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

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to say as someone who uses the junction as a pedestrian every day, I have never considered the Dame St / Georges St junction to be bad for this, but maybe I've been lucky.

It's been a couple of years now since I've had to go through, but this junction and the two pedestrian crossings on college green (in front of Trinity) are the ones which bring out the worst behaviour in all road users in my experience.

Whether that's pedestrians marching sheep-like out in front of moving traffic, bikes weaving through red lights and around pedestrians or vehicles breaking red lights and making illegal turns, if you're looking for a catalogue with every model of bad behaviour, you only have to stand at either location for five minutes.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

McAlban wrote: »

You mentioned idiotic posts...

I mentioned idiotic rules, not posts. It's there in black and white for all to read. What exactly are you trying to imply?

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.

WTF is a hardline cyclist anyway?

Not sure where it was pointed out that the pedestrian must be at fault. Maybe I missed that.

Cyclists can't speed as the speed limit does not apply to them. Your point here is iirrelevant.

Cyclists are one of the most vulnerable road users.

There is some sort of infrastructure, but it's rubbish. Slapped together in a lot of cases. Poorly planned and with almost zero maintenance. The lack of infastructure is very obvious.

Cyclists don't have to use cycle lanes.

McAlban wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's a correct analysis at all. I don't see that from any posts here at all...

Marcusm

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. 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.

"Shall" is the imperative form meaning that it must be followed. It is clear that a pedal cyclist must cycle in the cycle lane where provided and to the left of that lane.

monument

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Principal Regulations are amended in the regs listed above. This is the new Article 14 of the Principal Regs and this is subsection 4.

What other cycle tracks are there? Other than on a road, a portion of a road, or where RUS 021 is?

This covers that:

check_six wrote: »

It's not "or" where the RUS 021 sign is. It's "or an area".

There are three places where a cycle track can be placed in a RUS021 zone: a road, a portion of a road, or an area.

Essentially, if a pedestrianised zone (indicated by RUS021) has a cycle track you must use the cycle track there.

The other part refers to contraflow bus lanes. If there is a cycle track in the contraflow lane, you may only travel in the direction of the lane.

So to be clear:

That's a road where RUS 021 is provided, a portion of a road where RUS 021 is provided, or an area where RUS 021 is provided.

cython

Marcusm wrote: »

"Shall" is the imperative form meaning that it must be followed. It is clear that a pedal cyclist must cycle in the cycle lane where provided and to the left of that lane.

I've already explained why this is wrong, and monument's post below your own also addresses this. That "shall" only applies to the scenarios outlined in the clause, i.e. where

• a cycle track is provided on a road at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided
• a cycle track is provided on a portion of a road at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided
• a cycle track is provided in an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 is provided
• a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

I have restructured/paraphrased this from the original text quoted below, as it seems to be beyond a lot of posters to grasp that the use of RUS 021 in the first clause applies to both roadways and to the pedestrianised area:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

As far as any explicit requirement for cyclists to keep to the left of the lane (above and beyond that on any other vehicle, of course), this is only stated for two way cycle lanes:

(3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

traprunner

Just to clarify for those that are unclear. The road signs are here: http://www.pwssigns.com/regulatory-signs-products

monument

traprunner wrote: »

Just to clarify for those that are unclear. The road signs are here: http://www.pwssigns.com/regulatory-signs-products

Thanks, yes, it's worth posting those images. I've mainly used images from here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/331/made/en/print

RUS 021
pedestrianised street


RUS 059
contra-flow cycle track


The way the regulations are written, mandtory use with RUS 021 only applies when it's used for its primary use (pedestrianised street) and not where there's exceptions (ie when it's used with a bus, cycle, taxi streets or entry plate).

The regulations are a bit silly when it comes to mandatory use for cyclists and RUS 009 cycle track -- contraflow cyclists shouldn't see that sign, it's design to show motorists and with-flow cyclists that the cycle lane is a contra-flow lane. The sign as outlined in the regulations would be confusing and misleading if pointed towards contra-flow cyclists!

Mandatory use generally won't be applied to the following signs*:

RUS 009
pedal cycles only / with-flow cycle track


RUS 058
shared walking/cycling track of diffrent types


* except where RUS 009 is used to show some contra-flow lanes or where these are used on pedestrianised streets marked by RUS 021.

Rakish Paddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to say as someone who uses the junction as a pedestrian every day, I have never considered the Dame St / Georges St junction to be bad for this, but maybe I've been lucky.

As someone who commutes on foot most weekdays, I have always thought this was possibly the worst junction in town for bad cycling (mainly making illegal turns, running red lights, and ploughing through crossing pedestrians who have the green man).

