No more motorways or motorway upgrades until drivers behave

IE 222

BEFORE POSTING YOU MUST READ: moderator note in post #5 below!

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

NiallBoo

IE 222 wrote: »

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

Christ... that old chestnut.

Sam Russell

IE 222 wrote: »

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

There are more motorist prosecuted for driving offences than cyclists for similar offences. There are more people killed by cars than by cyclists.

Macy0161

IE 222 wrote:

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

In the week we've had many admitting, and more excusing, drink driving, and giving out about enforcement of speeding? Yeah, cyclist compliance is the real problem on the roads...

monument

POSTS MOVED

The topic for this thread is to discuss the logic behind the idea that we should have no more infrastructure of X type until X type of road user behaves.

I'll give it a day or maybe two. If there is no reasonable arguments behind the idea, the charter will be updated and anybody suggesting the idea from then on will be infarcted for trolling.

Normal rules apply.

-- moderator

magicbastarder

it's an amazing 'cart before the horse' use of logic, to be fair.

IE 222

Sorry guys,

That post was ment for a different tred. I was wondering why it didn't post.

savagethegoat

lets not do this

RobertFoster

The thread reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5diMImYIIA

TheQuietFella

IE 222 wrote: »

BEFORE POSTING YOU MUST READ: moderator note in post #5 below!

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

From my experience I think the majority seem to behave on the roads but its the few that think that they're cycling the Tour De France whilst in heavy traffic really get to me!

But in reality it's just the government trying to justify doing nothing and diverting the cause elsewhere.

Mrs OBumble

Has anyone got any statistics about the volume of road traffic breaches, per unit of traffic or per unit of distance travelled?

Would be very difficult to collect of course, given that it needs to include both prosecuted and non-prosecuted ones.

But has anyone ever even sat at a traffic light, and counted the absolute number of each vehicle type (includig non-motorised ones) that ignore a stop sign or red-light?

Seems to me that some kind of robust measurement tool would be needed if the "No more X until Y" approach was to be used.

endagibson

TheQuietFella wrote: »

the few that think that they're cycling the Tour De France

whisky_galore

Absolute joke of a thread.
More suited to AH, mods feel free to put it out of its misery.

ThisRegard

whisky_galore wrote: »

Absolute joke of a thread.
.

And yet they come up with great regularity when it comes to cyclists and cycling facilities, and some posters are only to happy to keep the fire stoked when they do.

whisky_galore

ThisRegard wrote: »

And yet they come up with great regularity when it comes to cyclists and cycling facilities, and some posters are only to happy to keep the fire stoked when they do.

I mean it's a joke in both incarnations.

Macy0161

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But has anyone ever even sat at a traffic light, and counted the absolute number of each vehicle type (includig non-motorised ones) that ignore a stop sign or red-light?

It'd have to be all road users rather than vehicle type, to include pedestrians.

TheQuietFella wrote:

From my experience I think the majority seem to behave on the roads but its the few that think that they're cycling the Tour De France whilst in heavy traffic really get to me!

Happens all the time to me. Coming down the N11, spot the RTE mast and suddenly i'm turning on to the Place de la concorde...

ThisRegard

It's their multiple support cars toddling along after them that cause the real delays though.

Roadhawk

This is a very simple topic...

Its a case of "if you build it they will come". If there is good investment into cycling infrastructure then more people will cycle. As for the behavior of cyclists...this should be left to Gardai. But an improvement is needed on enforcement.

TheQuietFella

Roadhawk wrote: »

This is a very simple topic...

Its a case of "if you build it they will come". If there is good investment into cycling infrastructure then more people will cycle. As for the behavior of cyclists...this should be left to Gardai. But an improvement is needed on enforcement.

To be fair and I appreciate your sentiment but there are greater issues for the Gardaí to deal with other than cyclists.

Roadhawk

TheQuietFella wrote: »

To be fair and I appreciate your sentiment but there are greater issues for the Gardaí to deal with other than cyclists.

