Pedestrian Injured - Junction of Dame St/Sth Great George's Street

Hrududu

As a cyclist it annoys me so much to see other cyclists ploughing through junctions like that on red when there are tons of people crossing. The funny thing is if you say anything to them they look at you like you have two heads. As if you are genuinely the one in the wrong as you cross on a green man and they head straight towards you.

But I do also have to point out that they're not the only one breaking the lights. Stand at that junction for one turn of the lights and almost every time you'll see a car going through after the light has gone red for them. I don't know what it is about that junction but there is some amount of feckin' eejiting going on. Its bizarre considering how busy it is that people would take a chance like that.

cython

McAlban wrote: »

Ah yes, S.I. No. 332/2012 I've seen it cited before saying that "shall" means you don't have to. The Current (2015) rules of the road say must, indicating that it's a legal requirement.

You can see it clearly here...

The ROTR are not law, as you have already been told. They are simply an RSA interpretation of the relevant legislation, and to be quite frank the RSA attitude to cyclists is generally quite poor. The SI in question (332/2012 as you rightly state) also contains an explanatory note, which elaborates "(only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory); " - that's pretty bloody clear, so quite frankly the RotR are wrong if they say cycle tracks have to be used.

Spanish Eyes

Hrududu wrote: »

As a cyclist it annoys me so much to see other cyclists ploughing through junctions like that on red when there are tons of people crossing. The funny thing is if you say anything to them they look at you like you have two heads. As if you are genuinely the one in the wrong as you cross on a green man and they head straight towards you.

But I do also have to point out that they're not the only one breaking the lights. Stand at that junction for one turn of the lights and almost every time you'll see a car going through after the light has gone red for them. I don't know what it is about that junction but there is some amount of feckin' eejiting going on. Its bizarre considering how busy it is that people would take a chance like that.

Good points.

The junction at Georges/Dame Street is very dangerous though. There is heaving pedestrian traffic, and cars, bikes, motorbikes, vans, buses, all vying for the same space at that junction.

Has to be one of the most dangerous in the Capital, just for sheer volume.

monument

McAlban wrote: »

Well take a drive out by Dublin Airport at Rush Hour, On the R132 between Collinstown Cross and the Coachmans is a brand new road. At both sides is a 6m Wide shared Cycle and Foot path, there are very few pedestrians on it and it is brand new tarmac surface.

Cyclists will use the bus lane/road and break the red lights at Alsaa, Kealys, the Airport Roundabout and the Coachmans Roundabout, to avoid having to wait for the green lights on their cycle lane, even though they are supposed to use it when provided. Infrastructure isn't the problem, although seriously lacking, a lot of the issues boil down to personal responsibility.

No, they are not supposed to use it when provided, that law was changed and mandatory never applied to shared use footpaths!

beauf

McAlban wrote: »

... but as someone who commutes by car and runs and cycles for fitness I wonder how the cyclist did not have time to react to the pedestrian...

Because people are unpredictable, and if you are cycling (or driving, or walking) beside pedestrians, you will have almost no warning if one abruptly steps into your path as you pass. Even walking people often just step in front of you without looking.

I'm baffled how you would never have experienced that, in any form of transport, even walking.

ArmaniJeanss

McAlban wrote: »

At least 3 times a week I drive from the north side to Terenure, every time at the junction of King St N and Upper Church St. I see countless cyclists break the red lights to get over to Smithfield. Placing a Traffic Corps Garda here for an hour each evening would be a start at enforcing the law. (this is 200m from a Garda Station).

I do that particular cycle myself everyday - I'd be fairly flabbergasted that anyone could use that junction as often as you do and think that cyclists are the major problem there. Cars still travelling onto Church St when the pedestrian lights have long been on green, blatant misuse of the yellow box, motorists in completely the wrong lane causing log jams behind them. Its a barely functioning mess but not one caused by cyclists.

magicbastarder

McAlban wrote: »

Well take a drive out by Dublin Airport at Rush Hour, On the R132 between Collinstown Cross and the Coachmans is a brand new road. At both sides is a 6m Wide shared Cycle and Foot path, there are very few pedestrians on it and it is brand new tarmac surface.