The whole area around Baggot St. bridge is an awful spot to be a pedestrian too, and a lot of it stems from cyclists completely ignoring the traffic lights on the cycle track by the canal and swerving at speed to dodge pedestrians crossing at the green man.

Probably the most frequent excuse I hear for bad cyclist behaviour in Dublin is that the infrastructure simply isn't there for them, and when they break the law (running a red light etc.) it's usually because it would be more dangerous to not break the law. If that's the case, I cannot understand why there is so little adherence to the rules of the road on that dedicated cycle track.

beauf

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

...The whole area around Baggot St. bridge .... I cannot understand why there is so little adherence to the rules of the road on that dedicated cycle track.

Do you ever see a Garda enforcing the rules around there. I never did.

Rakish Paddy

beauf wrote: »

Do you ever see a Garda enforcing the rules around there. I never did.

Nope, not once. I wonder is that all that would be needed? i.e. for the average cyclist to know there's a reasonable chance of getting fined for breaking red lights or otherwise endangering pedestrians/themselves.

12Phase

I was pretty annoyed today.

Stepped out of a shop on Patrick's Street in Cork onto what is 100% definitely a pavement and a rental bike nearly ran me over! He was literally cycling at fairly high speed along the pavement weaving around pedestrians.

To rub it in, he told me to watch where I was going!!!!!

I'm actually not that bothered by cyclists going slowly along on wide pavement, but this was bloody ridiculous.

A bit of education and enforcement is needed!

traprunner

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Nope, not once. I wonder is that all that would be needed? i.e. for the average cyclist to know there's a reasonable chance of getting fined for breaking red lights or otherwise endangering pedestrians/themselves.

It's the same for all modes of transport. Enforcement is required for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The laws are there. People get away with what they can if the chances of being caught are virtually nil.

tomasrojo

traprunner wrote: »

It's the same for all modes of transport. Enforcement is required for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. The laws are there. People get away with what they can if the chances of being caught are virtually nil.

I think it's true for all modes of transport, but not all offences. However, speeding is a comparable offence. There was a very obvious drop in average speed when penalty points were introduced which crept inexorably back up to where it had been once it became clear that your chances of being done for speeding were quite small.

ED E

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it's true for all modes of transport, but not all offences. However, speeding is a comparable offence. There was a very obvious drop in average speed when penalty points were introduced which crept inexorably back up to where it had been once it became clear that your chances of being done for speeding were quite small.

Exactly.

They did one weeks checkpoints when the new cycling fines came in then nada, zilch. Garda discretion should not be a thing.

beauf

Was an old article (MAY 20, 2016) on it, most have probably seen it.


http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/20/nearly-700-cyclists-handed-e40-on-the-spot-fines-as-detection-rate-declines/

Level of fines issued amounts to an average of just 2.4 fines issued per day or 77 fines per month. If the figures are correct, only 120 fines were issued since January when the last stats were published.

2RockMountain

ED E wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it's true for all modes of transport, but not all offences. However, speeding is a comparable offence. There was a very obvious drop in average speed when penalty points were introduced which crept inexorably back up to where it had been once it became clear that your chances of being done for speeding were quite small.

Exactly.

They did one weeks checkpoints when the new cycling fines came in then nada, zilch. Garda discretion should not be a thing.

At times, I wish for zero tolerance as well, but it's just not viable. The whole system would grind to a halt in a day or two.

2RockMountain

12Phase wrote: »

I was pretty annoyed today.

Stepped out of a shop on Patrick's Street in Cork onto what is 100% definitely a pavement and a rental bike nearly ran me over! He was literally cycling at fairly high speed along the pavement weaving around pedestrians.

To rub it in, he told me to watch where I was going!!!!!

I'm actually not that bothered by cyclists going slowly along on wide pavement, but this was bloody ridiculous.

A bit of education and enforcement is needed!

It's a UK example, but just for context, there are more things to be worried about on pavements than cyclists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pedestrian-badly-hurt-after-car-flips-on-to-pavement-a7081646.html

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

It's a UK example, but just for context, there are more things to be worried about on pavements than cyclists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pedestrian-badly-hurt-after-car-flips-on-to-pavement-a7081646.html

A drink driver and serving a ban. He shouldnt have been on the road in the first place. He should be locked up

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

A drink driver and serving a ban. He shouldnt have been on the road in the first place. He should be locked up

Shops can be pretty dangerous places too.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-moment-drunk-pensioner-ploughs-car-through-shop-into-sixyearold-boy-a3272936.html

ezra_pound

2RockMountain wrote: »

It's a UK example, but just for context, there are more things to be worried about on pavements than cyclists. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pedestrian-badly-hurt-after-car-flips-on-to-pavement-a7081646.html

An Irish example of car killing pedestrian on pavement:
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/luas-crash-victim-had-booked-trip-home-to-china-with-daughter-30164417.html

"After colliding with the Luas, the car hit Mrs Webster, who was on the footpath."