I think the main area that needs focus from the the Gardai is the Traffic Corps! More speed traps, checkpoints, etc are desperately needed. in doing this it also helps with a lot of other crimes such as theft, drugs and gang movements all while creating safer roads for the public. Cyclists included!

Macy0161

Roadhawk wrote: »

I think the main area that needs focus from the the Gardai is the Traffic Corps! More speed traps, checkpoints, etc are desperately needed. in doing this it also helps with a lot of other crimes such as theft, drugs and gang movements all while creating safer roads for the public. Cyclists included!

I would disagree - it's more automation that I think should be the next road safety step. More red light cameras, fixed and mobile speed cameras, average speed cameras, APRN's for tax/ insurance/ unqualified, banned and under qualified drivers (tweak the laws on displaying L plates, and use them for that too). Free up the traffic corp to work on the behavioural enforcement tasks.

However, as we saw last week, law breaking and automatic enforcement is politically unpopular. The only "fish in a barrel" to be shot are fish breaking the actual posted limits!

josip

Is this thread about motorways or cycle lanes?
I would have thought that we needed 2 separate threads for 2 very different topics?

Thanks to the boom we have a reasonably comprehensive motorway network, the Atlantic corridor excepted.
The motorway network that is there, is reasonably well designed and very well maintained.

The existing cycle paths on the other hand are not well designed.
They are almost all implemented as an afterthought by taking back either road space or footpath space. The councils make no pretence to maintain them and the ones that are taken from the roadspace are glorified gutters.

Until the cycle network is brought up to the same level as the motorway network, the proposition in the opening post is invalid.

(I drive 3 days a week to work, cycle 2 days a week and am glad to walk far away from all traffic at the weekends).

SeanW

IE 222 wrote: »

BEFORE POSTING YOU MUST READ: moderator note in post #5 below!

Until all cyclists adapt to the rules of road and become more safety aware there is no point investing heavily in cycle routes.

These were posts moved from another thread and I'm not sure how the new title relates to the post content, but I'll give it a bash: There are three major problems with this analogy. Note I am not attributing the position to IE 222 per se because I did not see the OP in its original context.

1:
Firstly, there are differences between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists and motorists are different in the sense that motorists pay motoring related taxes, while cyclists do not pay cycling related taxes. Motorists are heavily regulated, cyclists are under-regulated. Most importantly, motorists are frequently punished for violations, often if not predominently victimless violations. Laws regulating cyclists are not enforced, even when their lawbreaking seriously inconveniences or endangers other road users, there is NO control, whatsoever. And as I can attest as a daily pedestrian in Irelands major cities, it shows.

So while it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed common, to build a motorway, toll it, reduce the speed limit on the old road and wallpaper it with speed camera vans. Cyclists don't tend to face similar problems with cycling infrastructure.

2:
More importantly than all the above, society as a whole, including non motorists, benefit from motorways - if you use a bus, that bus can get to its destination faster with the motorway. If you buy something in a shop, that shop can sell you stuff cheaper and on a more reliable basis if it can receive goods on a reliable basis - motorways guarantee this. Same with the postal service. All road users, pedestrians, cyclists and short haul motorists all benefit from having large volumes of long distance traffic removed from local roads and streets. Finally, motorways are normally built over "green field" areas that did not have transportation usage before, so no other group of transport users loses out in the normal case. In short, motorway construction benefit everyone. All of the above applies no matter how motorist behave.

Cycle infrastructure on the other hand tends only to benefit cyclists. And because they're often built into existing permanent ways, they necessarily cost other road users. They don't benefit pedestrians, because cyclists are still free to break "no-riding-on-footpath" laws. They don't benefit motorists or bus users, because cyclists frequently ignore cycle lanes and continue on the road, even when there's no good reason to do so.