Cyclists will use the bus lane/road and break the red lights at Alsaa, Kealys, the Airport Roundabout and the Coachmans Roundabout, to avoid having to wait for the green lights on their cycle lane, even though they are supposed to use it when provided. Infrastructure isn't the problem, although seriously lacking, a lot of the issues boil down to personal responsibility.

i cycle that road fairly regularly, and i use the road and not the cycle lane.

there are several reasons. first and most important is that it's perfectly legal for me to do so.
the second is that i avoid 'off road' cycle lanes where possible, as they're not swept clear of detritus (like broken glass) in the same way a road surface is. plus on the cycle path, you've to yield to traffic on private driveways, where the converse applies to the road. and as we're talking about cycle lanes on that stretch, have a look at the one provided northbound past the coachmans. it barely qualifies as a footpath.

FWIW, cycle lanes were mandatory until 2011 or 2012 as people have said, but leo varadkar got rid of that clause when he became minister for transport. he tried to use them and realised they're generally not fit for purpose.

TheExile1878

magicbastarder wrote: »

Saipanne wrote: »

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

i'm scratching my head on this one. for many cyclists, 30km/h would a reasonable top speed they could maintain (i average less than that anyway). it'd be extremely tough for a cyclist to consistently breach speed limits (which don't apply to them anyway).

i fail to see how "actual speed used compared to maximum speed attainable" has any bearing whatsoever on this. it's an utterly meaningless statistic.

I did, it happened inches away from me.

Horrific and I'm annoyed to see that a witness statement has been removed by the mods as "speculation ". I was there they were not and if my statement is good enough for the Guards, why not here?

TheExile1878

micar wrote: »

micar wrote: »

Exactly, the pedestrian may have walk out onto the road without looking.

It cannot be assumed that 1) cyclist went through a red light or 2) he was cycling too fast.

I have had people walk out in front to me. Luckily I have never hit anyone but we have had a few choice words.

I hope the lady in question has a speedy recovery

Tarabuses wrote: »

If you read posts 1 and 3 you will see that the incident was witnessed by the OP. There is no question of the pedestrian having walked out into the road without looking. For you to suggest this about a women who has been seriously injured is outrageous.

I am also taken aback by the report that the cyclist was distraught at the lady's condition but then left the scene.

He does not specifically say he witnessed the incident.

I did.

monument

On that note of court: I should note:

Where injuries or death have occurred and there's likely to be court cases, you are not allowed to post about about blame and so I've deleted references to two different cases of walking/cycling collisions where blame was attributed to one or the other parties involved.

If I've missed any posts or if anybody gets into it please report them.

You can discuss more freely after the court cases or after the corrner's case if that says there'll be no court case.

-- moderator

magicbastarder

TheExile1878 wrote: »

I did, it happened inches away from me

What happened inches away from you?

TheExile1878

A cyclist knocking down a pedestrian and leaving her unconscious on the road. Thankfully he saw sense and remained at the scene, hopefully proper legal action can be,taken.

And yes I walk everywhere in Dublin and see many incidents of bad cyclists, this is not the first time thus has happened but it's the most serious result

MarkAnthony

beauf wrote: »

If the problem isn't a lack of laws. Then another law isn't going to solve anything.

There is already law to cover dangerous cycling.

PeadarCo wrote: »

To make speed limits mandatory for cyclists you'd have to make it mandatory for all bikes to have speedometers fitted. You can't charge someone for breaking the law if they have no way of knowing that they're breaking the law.

Do you have any evidence that cyclists doing above 30km/hr in the relevant zones are such a danger to warrant such a measure?

If anyone wants to know why guards can't be bothered implementing most laws relating to cyclists just look at the statistics that relate to the number of accidents they cause.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you cant because cyclists can't measure their own speed like you can in a car with a speedometer.

magicbastarder wrote: »

speeding motorists - who would create a far greater danger than speeding cyclists - do not have their vehicles impounded. you have a solution in search of a problem.

The entire point of this thread is speeding cyclists pose a danger. You can argue (spuriously) the inconvenience of it all until the cows come home, the simple fact is you can't have it both ways.

We either need a 30 limit to protect vulnerable road users/pedestrians or we don't.

traprunner

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The entire point of this thread is speeding cyclists pose a danger. You can argue (spuriously) the inconvenience of it all until the cows come home, the simple fact is you can't have it both ways.

We either need a 30 limit to protect vulnerable road users/pedestrians or we don't.

So you have proof that the cyclist was doing over 30kph? Maybe he was going 5kph. It's like people killing someone else with one punch. 99.99% of the time one punch wouldn't kill. Just like 99.99% of times a bike and pedestrian collision at 5kph wouldn't cause much damage.

