike

It's not as if Grafton Street is the only street in town though. It would be much quicker to cycle down Dawson Street than walk down Grafton Street. It all depends on your destination, but one way systems around that area aren't really that inconvenient.

It's very clear and easy to me. Cycling down Grafton Street isn't legal so it is simple and quicker to cycle to your destination via other streets than just thinking that Grafton Street is the quickest way north of that area.

We wish to be treated respectfully by other road users when we're cycling. The least we can do is be respectful ourselves of the rules that are there.

tomasrojo

I wasn't personally thinking of Grafton street, more of the tangle of one-ways, pedestrian zones and Luas lines around O'Connell Street. I can quite understand people cycling carefully in areas along there when pedestrian numbers thin out.

I personally would walk 400m in the city centre if cycling wasn't allowed, but there's a reason why bus stops in the city centre aren't 400m apart.

In my estate out in the suburbs, there is a pedestrian entrance, and a car entrance. The pedestrian entrance is much nearer when I return from town, and the car entrance is also located on the far side of a very busy interchange with a tricky right turn, so I use the pedestrian entrance. Everyone on bikes does the same. I could walk through the pedestrian entrance, and along the footpath to the main road inside the estate, but when there are no pedestrians around, I cycle. It's a waste of time to walk it, when there's nobody around to be inconvenienced or offended. I don't see a problem.

HivemindXX

How exactly do you suggest we police consideration then GalwayCyclist? Will the guards have a politeness meter? Who is going to say that cyclist is fine and that one is not and how on earth are you going convince a judge of that? Good laws have hard lines and metrics, grey areas are a recipe for disaster.

You accused a poster of being self centred, apart from being against the rules, this is just wrong. How on earth is it self centred for a cyclist to think that other cyclists should give pedestrians a break and not infringe on the space that is legally set aside for them?

You brought up a pitifully ludicrous analogy with the anti-condom brigade. I won't bother explaining why that's pathetic, I'm sure you already know, but when you do things like that it makes me think you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the subject and if you think that's a valid argument perhaps it is pointless listening to you at all.

As a standalone argument "other countries do it" doesn't cut it either. Firstly the society in a country is a complex thing and you can't just pick and choose which elements you want to import and expect no problem. Secondly, "other countries do it" could be used to justify lots of things I'm sure you wouldn't like.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

How exactly do you suggest we police consideration then GalwayCyclist? Will the guards have a politeness meter? Who is going to say that cyclist is fine and that one is not and how on earth are you going convince a judge of that? Good laws have hard lines and metrics, grey areas are a recipe for disaster.

This actually is the current situation. Parents cycling with children don't have a specific exemption, but pavement cycling was omitted from the FCN regime to allow this to continue. Paschal Donohue said that Gardaí would judge whether the cycling was inconsiderate and issue a FCN under the "inconsiderate cycling" option.

There are plenty of grey areas in law. In fact, it's a commonplace that the "spirit of the law" is more important than the letter of the law in more minor offences.

The city centre, as I said, is different in that there are so many pedestrians, but there are plenty of places on the outskirts of town where there no pedestrians at all and very busy roads. If I see parents cycling to school with children on the footpath in these areas, I don't feel any sense of outrage.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

You brought up a pitifully ludicrous analogy with the anti-condom brigade. I won't bother explaining why that's pathetic, I'm sure you already know, but when you do things like that it makes me think you don't have anything worthwhile to say on the subject and if you think that's a valid argument perhaps it is pointless listening to you at all.

It's maybe not a precise analogy, but I assume (he can answer for himself anyway) that galwaycyclist was alluding to the widespread law-breaking around conception before condoms were made legal. Were these people acting immorally or just illegally?

Sometimes stupid laws are kept in place in order to placate excitable people: such as people who opposed contraception, or excitable anti-cyclist constituents/media pundits.

Qualitymark

JBokeh wrote: »

Cheeky Garda then drafted me all the way home without doing a turn on the front

Translation, please?

drafted = ?

doing a turn on the front = ?

At this stage, maybe we need a thread for "Areas that should have cycle lanes/exemptions".

I'd like to put in two:

a) The seafront in Sandymount. You can walk there, but you're not allowed to cycle along it, and Strand Road isn't the safest, besides which a seafront cycle from the Merrion end up to the South Wall would be gorgeous. At the moment, it's dangerous to cycle there because it's a popular place for people to totter along and take the air if they're very old and creaky or have just had their hips or knees done, and you can scarcely expect these people to leap out of the way with a squeal.

b) All T junctions where the cyclist is proceeding along the bar of the T. This is a place where the drivers are going to be taking a wide circle anyway, and cyclists could comfortably and safely go straight on without endangering themselves or the motor traffic.

cython

Qualitymark wrote: »

Translation, please?

drafted = ?

doing a turn on the front = ?

At this stage, maybe we need a thread for "Areas that should have cycle lanes/exemptions".