3:
I don't intend to be insulting with this point, but it's something that I've seen is a certain idea in some quarters that there is no point in just building cycle lanes, no matter how much is spent or how good the resulting infrastructure is. Any plan for cycling infrastrcuture, by the views of various individuals and groups, is pointless unless hostility to motorists is a fundamental part of the plan.

Motorways and railways do not suffer from the same problem - a driver on a motorway doesn't care who is using what to go where on the surface streets, likewise if I have a nice, fast, comfy train that takes me to work every morning, I don't care who is driving or cycling or whatever to other places. On this basis, I suggest passenger railways and motorways should be prioritised.

Macy0161 wrote: »

In the week we've had many admitting, and more excusing, drink driving, and giving out about enforcement of speeding? Yeah, cyclist compliance is the real problem on the roads...

I think I can speak for many motorists when I say we're happy to have road-law enforcement, PROVIDED that such enforcement is combined with laws that make sense. Sane limits on blood alchohol content? (To fair, these are OK) We're down with that. Sensible speed limits that are a good guide to road safety (e.g. 80 or 100kph on long distance roads, 120 on motorways, 50kph in dense urban areas, 30kph on residential estates and side streets? I'm down with that.

What we're not okay with is 30 and 50 kph limits on grade separated and HQ dual carriageways. Or urban speed limits that extend far outside of a town for no aparent reason. Drug driving laws that have no basis whatsover in science (like laws restricting THC/blood content so severely that a person who indulges in that kind of thing would have to stay off the road for a month, even though the scientific evidence for such restrictions is non-existant?) That's a little different.

I think I speak for all sane motorists when I say we would be happy with rigourous enforcement of laws that make sense.

Bass Reeves

Top class post even If I only agree with about 97.562371238% of it

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

1:
Firstly, there are differences between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists and motorists are different in the sense that motorists pay motoring related taxes, while cyclists do not pay cycling related taxes. Motorists are heavily regulated, cyclists are under-regulated. Most importantly, motorists are frequently punished for violations, often if not predominently victimless violations. Laws regulating cyclists are not enforced, even when their lawbreaking seriously inconveniences or endangers other road users, there is NO control, whatsoever. And as I can attest as a daily pedestrian in Irelands major cities, it shows.

indeed there are differences, but you can't state that then simply lump all types of motorist together either.
Nor can you state cycle related laws are not enforced in comparison to motorist unless you want to back that up with actual stats.

So while it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed common, to build a motorway, toll it, reduce the speed limit on the old road and wallpaper it with speed camera vans. Cyclists don't tend to face similar problems with cycling infrastructure.

Cyclists don't even need (or for the most part want) cycling infrastructure. They are vehicles that belong on the road IMO and that should be the end of it.

2:
More importantly than all the above, society as a whole, including non motorists, benefit from motorways - if you use a bus, that bus can get to its destination faster with the motorway. If you buy something in a shop, that shop can sell you stuff cheaper and on a more reliable basis if it can receive goods on a reliable basis - motorways guarantee this. Same with the postal service. All road users, pedestrians, cyclists and short haul motorists all benefit from having large volumes of long distance traffic removed from local roads and streets. Finally, motorways are normally built over "green field" areas that did not have transportation usage before, so no other group of transport users loses out in the normal case. In short, motorway construction benefit everyone. All of the above applies no matter how motorist behave.

True, but more motorways also encourage more driving or more less sustainable methods of transport and are bad for the environment. Truck rather than train for freight, car rather than bus for commuters. Individuals ignore the overall cost to society of more roads. Equally the economic cost of building all these roads that aren't really required rather than targeting better ways to spend the funds on PT in Dublin for example.

Cycle infrastructure on the other hand tends only to benefit cyclists. And because they're often built into existing permanent ways, they necessarily cost other road users.

It can benefit other road users by removing people from cars to bikes... That is like implying that a bus lane only removes road space from cars, while ignoring the direct benefits to all bus passengers and the associated benefits in car reduction as buses become more reliable as a result.

They don't benefit pedestrians, because cyclists are still free to break "no-riding-on-footpath" laws.

