Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

magicbastarder

when i was maybe eight, i was ordered off the footpath onto the road by a garda in blanchardstown. i remember my mum being furious when i told her. there would have been a couple of busy bus routes using that road.

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

Irish people are fundamentally different to Scandanavians.

yep, we reproduce by sexual reproduction and they do it by parthogenesis.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

No, I'd take them to a bike friendly park and teach them how to cycle with a bit of respect and consideration for others. They could cycle to school from secondary on the road.

So what if they are lets say 7 or 8 and have learned to cycle...."sorry child, you can only cycle your bike in that bike friendly park and we're not heading there until next week". Yep, that works with kids. I don't ever recall cycling into a pedestrian when I was a child on the footpath. Maybe I was very lucky to get away without spending time in prison.

I totally agree that adults shouldn't be on the footpath though. Just like rollerbladers, skateboarders and people on scooters shouldn't be on bike tracks.

magicbastarder

i thought the whole point of being able to cycle when you're 10 was getting away from your parents for a while and having fun.
note: 'fun' for me included pulling a wheelie on my raleigh strika and the front wheel falling off. longest wheelie i ever pulled.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

I have no major issue with kids on footpaths. I rarely see it to be honest. As a child I definitely did it but times have changed a lot. I'd be more in favour of cycle friendly infrastructure to be constructed and maintained that they could use.

Out of curiosity what's your opinion on electric bikes in the cycle lanes? A couple of people on my route have them and use the cycle lane. I don't know what I make of them using the cycle lane really

They don't really bother me as I always seem to be going past them. Although since they do have a form of engine then they should probably be on the road.

What does bother me is the guys that have hooked up a small petrol engine to their bicycles. I haven't seen any of them in a while though.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

I never reported either of my collisions and I'd imagine most other people don't either if they are perceived to be minor. Not saying that's right but any collision statistics are flawed as a result.

Yeah, there's a 'pyramid' effect - for every fatality there is a greater number of major injuries and a greater number again of minor injuries.

I don't have the data to had bit iirc the ratio for cycling is 1:37:264 - so yes they're will still be a lot of unreported cycling injuries, as well as unreported pedestrian and driver injuries - that doesn't mean cycling is unsafe.

If you think it is why not counter by posting up data instead of repeatedly relying on your own perception which is based on your experience - 'longitudinal' studies while interesting rarely allow conclusions to be drawn at a more general level

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

What about......

......parking on the pavement?

......motability scooters?

.....powered wheelchairs?

.....prams and buggies, esp the 'all terrain' ones?

Cycling on the footpath is only dangerous if the cyclist is being a tw@t.

And yes it's illegal but it's not automatically dangerous.

MJohnston

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think this would cover the above scenario:
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-face-on-the-spot-fines-for-seven-road-traffic-offences-1.2270816

Cycling rules and laws are too vague. What constitutes a 'pedestrianised street' is never clear - does it also apply to a basic footpath that diverges from the road? For example, is the Royal Canal path not arguably illegal to cycle on by this law? I'd like to see more specific rules because they'd help everyone and it'd hopefully stamp out some of the more ridiculous cycling provisions that the city does make (eg. the kind of messy mix of crossing they've added at both sides of the Talbot bridge).

Cookie_Monster

Jawgap wrote: »

Deedsie wrote: »

Same boring argument we always hear. Personally I don't think anyone, child or adult should be cycling on footpaths. What about blind pedestrians, people with disabilities etc. It's not an appropriate place for a bicycle regardless of the age of the cyclist.

And yes it's illegal but it's not automatically dangerous.

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

Are we not all encouraged to question and query statistics if we see possible errors?

But stats are exactly stats. They can only report on what is known. They don't take into account personal experiences and views.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree it's not automatically dangerous but it is potentially dangerous and as such shouldn't happen. What if a motorist wishes to pull out of their driveway across the footpath and a cyclist crashes into the vehicle. Who pays for the potential damage to the vehicle? What if a cyclist on a footpath see's glass on a footpath swerves to avoid it and unintentionally hits an elderly pedestrian and breaks their wrist? Who is at fault and who pays for medical treatment. Etc etc etc Ad Infinitum

What if two people are walking towards each other and one bumps into the other causing them to fall over and bang their head. Who pays for the medical treatment. All of these hypothetical scenarios are already covered in law.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

Yes but relying on statistics you know to be not accurate... People under reporting collisions etc makes those stats flawed and not very useful.