PaddyWilliams

I was in Berlin recently. Great set up for bikes and I saw loads of people cycling there. I thought it was great. Motorists and cyclists alike, actually obeying the law. Stopping at red lights (Yes, even bikes, which was a nice thing to see!)

If we could have a set up like that here it would be fantastic. No deflecting of blame from one to the other. Everyone abiding by the rules and the laws. Utopia would be a step closer!

Psychosis

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

I was in Berlin recently. Great set up for bikes and I saw loads of people cycling there. I thought it was great. Motorists and cyclists alike, actually obeying the law. Stopping at red lights (Yes, even bikes, which was a nice thing to see!)

If we could have a set up like that here it would be fantastic. No deflecting of blame from one to the other. Everyone abiding by the rules and the laws. Utopia would be a step closer!

Yeah they have a proper road infrastructure, definitely reduces frustrations and conflicts.

The roads here lead to increasing frustration and aggressive behavior, everyone rushing to get through the next set of lights.

beauf

They enforce the law though.

Jawgap

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

This is one of the reasons i believe cyclists should be made purchase insurance. Motorists are held responsible and can have claims against them, no reason same cant apply to cyclists who are found responsible for any accident.

What about pedestrians? Should they be made to purchase insurance to cover those [rare :rolleyes:] times they walk off pavements without looking, cross within 25m of a pedestrian crossing, walk on the wrong side of country roads.....

.......and walk in cycle lanes.

The problem with ideas for insurance for cyclists (which many already have) or registration numbers etc is enforcement - no point in bringing in an unenforceable law that most will ignore......or do people really think stopping and checking cyclists for documentation is a good use of Garda time anywhere, but especially in a city centre?

tomasrojo

PaddyWilliams wrote: »

I was in Berlin recently. Great set up for bikes and I saw loads of people cycling there. I thought it was great. Motorists and cyclists alike, actually obeying the law. Stopping at red lights (Yes, even bikes, which was a nice thing to see!)

If we could have a set up like that here it would be fantastic. No deflecting of blame from one to the other. Everyone abiding by the rules and the laws. Utopia would be a step closer!

Lot of cycling on the footpath there though. I mean outside the very many footpath-based cycle lanes.

ED E

2RockMountain wrote: »

At times, I wish for zero tolerance as well, but it's just not viable. The whole system would grind to a halt in a day or two.

I couldnt disagree more.

The week the Gardai started 100% enforcement and DCC started using their monster tow trucks to clear QBCs would be followed by the first week in 20yrs when Dublin had free flowing traffic.

magicbastarder

also posted to a thread on the cycling forum - can you see the rather odd road layout here?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3757803,-6.2648535,3a,75y,7.86h,69.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPShsn-ATB3bLgRs6Svgc3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

prinzeugen

magicbastarder wrote: »

also posted to a thread on the cycling forum - can you see the rather odd road layout here?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3757803,-6.2648535,3a,75y,7.86h,69.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPShsn-ATB3bLgRs6Svgc3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Nothing odd about that. The pic makes it look like a T or Y junction but its not. Just a bit straight road.

magicbastarder

i was referring to the lane layout - one lane uphill, three lanes (including the off road cycle lane) downhill. it's since been pointed out to me that the cycle lane is a contra flow lane (as can be seen by the way the sign is pointing in the link posted).
you can see where it crosses over here:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3730316,-6.2658505,3a,75y,201.09h,61.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZfOuG3OynAhTwvTfyarkDg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

i spotted the lane layout from the bus yesterday, didn't spot the cycle lane crossover.

McAlban

My son goes to Scoil Catriona, (Entrance in your first link) That road, and that Part you first pointed out is an absolute nightmare. (It was proposed by Abercrombie a 100 years ago in his Dublin City Plan as an ordinary 2 way bypass of Glasnevin village...)

I've seen so many near misses on that lane, and that bus lane, and the junction between Home Farm Road and Mobhi Road!

The Cycle lane markings are really worn, but the whole road and footpaths could do with a resurfacing.

Incidentally I saw a cyclist break the Luas lights northbound on Church St. last night after the Luas had gone down Lincoln Lane and promptly plow into a pedestrian who had a green at the pedestrian lights. My Lights went green, but seemed both were uninjured thankfully.