No they're not, that just comes down to enforcement.

They don't benefit motorists or bus users, because cyclists frequently ignore cycle lanes and continue on the road, even when there's no good reason to do so.

Cyclists will only ignore lanes when there is good reason to do so, people will always gravitate to the simplest easiest option. If cyclists are not using a section of cycle lane you'll be quickly able to determine why if you asked, anything from lack of priority, to always covered in glass to not as direct.

3:
I don't intend to be insulting with this point, but it's something that I've seen is a certain idea in some quarters that there is no point in just building cycle lanes, no matter how much is spent or how good the resulting infrastructure is. Any plan for cycling infrastrcuture, by the views of various individuals and groups, is pointless unless hostility to motorists is a fundamental part of the plan.

That's just speculative generalisation. However, that said any modern infrastructure planning should ALWAYS place the private motorist last on the list of priorities. They are the most cost intensive, environmentally damaging, inefficient form of transport.

Motorways and railways do not suffer from the same problem - a driver on a motorway doesn't care who is using what to go where on the surface streets, likewise if I have a nice, fast, comfy train that takes me to work every morning, I don't care who is driving or cycling or whatever to other places. On this basis, I suggest passenger railways and motorways should be prioritised.

Motorways in the centre of Dublin wouldn't really work though, not much point in building them there. They do a great job connecting long distances at high speed but the vast majority of the road network doesn't need to be motorway standard, it's cost and environmentally prohibitive. We have motorways pretty much where we need them now and half of them don't really even need to be there. Passenger rail should definitely be prioritised; Dublin needs an S-Bahn type network.

Tongue in cheek - Until IE start behaving and use the railways properly there is little point in building more of these either...

I think I speak for all sane motorists members of society when I say we would be happy with rigorous enforcement of laws that make sense.

no point in limiting that statement so much.
As a frequent cyclist I want all the dickhead rule breaking cyclists punished just as much as you or anyone else, exactly the same way I feel as a motorist or a businessman or a citizen.

magicbastarder

i'd also question this 'motorways good, cycling neutral' argument.
in fact, i'd call it complete tosh.

every motorist who gets out of their car and onto their bike is another person doing considerably less damage to the environment, also making the roads that bit less congested, reducing their chance of being involved in a fatal RTA, and will be that much fitter and healthier (the BMJ estimated the health positives of cycling to outweigh the negatives by a factor of between 10 and 20, iirc).

and again to echo the 'cyclists wilfully ignore all cycle paths' argument - why would a cyclist ignore a good cycle path? speaking for myself, i tend to use the on-road ones and steer clear of the off-road ones because they're usually badly designed and/or full of glass.
however, motorists tend to notice cyclists not using off-road lanes, but don't seem to notice them using on-road lanes.

magicbastarder

and to return to the point about regulation on motorists but not cyclists - the results are clear. the last time a cyclist was involved in the death of another road user where the cyclist was in the wrong was 2002.
approx. 4,000 people have died in RTAs since, the vast majority of which involved motorised vehicles. there's far less need to regulate cyclists because they do far less damage. but most motorists see them as weirdly equivalent in their capacity to do damage.

there's a simple reason couched in physics for why motorised vehicles have speed limits (most of which most cyclists would struggle to attain, even if they don't apply to them) and a greater regulatory framework.
a cyclist doing 36km/h (which is very much on the high side for cycling on the flat) packs about 5,000 joules of kinetic energy.
the *difference* between a motorist doing 50km/h and 60km/h (so maybe consider it an 'excess' in the scenario of someone doing 60 in a 50 zone) is 53,000 joules (i.e. the kinetic energey goes from 127,500J to 180,500J; an increase of nearly half for an extra 10km/h).

ThisRegard

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, there are differences between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists and motorists are different in the sense that motorists pay motoring related taxes, while cyclists do not pay cycling related taxes.

