Dublin bikes being cycled on the footpath?

jack presley

monument wrote: »

Is the poster giving an excuse or a reason?

Just the poster you quoted or the one who made a similar comment about why cyclists cycle on paths?

beauf

Cienciano wrote: »

Well, anyone can use the "well, it's easier" excuse to break rules of the roads. Someone can park in a cycle lane and use the excuse "well, there should be better parking facilities, and this is closer and easier for me" but it's not a valid one.

I'm not making an excuse. That's not the point at all.

I'm highlighting if you want to change peoples behaviour you have to understand the reasons for it. Saying people are lazy is a very lazy even inane answer to this specific issue.

A to B routes across Dublin City Centre for cyclists are very poor, often due to the one way system. Its often the equivalent of making every cycle journey take 3 times longer than it should.

Imagine they made every 10min car journey 30mins, due to poor layout. Be a lot more drivers breaking the rules then.

jack presley

beauf wrote: »

Imagine they made every 10min car journey 30mins, due to poor layout. Be a lot more drivers breaking the rules then.

Ha ha, I take it you've never driven in Dublin City then!

jack presley

beauf wrote: »

I
Saying people are lazy is a very lazy even inane answer to this specific issue.

It's not just laziness though, it's ignorance and selfishness too.

monument

jack presley wrote: »

It's not just laziness though, it's ignorance and selfishness too.

All three could be levied on the city council's promotion of cycling while they are at the same time showing a huge amount of feet dragging on redesigning streets.

beauf

I don't believe in general that people cycling on the path are ignorant of the rules or think its massively inconveniencing or endangering other people. Of course it depends who you mean a courier going at excessive speed, or some tourist, going slowly as they don't know how to get around.

Unless there's going to a massive on going campaign of enforcement, or even an awareness campaign. Its not going to get better as cyclists numbers are increasing. If the routes for cyclists are improved, so that people prefer the official cycle route, that might change things.

You might as well use a carrot. As you don't have enough sticks.

Zillah

Anyone that thinks bikes on footpaths is an outlandish and highly illegal thing should actually take a look at some of the infrastructure around the place.

Templeogue Village, where the bike lane explicitly merges with the footpath on both sides of the road.


Nearby roundabout, where the cycle lane ends with an abrupt merge into a pedestrian crossing (the vehicle lanes are also so narrow a bike will not fit with a car here).


Down near Grand Canal, where the cycle lane mysteriously vanishes and abruptly merges into a pedestrian zone with no where to go other than over a kerb onto the road.


Or my personal favourite, where the road turns into a cycle lane at Stephen's Green, straight up through a pedestrian plaza directly between the Luas and the footpath.



*slow clap*

The infrastructure is very badly designed, especially some of the newer stuff. The city planners can't decide if bikes should share road space with pedestrians or if they should act like vehicles, and explicitly direct them to behave like one or the other in different areas. They also frequently try to send cyclists on 1km detours to avoid a single 50 metre one-way stretch or a pedestrian zone - it's not happening lads, I know it looks all nice and shiny on your blueprints but we're not Sims, we're going up that one-way stretch and all the road paint in the world isn't going to make me take a ten minute detour. Why not put in a contra-flow cycle lane?

Ultimately I think people should chill out a bit. If a cyclist goes past you on the footpath at a slow pace and takes efforts to not get in the way maybe you should just not have a fit over the fact that some is getting away with breaking the letter of the law. There are very few incidents between cyclists and pedestrians, and the rhetoric you hear about it is outlandishly disproportionate to the reality.

I had an encounter where I went through a three meter pedestrian zone as a shortcut, and I pulled to the side, stopped entirely and leaned against a wall to make room for a pedestrian, and she went out of her way to come into my path so that she could snottily tell me I shouldn't be on the footpath, and then went around me and on her way. I also had a driver shout "Get off the footpath you stupid cunt" out her window when I went onto the empty footpath for a coupe of meters to go around a car that was blocking me.

Some people just can't wait to go tell teacher on you, because rules are rules and pragmatism has no place in the real world.

Rakish Paddy

Zillah wrote: »

Or my personal favourite, where the road turns into a cycle lane at Stephen's Green, straight up through a pedestrian plaza directly between the Luas and the footpath.

This one REALLY pees me off. Every morning you see cyclists tearing towards where the camera is, and instead of making the signposted compulsory left turn or getting off their bike, they just go straight ahead, going the wrong way down a one-way street and straight through a pedestrian crossing in the wrong direction regardless of whether the pedestrians have the green light. Makes the auld blood boil! Grrrrrrrrrr.