It's a much better gauge and much more accurate than picking a figure out the the air. Not ever minor bump between cars is reported either. I'd love to know how you'd come up with totally accurate figures because to me it appears impossible because it relies on people making reports and many people just will not go to the hassle. So the stats as recorded are the best we can hope for and are technically accurate. The what if's are not considered statistics because there is no evidence apart from anecdotal that they occurred.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

I made no argument other than that death stats are not the only statistic to be used to decided whether cycling in Dublin is safe or not. I only shared my own experiences as they are the only ones I know to be accurate and true. A safe, rule abiding cyclists was knocked down twice over 3 years or 15000 km of cycling. I never suggested I had stats to back it up I just argued that collision stats may not be that accurate.

I 100% concede my posts are solely from my experience of cycling in Dublin and throughout Ireland. I have no studies to back up my suspicion that the collision stats you have referenced are not accurate.

I also didn't say it wasn't safe, I said it's not the most dangerous city in Europe nor is it the safest. Do you get to choose how people reach conclusions? Are we not all encouraged to question and query statistics if we see possible errors?

'not the most dangeorus'? Interesting choice of language considering you've not produced much to back that up.

I think that it's usual to query stats and discuss errors by highlighting the errors (in methodology) or offering contrasting evidence, rather than simply saying "the stats don't gel with my experience."

But if experience is the metric my experience is that Dublin is safer than London, Birmingham, Newcastle and Cardiff - but not as safe as Berlin, Copenhagen and Strasbourg, but it's not too far behind them, it's significantly, in my experience, behind Lyon.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

I didn't say the stats don't gel with my experience. I said they are inaccurate due to under reporting. For everything else you said there I would be in agreement with. Not the safest, not the most dangerous.

Again, how do you know there's under reporting to the point that they are not representative?

Any statistical study is going to be a sampling exercise - problem arises is when the sampling is unrepresentative.

traprunner

Deedsie wrote: »

Encourage greater reporting of rtc's and incidents? Regardless of arguments about the accuracy and usefullness of incomplete data. The "fact" remains that sections of Ireland's road network remain unsafe for cyclists and investment is required to improve the network.

Encouraging greater reporting is still not definitive. In the scenario of cyclist injuries there will never be a statistic that is 100% accurate. I had my second fall of the bike a few months ago. Very minor injuries (cuts and bruising) apart from my ego. No one else was involved and I got up and cycled on. Who would I report this to?

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

Encourage greater reporting of rtc's and incidents? Regardless of arguments about the accuracy and usefullness of incomplete data. The "fact" remains that sections of Ireland's road network remain unsafe for cyclists and investment is required to improve the network.

There is very little of the network inherently unsafe - the bits that are 'unsafe' are rendered unsafe by driver behaviour

Carawaystick

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

But if cars should never be on footpaths, that removes the danger of cars coming out of driveways....

How are these dangers removed when local authorities make shared use paths?
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3773198,-6.2485864,3a,75y,359.88h,77.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDekUNXJ35wEWBLckSIuM2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

ED E

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

Any proof? No.

Come back when you have a real argument.

cdebru

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Add your reply here.

Of course it's dangerous. Cars coming out of driveways, pedestrians exiting buildings, dogs on leashes etc etc
Cyclists should never be of footpaths, exactly the same as cars

how does the car get from the driveway to the road without being on the footpath ?

Wanderer78

Mol would wanna shut up. He's not the saviour of the planet

Roadhawk

Regardless of injury and fatality stats apportioning blame on a particular group the bottom line is that all road users should be abiding by the current laws and uphold a level of courtesy to others on the road.

Motorists:
Stop speeding
Stop drink driving
Stop being on the phone while driving
etc.

Cyclists:
Stop breaking red lights
Stop cycling in pedestrianized areas
Put a bell on your bike
Make sure that you have a front and back light on during lighting up hours
etc.

It really should be quite easy.

Carawaystick

Roadhawk wrote: »

Put lights on your bike

Why this? It's not a legal requirement, except under certain conditions, which apply less than half the time.

Roadhawk

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why this? It's not a legal requirement, except under certain conditions, which apply less than half the time.

Ok i will go back and edit the post just for people like you :rolleyes:

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Regardless of injury and fatality stats apportioning blame on a particular group the bottom line is that all road users should be abiding by the current laws and uphold a level of courtesy to others on the road.