I, and a hell of a lot of other cyclists, pay motor related taxes. I do so on 2 cars.

endagibson

SeanW wrote: »

Cyclists and motorists are different in the sense that motorists pay motoring related taxes, while cyclists do not pay cycling related taxes.

I take it you're referring to motor tax and VRT upon purchase of a new car here.

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists are heavily regulated, cyclists are under-regulated.

I would have thought the two were quite similar as road law applies to both. Offhand exceptions are speed restrictions and NCT for cars; motorways for bicycles. Oh, and some bicycles must have a bell.

magicbastarder

one thing i've often said is that i'd be happy to pay a cyclist's equivalent of motor tax if only to remove that argument from motorists who use it, even erroneously.

my bike weighs about 1% of what my car does. so i'd be happy to pay bicycle tax based on that proportion; €380 for my car for a year, €3.80 for my bike.
or, if you want to take it based on the wear and tear on the roads caused by the two vehicles, that'd drop it to about €0.38c.

BuffyBot

Top class post even If I only agree with about 97.562371238% of it.

In future, you might get less carried away in your enthusiasm and not quote the entire post, in consideration for those on mobiles etc

Roadhawk

SeanW wrote: »

These were posts moved from another thread and I'm not sure how the new title relates to the post content, but I'll give it a bash:...

Bravo, Bravo and Bravo again!!!

Bass Reeves

magicbastarder wrote: »

one thing i've often said is that i'd be happy to pay a cyclist's equivalent of motor tax if only to remove that argument from motorists who use it, even erroneously.

my bike weighs about 1% of what my car does. so i'd be happy to pay bicycle tax based on that proportion; €380 for my car for a year, €3.80 for my bike.
or, if you want to take it based on the wear and tear on the roads caused by the two vehicles, that'd drop it to about €0.38c.

You forget that a tax is exactly that a tax, It is not related to wear and tear on the road and neither is it limited to road tax. Motorists pay various other taxes such as VRT and cars and tax on fuel. The total take AFAIK is in excess of the amount spend on roads annually. Car users are seen an an easy target for tax.

The reality about bikes is thatin general fines are so small that enforcement is minimal. It is too easy for the traffic core or go safe vans to park up and pick a spot like Lissyacasey in Co Clare where the speed limit is abut 3Km long and catch motorists for speeding. It is like shooting fish in a barrell tothe unwary motorist who think they have passed the exit speed limit but think they have missed it.

There is also an identity issue. If a cyclist gives incorrect information it is a tough task to chase up the offender. A check on the reg of a car will find most offenders that give incorrect information. Becasue of this cycling offences are not often followed up.

endagibson

SeanW wrote: »

Cycle infrastructure on the other hand tends only to benefit cyclists.

Not true. It benefits society and business also.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't intend to be insulting with this point, but it's something that I've seen is a certain idea in some quarters that there is no point in just building cycle lanes, no matter how much is spent or how good the resulting infrastructure is.

Correct. There are some advocates for what is termed vehicular cycling. Personally I think that they're mostly obstructionists who just use it to argue against updating the infrastructure. The various "good cycling example" locations, such as Copenhagen and the Netherlands provide segregated infrastructure that works.

SeanW wrote: »

Any plan for cycling infrastrcuture, by the views of various individuals and groups, is pointless unless hostility to motorists is a fundamental part of the plan.

Can you give an example of this? I don't see it.

Carawaystick

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There is also an identity issue. If a cyclist gives incorrect information it is a tough task to chase up the offender. A check on the reg of a car will find most offenders that give incorrect information. Becasue of this cycling offences are not often followed up.

A cop can take the bike of a person cycling until the cop is certain of the identity of the person.

Much less scope to confiscate a car from a person driving. There's no hard link between a person driving and the registered owner of a car.

Rakish Paddy

I would have generally subscribed to the 'if you build it, people will use it' idea, but my experience of being a pedestrian trying to cross the purpose-built, segregated cycle path along the Grand Canal has changed all that.