I'd like to put in two:

a) The seafront in Sandymount. You can walk there, but you're not allowed to cycle along it, and Strand Road isn't the safest, besides which a seafront cycle from the Merrion end up to the South Wall would be gorgeous. At the moment, it's dangerous to cycle there because it's a popular place for people to totter along and take the air if they're very old and creaky or have just had their hips or knees done, and you can scarcely expect these people to leap out of the way with a squeal.

b) All T junctions where the cyclist is proceeding along the bar of the T. This is a place where the drivers are going to be taking a wide circle anyway, and cyclists could comfortably and safely go straight on without endangering themselves or the motor traffic.

On the bolded, I know of several instances where this is simply not true. The nearest one that comes to mind is this junction. Regrettably Street View does not reflect the junction since the roads there were majorly realigned, but suffice to say that a cyclist proceeding west on Porterstown Road would fall into the category you describe (the gateway on the south of the road should not take from it being a T junction), but it is not safe for them to proceed while traffic has a green to come from the north to go the same way, as the exit from the junction narrows so much. I don't disagree that here are some T junctions where this exemption could work, but there are enough where it wouldn't that a blanket exemption is a terrible idea.

Qualitymark

cython wrote: »

On the bolded, I know of several instances where this is simply not true. The nearest one that comes to mind is this junction. Regrettably Street View does not reflect the junction since the roads there were majorly realigned, but suffice to say that a cyclist proceeding west on Porterstown Road would fall into the category you describe (the gateway on the south of the road should not take from it being a T junction), but it is not safe for them to proceed while traffic has a green to come from the north to go the same way, as the exit from the junction narrows so much. I don't disagree that here are some T junctions where this exemption could work, but there are enough where it wouldn't that a blanket exemption is a terrible idea.

@cython, are there lights on that junction? I can't see them on Street View or Google Earth view.

Perhaps I should have been clearer - I'm talking about cyclists proceeding along the road on the side of the T bar opposite the road that makes the upright of the T. (Is that clear? Probably not. What I mean is, cyclists who are going along the straight edge of the road - not the cyclists who have to cross the road coming into the bar of the T.)

Hmm. Let's see. Here's a map example - not a place I normally cycle, but it'll do as an example of what I mean. If a cyclist is going eastwards along the north side of Cork Street here, it would seem sensible to allow him to cycle straight through the two T junctions which feed Ormond Street and Brickfield Lane into the street.

cython

Qualitymark wrote: »

@cython, are there lights on that junction? I can't see them on Street View or Google Earth view.

Perhaps I should have been clearer - I'm talking about cyclists proceeding along the road on the side of the T bar opposite the road that makes the upright of the T. (Is that clear? Probably not. What I mean is, cyclists who are going along the straight edge of the road - not the cyclists who have to cross the road coming into the bar of the T.)

Hmm. Let's see. Here's a map example - not a place I normally cycle, but it'll do as an example of what I mean. If a cyclist is going eastwards along the north side of Cork Street here, it would seem sensible to allow him to cycle straight through the two T junctions which feed Ormond Street and Brickfield Lane into the street.

As I said, street view is out of date (5 years old), and there are lights there now. It is still not safe, and i say this as someone who had to stop my car in the junction when a cyclist proceeded through the red light and into the junction.

Qualitymark

cython wrote: »

As I said, street view is out of date (5 years old), and there are lights there now. It is still not safe, and i say this as someone who had to stop my car in the junction when a cyclist proceeded through the red light and into the junction.

If the cyclist is going straight along the north side of the street from west to east, he should have been safe, surely? I'm not talking about people on the south edge of the street who would be crossing the path of the cars.

TheChizler

Qualitymark wrote: »

If the cyclist is going straight along the north side of the street from west to east, he should have been safe, surely? I'm not talking about people on the south edge of the street who would be crossing the path of the cars.

I think the point is that it's too narrow for both bike and other vehicle to exit the junction together.

Qualitymark

TheChizler wrote: »

I think the point is that it's too narrow for both bike and other vehicle to exit the junction together.

Really?

CramCycle

Alot of cars take t junctions wider than you think, not forgetting cyclists coming onto the T would be cut off as happens to me regularly at the T junction near my house.

It's not a good idea, mainly due to the lack of situational awareness of many irish road users, motorists and cyclists alike.

TheChizler

Qualitymark wrote: »

Really?

I'm not sure that's the junction they were talking about?

Qualitymark

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the junction they were talking about?

It's the one I gave as an example, anyway.

I know I've read that some countries allow cyclists to go through the T bar of a T junction, on the opposite sides from the traffic coming onto it, but can't get around to looking up where right at the moment.

cython

Qualitymark wrote: »

If the cyclist is going straight along the north side of the street from west to east, he should have been safe, surely? I'm not talking about people on the south edge of the street who would be crossing the path of the cars.

To take your use of north and south, I think I need to clarify that I was not addressing your example, but rather the one where I know such an exemption to be a bad idea. Just because there are some junctions where this would work does not mean carte blanche is a good idea, rather if there are specific examples where it might be suitable, an explicit exemption should be considered, at least until such a time as such junctions are in the minority.