Zillah

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

This one REALLY pees me off. Every morning you see cyclists tearing towards where the camera is, and instead of making the signposted compulsory left turn or getting off their bike, they just go straight ahead, going the wrong way down a one-way street and straight through a pedestrian crossing in the wrong direction regardless of whether the pedestrians have the green light. Makes the auld blood boil! Grrrrrrrrrr.

This is one of those examples where the alternative is to take a gigantic detour down a horrendous quality road to the left (one of my mud guards snapped once bouncing through those potholes).

If the cyclist keeps to the side of the road so they don't get in the way of cars, and goes through the crossing slowly and carefully and avoids getting in anyone's way, why should it upset you?

Zillah

GLARGHGH BUT THEY'RE BREAKING THE RULES BAWWWW

Rakish Paddy

Zillah wrote: »

If the cyclist keeps to the side of the road so they don't get in the way of cars, and goes through the crossing slowly and carefully and avoids getting in anyone's way, why should it upset you?

Maybe some of them do - the problem is people coming barrelling through the pedestrian crossing, while people are crossing, when the pedestrians have the light to cross. The George's St / Dame St. junction is terrible for this too.

I have no doubt that road where cyclists are supposed to turn is absolutely shight, but there's nothing stopping the cyclist getting off and walking on the path for a few minutes until they come to somewhere they can cycle legally and safely.

Zillah

A cyclist plowing through a green pedestrian light is a bad thing regardless of the location. I have no intention of taking a ten minute detour, however, if I can carefully go through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way.

jack presley

Zillah wrote: »

A cyclist plowing through a green pedestrian light is a bad thing regardless of the location. I have no intention of taking a ten minute detour, however, if I can carefully go through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way.

Would the same apply if you were in a car?

Zillah

No because cars are big and clumsy and heavy and travel at much higher speeds and so are far more dangerous and likely to cause an imposition, traffic jam or safety hazard than a bike.

Because they are completely different objects and acting like they're the same is bizarre???

jack presley

Zillah wrote: »

No because cars are big and clumsy and heavy and travel at much higher speeds and so are far more dangerous and likely to cause an imposition, traffic jam or safety hazard than a bike.

Because they are completely different objects and acting like they're the same is bizarre???

But you are going "carefully through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way". No difference really if you're not impacting on anyone (as long as you're careful of course).

monument

jack presley wrote: »

Would the same apply if you were in a car?

Mad somebody who pushed a pram in Dublin city centre for 6 months, as my first son's main form of transport, I can safety say there's a big difference between cars and bicycles breaking red lights.

For the record: I think bicycle users should obey traffic lights and they should be fined if they don't.

jack presley wrote: »

But you are going "carefully through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way". No difference really if you're not impacting on anyone (as long as you're careful of course).

There's a very big diffrence in width, length, weight, ability to look all around you, etc

Snickers Man

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

I'd nearly give my right arm to never see someone cycling on a footpath, pedestrian st. or the wrong way on a one-way street in Dublin again... Who do I need to talk to about getting this Dutch-quality infrastructure in place? :-D

I think it was sarcasm, Sheldon. In most cases in Netherlands, the thinking is to let cyclists and pedestrians share the same infrastructure. So you have to have eyes in the back of your head as a pedestrian there too.


Bazinga!

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think it was sarcasm, Sheldon. In most cases in Netherlands, the thinking is to let cyclists and pedestrians share the same infrastructure. So you have to have eyes in the back of your head as a pedestrian there too.


Bazinga!

That's bs of the highest order, the Netherlands generally segregate waking and cycling by design.

kylith

I've cycled a little around Amsterdam and in my experience the only time that I've had a problem with pedestrians and bikes is when pedestrians are strolling along in the cycle lane. I've had the same problem in Fairview in Dublin too - people stroll along in the bike lane on the path, then act like you're the asshole for asking them to move. If you keep to your assigned section there's no problem with having pedestrians and cyclists both on the path.

Zillah

jack presley wrote: »

But you are going "carefully through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way". No difference really if you're not impacting on anyone (as long as you're careful of course).

Being larger and heavier and having drastically reduced vision, and being less maneuverable, means the chances of a car being able to slip through a red light "carefully" and "without getting in anyone's way" are a lot lower than if you were on a bike.