Have any of you ever tried crossing that path at Baggot Street Bridge when the cyclist red lights are lit and pedestrian green man is lit? I'm not joking at all when I say almost no cyclists ever stop unless there is traffic actively crossing the bridge, and attempt to go around or through pedestrians who are crossing.

I don't think there's anything short of an automatically-lowered barrier or a lollipop lady that would stop this moronic behaviour. When pedestrians are confronted with such dreadful cyclist behaviour on a regular basis around Dublin (and that's really not an exaggeration - it's not some negligible minority of incompetent cyclists) it's not hard to see why there is such bad feeling towards cyclists in general from pedestrians.

Sure, drivers behave like knob-ends too, and break red lights by running straight trough an amber, but it's pretty unusual for drivers to arrive at a junction and just outright ignore a red light after the pedestrian lights have gone green.

There is a real problem with lack of enforcement against incompetent cyclists, and a crappy regime of fixed charges that doesn't even include the number one offence from a pedestrian viewpoint (cycling on a footpath or pedestrian street). If there were daily Garda checkpoints scattered around blackspots in Dublin and the punishment was a much larger fine or immediate confiscation of the bicycle with a fee to get it back, it might go some way towards improving things. Also I'd like to see specific punishments for companies who employ cyclists who ignore the rules of the road.

endagibson

Bass Reeves wrote: »

tax on fuel.

All fuel users pay this tax. Even those that mow their lawn. Farmers are probably the only exception for agricultural vehicles. Hauliers may be able to claim back some of it, can't recall.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The reality about bikes is that in general fines are so small that enforcement is minimal.

According to this, a lot of the latest penalty point offences only carry a €60 fine. The cycling FPNs introduced in the last year carry a €40 fine. I can't see that €20 being a big influence either way.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It is too easy for the...go safe vans to park up

The Go Safe operation has been shown to lose money for the State.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There is also an identity issue. If a cyclist gives incorrect information it is a tough task to chase up the offender.

I don't see this being a huge issue as the Gardai must deal with a lot of people each day that don't present with a vehicle at all. If it is, seizure of the vehicle is the answer.

Bass Reeves

Carawaystick wrote: »

A cop can take the bike of a person cycling until the cop is certain of the identity of the person.

Much less scope to confiscate a car from a person driving. There's no hard link between a person driving and the registered owner of a car.

I have to disagree there. Car's can be and are sized for a mydrid of reasons relating to dangerous driving, incorrect or no licience, tax, insurance forign registeration etc etc..

endagibson wrote: »

All fuel users pay this tax. Even those that mow their lawn. Farmers are probably the only exception for agricultural vehicles. Hauliers may be able to claim back some of it, can't recall.


According to this, a lot of the latest penalty point offences only carry a €60 fine. The cycling FPNs introduced in the last year carry a €40 fine. I can't see that €20 being a big influence either way.


The Go Safe operation has been shown to lose money for the State.


I don't see this being a huge issue as the Gardai must deal with a lot of people each day that don't present with a vehicle at all. If it is, seizure of the vehicle is the answer.

These other users would be miniscule less than 0.1% of total use. Hauliers can reclaim vat but must charge vat on there bills. Yes agri, fishing industry that is using fuel for a non road use have access to diesel fuel at lower duty rate but in general tax on fuel is paid by motorized road users.

Carawaystick

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

There is a real problem with lack of enforcement against incompetent cyclists,

There is no need for enforcement of anything against incompetent cyclists, they just fall of their bikes.

magicbastarder

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Sure, drivers behave like knob-ends too, and break red lights by running straight trough an amber, but it's pretty unusual for drivers to arrive at a junction and just outright ignore a red light after the pedestrian lights have gone green.

there's one major mechanical factor at play here - once one driver stops at a red, everyone behind that driver also has to stop. the same doesn't apply to cyclists; this is not a justification for running reds, merely that the opportunity/ability to do so is more readily available to cyclists.

magicbastarder

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The reality about bikes is thatin general fines are so small that enforcement is minimal.

the FPNs for cycling offences are roughly on a par with the same for motorists doing the same thing. which if you consider the consequences, is rather bizarre.
look at the stats i provided earlier - a motorist running a red is probably carrying 25 times the kinetic energy through a red than a cyclist is. the potential for damage is far, far greater.

endagibson

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

I would have generally subscribed to the 'if you build it, people will use it' idea, but my experience of being a pedestrian trying to cross the purpose-built, segregated cycle path along the Grand Canal has changed all that.