MarkAnthony

traprunner wrote: »

So you have proof that the cyclist was doing over 30kph? Maybe he was going 5kph. It's like people killing someone else with one punch. 99.99% of the time one punch wouldn't kill. Just like 99.99% of times a bike and pedestrian collision at 5kph wouldn't cause much damage.

Punching people in almost any day-to-day situation is illegal.

traprunner

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Punching people in almost any day-to-day situation is illegal.

You know what I was saying. Where's your proof that this cyclist was doing over 30kph?

Also, where's your proof that cyclists are travelling over 30kph so often in Dublin city centre that new laws are required rather than enforcement of current laws?

MarkAnthony

traprunner wrote: »

You know what I was saying. Where's your proof that this cyclist was doing over 30kph?

Also, where's your proof that cyclists are travelling over 30kph so often in Dublin city centre that new laws are required rather than enforcement of current laws?

Yes I did, and you knew what I was saying which is why I chose to engage in an irrelevant point as you have done. Obviously it was a bit too subtle. :pac:

traprunner

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Yes I did, and you knew what I was saying which is why I chose to engage in an irrelevant point as you have done. Obviously it was a bit too subtle. :pac:

Yes, very subtle. So to go back to the point anyway. You are arguing for the speed limit to be enforceable on cyclists yet you can't show that it's an issue. Speed may not have been an issue in this collision and it's just speculation that it is. People are notoriously bad at guessing the speed an object is travelling at.

MarkAnthony

To make the general point completely clear for the final time.

Modes of transport traveling at >30 KPH is either a problem or it's not. It's not a frequency issue, it's a when a collision happens - which is pretty rare for cars, vans, pedestrians, rickshaws and even bikes - is the 30KPH limit is presumably a limit in which more people survive/injuries are minimised.

The argument from cyclists is either:

I dunno - well you should know if you're likely to be going over 30KPH fit a speedo, or

There's no way I'd go over 30KPH - in which case fine and dandy.

12Phase

I was walking along minding my own business with headphones on a pavement in a pedestrian zone in Dublin and I stepped to the left and heard screeching brakes and a guy started yelling at me and calling me a dozy ####.

So I asked him why he was cycling on a pavement and he told me he was allowed to cycle on pedestrian streets and that I should watch where I'm bloody walking and called me a dozy #### again (he wasn't the brightest and didn't seem to have many phrases available to him.)

Anyway, a couple of other pedestrians chipped in and gave him a lot of verbal abuse and he just cycled off.

I cycle myself and I'm sick of this kind of moronic behaviour. I actually don't even mind people cycling really slowly and conscientiously in pedestrian areas. It's when someome arrogantly ploughs though an area like that that it's just totally stupid and dangerous.

I'm also really fed up with Dublin cyclists breaking lights. I cycle in Cork and Brussels and Amsterdam regularly and seriously Dublin you're not making yourselves look too law abiding or intelligent. Also is not for lack of cycle boxes ahead of lights or lack of infrastructure. People are simply ignoring traffic lights because they think they're not real vehicles.

Enforcement is needed because a significant minority % seem to be determined to wreck cycling for everyone else.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MarkAnthony wrote:

On insurance it should just be tacked on to the price of a bike. Bikes cause so few accidents that it really shouldn't be an issue.

We could increase the price of shoes to cover pedestrians too. But what happens is somebody walks around barefooted?

Roadhawk wrote:

Couldnt have said it better myself. Some bicycles reach very high speeds and usually do so on those little skinny tyres which make it very hard to stop.

Rubbish. If you break hard enough you could go over the handlebars. Bike breaking systems are fantastic.

Saipanne wrote:

Difference between cyclists and motorists in the city is that cyclists always attempt to reach their max speed, regardless of the risk of doing so. Motorists in the city, while no saints, seldom attempt to reach max speed in urban environments.

That's a really stupid analogy. Top speed of both vehicles, even if your statement was true, are so far frome one another it's hard to see the sense in your post.

Saipanne wrote:

Cyclists love speeding, especially in pedestrian areas and through red lights.

More bullcrap.

MarkAnthony wrote:

Simply set up speed traps and fine cyclists on the spot. If not the bike is seized.

Speed traps without speed limits? How does that work.

MarkAnthony wrote:

There seems to be a bit of a cyclist centric attitude to these speed reductions. They're there to protect vulnerable pedestrians as much as cyclists. Why would we want one group of road users to be able to do more than the set limit?

Speed limits for cyclists is silky. You would need to legislate for it, bikes would need to be fitted with speedometers at POS. Unenforceable too...