Motorists:
Stop speeding
Stop drink driving
Stop being on the phone while driving
etc.

Cyclists:
Stop breaking red lights
Stop cycling in pedestrianized areas
Put a bell on your bike
Put lights on your bike
etc.

It really should be quite easy.

I disagree on the red lights for cyclists to be honest - I think we should adopt the system used in several other countries that would allow cyclists to proceed (carefully and slowly) through red lights where their movement is 'hugging the curb'. This would still allow bicycle GDS (of whom I think there should be a lot more) to fine people on the basis of 'dangerous cycling', but give cyclists the leeway to proceed in a safe way.

I know most pedestrians will scream bloody murder at the very idea of this, but I think it's reasonable because when it's legal and expected, cyclists will take more care, pedestrians will be more aware, and motorists will be less angry because they won't have to get tangled up with cyclists as often.

Let's take an example I encounter every day:



At this junction, there's a long green phase for the traffic travelling left-right along Dorset Street, then that turns red, and there is a short green phase for pedestrians crossing Dorset Street (the yellow path). At this point, it's illegal for a cyclist following the red path to proceed, even though the pedestrians crossing at the green path (across Frederick St) have a red light (because of cars that have a green to turn left out of Frederick St at this point). This means that a cyclist has to wait for the green phase of the vehicle traffic from Blessington to Frederick Street, and that means you have several large buses to your right and lots of left turning cars on your left (thanks to the location of the straight-ahead bike lane) which is just more dangerous for cyclists, and slows down the vehicle traffic.

Really, in this case, a cyclist should be given the ability to cross parallel to the yellow pedestrian route (again, remember that pedestrians aren't allowed to cross at the green route at this point), even though that means passing through red traffic lights.

There are other examples too - I think cyclists should have a 'stop then proceed when clear' rule for light-assisted pedestrian crossings (such as the ones along OCS) similar to the 'right on red' rules for cars in America. I also think we need to look at offering more contraflow cycle lanes on one-way streets.

I genuinely think this would make things safer for everyone, because it gives cyclists a clearer, self-responsible framework to operate within, where breaking those rules should be even more harshly punished than currently. And it would give pedestrians and drivers a more predictable cyclist behaviour to expect.

magicbastarder

one thing with which there seems to be a disconnect, in relation to cyclist fines is the penalty for running a red light in a car, and running one on a bike.

if you're to take a single offence, the penalty for RLJing on a bike is €40, and for a car is €80 and two penalty points.
for a driver with a single offence (which may sound like cherry picking, but i know plenty in this position), the penalty points have not had any impact on them, just the €80 fine. so in this common scenario, the difference is a factor of two.

to quantify the difference in terms of potential danger - a car breaking lights at 50kph is carrying maybe 50 times the potential energy of a cyclist breaking them at 30kph. so it doesn't exactly seem proportional.

Rew

Funny thing is Red Light jumping is far more common for cars then bikes but its the main thing that gets jumped on in relation to cycling

TheExile1878

Rew wrote: »

Funny thing is Red Light jumping is far more common for cars then bikes but its the main thing that gets jumped on in relation to cycling

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

TheExile1878

[QUOTE=MJohnston;99629043
I genuinely think this would make things safer for everyone, because it gives cyclists a clearer, self-responsible framework to operate within, where breaking those rules should be even more harshly punished than currently. And it would give pedestrians and drivers a more predictable cyclist behaviour to expect.[/QUOTE]

There alreasy is this.

It's called "the law".

traprunner

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

I'm not a RLJ but I'm curious to know how many pedestrians have actually got hurt by bikes at that junction seeing that we are back to perceiving rather than than stats?

Rew

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Oh that is such crap.

Every single day crossing Dame St/Great George's St t-junction, you have to watch as cyclists try to weave in and out of pedestrians trying to cross.

Cars may do it at 4am when there's no one on the roads - still wrong btw - but cyclists do it all day every day and seemingly don't care who they hurt.

No crap, every day when I'm in the car or on the bike ill see people jump red lights. The particular lights you mention I was nearly squished by cash in transit who seemed to think he's a garda an not a delivery van driver.

Around Dublin green means go, yellow means go faster and red only applies if the car in front of you has stopped or the cars who have the green have made it into the junction. There is no exaggeration there that is exactly what happens.