I don't understand this. The path has been built and people are using it. That's exactly what "if you build it, people will use it" means.

At least now we've moved on to a different issue. The infrastructure is now being used, but not in a way that we would wish.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

incompetent cyclists

Sorry, but if they're managing to negotiate their way through pedestrians and other traffic all while on a red light, that sounds competent enough cycling to me. Unless you're claiming that they can't stop or don't know that they have to. I would find that shocking. Either way, enforcement is the answer and we don't do that in Ireland.

magicbastarder

endagibson wrote: »

There are some advocates for what is termed vehicular cycling. Personally I think that they're mostly obstructionists who just use it to argue against updating the infrastructure. The various "good cycling example" locations, such as Copenhagen and the Netherlands provide segregated infrastructure that works.

this is the biggest challenge facing decent cycling design - confident cyclists tend to avoid off road and segregated infrastructure in ireland because it's typically supidly designed or not maintained. but nervous/new cyclists don't like mixing it up with traffic on the road. and catering to both is the issue - because it's a massive leap between where we are and the sort of design you'd see in the places you mention, and i strongly suspect it's a leap ireland is never going to make.

Rakish Paddy

endagibson wrote: »

I don't understand this. The path has been built and people are using it. That's exactly what "if you build it, people will use it" means.

At least now we've moved on to a different issue. The infrastructure is now being used, but not in a way that we would wish.

The traffic lights are part of the infrastructure, and they're clearly not being used by a large chunk of the cyclists using that track.

endagibson wrote: »

Sorry, but if they're managing to negotiate their way through pedestrians and other traffic all while on a red light, that sounds competent enough cycling to me. Unless you're claiming that they can't stop or don't know that they have to. I would find that shocking. Either way, enforcement is the answer and we don't do that in Ireland.

A key part of competent cycling is not posing a danger to others, nor indeed oneself, and abiding by the law!

endagibson

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

The traffic lights are part of the infrastructure, and they're clearly not being used by a large chunk of the cyclists using that track.

Point taken.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

A key part of competent cycling is not posing a danger to others, nor indeed oneself, and abiding by the law!

Point also taken.

monument

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

The traffic lights are part of the infrastructure, and they're clearly not being used by a large chunk of the cyclists using that track.

The lack of traffic light compliance at SOME of the junctions is very low for cyclists but it's also very low for pedestrians who arive after the pedestrian green phase. Very few pedestrians seem to respect the rule of them not starting to cross when their lights are flashing and maybe a smaller break red lights but still a significant number.

Most pedestrians clearly use the pedestrian green phase, but when you look at the percentage of pedestrians jaywalking after that phase, it's a very high percentage of pedestrians.

Drivers also regularly partly or fully block the walking or cycling crossings at rush hour and sometimes at other times. There's also some junctions where red light running by motorists seem to be an issue.

I think they need junction and signal redesign at most junctions.

monument

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

The traffic lights are part of the infrastructure, and they're clearly not being used by a large chunk of the cyclists using that track.



A key part of competent cycling is not posing a danger to others, nor indeed oneself, and abiding by the law!

Come to think of it, my last post could be more on-topic...

So, you're saying the use of traffic lights is part of the infrastructure and cyclists on this one route are not obeying all the lights, so let's not build more infrastructure... Right?

Does the same apply to pedestrian focused street improvements?... Are we to say no more footpath widening because jaywalking is chronic on the most major street in Dublin which had footpath widening, O'Connell Street?