McAlban wrote:

Yes, according to the rules of the Road cyclists Must use cycle tracks provided.

Thankfully that idiotic rule was removed years ago.

As for cycling as fast as possible. Jealous much?

TheExile1878

Agreed, cars often run those same red lights.

McAlban

beauf wrote: »

Because people are unpredictable, and if you are cycling (or driving, or walking) beside pedestrians, you will have almost no warning if one abruptly steps into your path as you pass. Even walking people often just step in front of you without looking.

I'm baffled how you would never have experienced that, in any form of transport, even walking.

Every time I get into the Car, or am on the bike for that matter. Especially when turning left. The Majority of pedestrians are looking left for Cars/talking to their mates/listening to music and just amble across the junction. It puts all the responsibility onto the Driver not to mow them down.

cython wrote: »

The ROTR are not law, as you have already been told. They are simply an RSA interpretation of the relevant legislation, and to be quite frank the RSA attitude to cyclists is generally quite poor.

I am well aware of the ROTR as best practice guidelines and not legislation. See my other earlier posts on why both should be strengthened. How many cyclists actually read them or the legislation?

Mekhi Tall Albino wrote: »

As for cycling as fast as possible. Jealous much?

You mentioned idiotic posts...

Again with all incidents like this, it seems we have a good chunk of the hardline cyclists online defending the indefensible. Its pretty predictable...

The Pedestrian must me at fault.
The Cyclist couldn't have been speeding.
Cyclists are the most vulnerable.
There is no Infrastructure.
We don't have to use the infrastructure.

Like I said I use all 3 modes of transport a lot, I've had my car damaged by cyclists who sped off weaving through traffic, I've had idiot motorists breaking lights and changing lanes dangerously, I was years ago knocked down by a car when on a bike through no fault of my own. I've been hit as a pedestrian running across a pedestrian crossing where it's green for me, by a cyclist. I've cycled in the USA, Sweden, Copenhagen, Netherlands and UK and Ireland is by far the most dangerous as a cyclist. It doesn't change what happened in this case.

TheExile1878

Just curious here, when there's,a traffic accident. - motorists don't immediately say "but cyclists are as bad". So why do cyclists not take blame, but deflect onto others??

And trust me, this guy was not casually ambling along at 3mph. Or the lady would not have been knocked unconscious.

12Phase

It would be relatively trivial to put ID plates on the rental bikes.

3 letters would cover 17576 bikes or 2 letters and 1 number gives you 6760 bikes and avoids rude words

Link the ID to time and you've tracked the users card.

Tarabuses

TheExile1878 wrote: »

A cyclist knocking down a pedestrian and leaving her unconscious on the road. Thankfully he saw sense and remained at the scene, hopefully proper legal action can be,taken.

And yes I walk everywhere in Dublin and see many incidents of bad cyclists, this is not the first time thus has happened but it's the most serious result

Thanks for clarifying that the cyclist remained at the scene, and to monument for explaining why your witness statement was removed.

McAlban

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Just curious here, when there's,a traffic accident. - motorists don't immediately say "but cyclists are as bad". So why do cyclists not take blame, but deflect onto others??

And trust me, this guy was not casually ambling along at 3mph. Or the lady would not have been knocked unconscious.

Like I said, the Hardcore Cohort who must defend their stance always. I am in no way against cyclists, in fact I agree with many issues raised by the cyclist lobby, but there is an element who believe four wheels and two legs bad, two wheels good.

The Legislation, rightly or wrongly, puts a heavy emphasis on motorists to be the responsible Road user. Unfortunately there are a lot of bad motorists out there, a legacy of our previous licensing regime and our unregulated driving schools which emphasise passing the test rather than being a good responsible and capable driver.

traprunner

I think you are mistake when you think that most cyclists say that others can't do no wrong. Just look at the forums here and even this thread. I don't remember one post defending the cyclist because the facts of this incident are not known.

howiya

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Just curious here, when there's,a traffic accident. - motorists don't immediately say "but cyclists are as bad". So why do cyclists not take blame, but deflect onto others??

And trust me, this guy was not casually ambling along at 3mph. Or the lady would not have been knocked unconscious.

It's not about apportioning blame to cyclists plural though. The incident involved one cyclist. If you saw a car crash yesterday would you have started a thread to discuss it?

McAlban

howiya wrote: »

It's not about apportioning blame to cyclists plural though. The incident involved one cyclist. If you saw a car crash yesterday would you have started a thread to discuss it?

Many people do...

https://twitter.com/AislinnOT/status/738278239160963072