But yes, ok, if you come to a pedestrian light at 5AM with only one person in sight (that has already crossed the road) and you have clear field of view in all directions and can be sure that there is no one intending to use the light, I don't think it's the end of the world for you to slip through in first gear. But I trust you can understand why a motor-driven several-ton car is a much bigger deal than a push bike?

uch

No Difference, Both are breaking the Law

RainyDay

traprunner wrote: »

Simple solution if they are heading straight for you and are going to hit you. Twist the handle bars on them. I find it really stops them good and they will think twice about cycling on a footpath again.....and I am a cyclist!

Yep, a good shoulder sticking out at the same time helps too. The other option is to stand with both arms outstretched blocking the pavement, and wave them out onto the road. If everyone did this, they'd soon tire of the pavement.

Zillah

uch wrote: »

No Difference, Both are breaking the Law

And no one should ever break any law no matter how trivial or irrelevant, because rules are rules and that's all that matters in life.

NyOmnishambles

jack presley wrote: »

But you are going "carefully through a pedestrian light without getting in anyone's way". No difference really if you're not impacting on anyone (as long as you're careful of course).

I don't have an issue with cyclists breaking lights except in cases where they try and barge through at speed pedestrians crossing on a green light

I walk through town every day and this happens a lot, one of the worst places for it is that crossing at Stephen's green, because they are approaching from the wrong side most seem totally unaware or just plain can't see that lights and plough through as if the pedestrian is in the wrong and they generally aren't in this location as the pedestrian green is frequent

Rakish Paddy

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

I don't have an issue with cyclists breaking lights except in cases where they try and barge through at speed pedestrians crossing on a green light

I have an issue with them breaking lights at any time - even if it's not where pedestrians are crossing. Running a red light can cause a driver to take evasive action to avoid hitting the cyclist and this in itself can cause an accident.

jack presley

Zillah wrote: »

And no one should ever break any law no matter how trivial or irrelevant, because rules are rules and that's all that matters in life.

Is there anywhere I can get a list of the trivial and irrelevant laws that can be ignored, especially where it applies to commuting?

RainyDay

jack presley wrote: »

Is there anywhere I can get a list of the trivial and irrelevant laws that can be ignored, especially where it applies to commuting?

Here, I'll make a start on the list;

1. The urban speed limit - most drivers ignore it most of the time
2. The 'cars should stop at traffic lights' law - ignored by 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 drivers at every change of lights
3. The 'don't use your phone while driving' law - about 1 in 10 drivers ignore this, climbing to about 1 in 5 in heavy or stopped traffic
4. The 'need to have two brake lights at the back' law - maybe 1 in every 40 or 50 cars has a non-working rear light in my experience
5. The 'indicate before turning or changing lanes' law - ignored by about half of all drivers
   

Should I keep going?

jack presley

RainyDay wrote: »

Here, I'll make a start on the list;

1. The urban speed limit - most drivers ignore it most of the time
2. The 'cars should stop at traffic lights' law - ignored by 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 drivers at every change of lights
3. The 'don't use your phone while driving' law - about 1 in 10 drivers ignore this, climbing to about 1 in 5 in heavy or stopped traffic
4. The 'need to have two brake lights at the back' law - maybe 1 in every 40 or 50 cars has a non-working rear light in my experience
5. The 'indicate before turning or changing lanes' law - ignored by about half of all drivers
   

Should I keep going?

Yes please do. I eagerly await the section on cycling(considering this thread is about Dublin Bikes)

Zillah

jack presley wrote: »

Is there anywhere I can get a list of the trivial and irrelevant laws that can be ignored, especially where it applies to commuting?

But that would just be another set of rules for you.

I'm suggesting you try using some independent thought and judgement. It can be very uncomfortable at first if you're not used to it.

Rakish Paddy

jack presley wrote: »

Yes please do. I eagerly await the section on cycling(considering this thread is about Dublin Bikes)

The illegal actions that I see multiple times every single day, without exception, that I am in town as a pedestrian are:
- people cycling on footpaths / pedestrian streets
- people cycling the wrong way on a one-way street
- people cycling through red lights

The other offences I see regularly enough:
- cyclists on the wrong side of the road entirely
- cyclists dangerously attempting to undertake a vehicle, where the driver is indicating to turn left and the cyclist is trying to go straight ahead (I'm not sure if this is actually against the law, but it's a hazard to the health of the cyclist, to say the least!)
- cyclists dangerously overtaking a bus that is in the process of pulling out from a stop

I would not consider any of these to be 'acceptable' though!