Or no more motorways because speeding and not observing lane rules is cronic on the M50?

Or does the logic only apply to one mode of transport?

Rakish Paddy

monument wrote: »

So, you're saying the use of traffic lights is part of the infrastructure and cyclists on this one route are not obeying all the lights, so let's not build more infrastructure... Right?

I just think a better use of resources at the moment would be fixing the laws and funding enforcement to get cyclist behaviour under control before pumping loads of money into infrastructure that will be unused / misused. Of course not all cyclists run red lights or cycle on footpaths or commit other similarly stupid acts, but in Dublin city centre at least it is pretty out of control at this point and far more than a trivial annoyance for pedestrians.

monument

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

I just think a better use of resources at the moment would be fixing the laws and funding enforcement to get cyclist behaviour under control before pumping loads of money into infrastructure that will be unused / misused. Of course not all cyclists run red lights or cycle on footpaths or commit other similarly stupid acts, but in Dublin city centre at least it is pretty out of control at this point and far more than a trivial annoyance for pedestrians.

Jaywalking is out of control on O'Connell Street and speeding, tailgating and lane discipline is out of control on our motorways!

People are dying over poor driving on motorways, yet we're building more and more of them. Any you want potentially life-saving cycling infrastructure blocked?

So, why does your logic only extend to one mode of transport?

Rakish Paddy

monument wrote: »

Jaywalking is out of control on O'Connell Street and speeding, tailgating and lane discipline is out of control on our motorways!

People are dying over poor driving on motorways, yet we're building more and more of them. Any you want potentially life-saving cycling infrastructure blocked?

So, why does your logic only extend to one mode of transport?

Lack of adequate enforcement is a problem on motorways and any other roads too. I would absolutely support harsher penalties for anyone caught tailgating or driving in an overtaking lane when not overtaking.

I'd rather see money pumped into a proper traffic enforcement system and get that sorted before pumping money into transport infrastructure projects. Red light cameras at every set of lights, a greatly expanded traffic corps, loss of license for mobile phone use. I think all of those are needed more badly at this point than new infrastructure.

I know idiots use all modes of transport, but I just happen to think, through years of observation, that on the whole cyclists display the worst disregard for the law / rules of the road and it seems to be getting worse. It's at a point where in parts of Dublin you have to be constantly on your guard as a pedestrian to avoid getting hit by cyclists who are on the footpath, going the wrong way, on the wrong side of the road or going through a red light (even worse if a pedestrian green man is lit). Those are all inexcusable behaviours and like it or not are committed more by cyclists than motorists, at least within the city centre.

PeadarCo

Rakish Paddy wrote:

I know idiots use all modes of transport, but I just happen to think, through years of observation, that on the whole cyclists display the worst disregard for the law / rules of the road and it seems to be getting worse. It's at a point where in parts of Dublin you have to be constantly on your guard as a pedestrian to avoid getting hit by cyclists who are on the footpath, going the wrong way, on the wrong side of the road or going through a red light (even worse if a pedestrian green man is lit). Those are all inexcusable behaviours and like it or not are committed more by cyclists than motorists, at least within the city centre.

The reason for the complete lack of enforcement with pedestrians and relevant lack with cyclists is that their behavior isn't that dangerous. As has been mentioned already its nearly 15 years since a cyclist was responsible for the death of another road user. Look at accident statistics. The reason we have rules of the road is to prevent death and serious injury. If a mode of transport isn't causing any of that in an significant way gardai aren't going to go over board policing it given they'll never have limitless rescources.

The problem with your argument is that it completely ignores road safety statistics and the reason we have rules of the road in the first place.

I'd always argue cyclists should follow the rules of the road. Generally in my own experience if you do that you tend to get less hassle from drivers. You also avoid uncomfortable situations that breaking red lights etc can end up putting a person in. But the whole thing needs to kept in context when looking at ways to make the road safer.