Journalism and cycling

cletus

So essentially, because you're ok with it, everybody else should be too, and if they aren't, or if they're worried about the idea of cycling on the road, they're making excuses?

Duckjob

Danger and indeed sense of danger are themselves dependent on the type of rider you are. It's no small coincidence that more cyclists are young males because they tend to be most confident and assertive on the roads, in an environment where not being confident and assertive can make things a lot more dangerous.

I have a stretch of my commute, about 3-4K on a rural country road where drivers are used to belting along well in excess of the speed limit, and can be quite aggressive and hostile towards cyclists in general. When I get on it, I generally go as fast as possible to get off it as quickly as I can. I can't say it feels dangerous, but it definitely feels a bit "uncomfortable" for me. Definitely not pleasant.

And that's me going along at 30-40kph. If I go out on a Sunday morning with my local cycle group (not a high speed one), I'm s**ting myself on the same stretch doing 10-20kph. Even thinking about going those speeds with my kids along there gives me a queasy feeling in the pit of my belly.

And that's the key to opening up cycling for everyone- Call it danger, call it sense of danger, it doesn't really matter. You won't get most people cycling unless they can go from A to B without feeling they are being pushed and hurried along by angry drivers under threat of injury or worse.

Chips Lovell

site_owner wrote: »

what roads do you cycle ? dont need to give away your location or privacy. just trying to get a sense of what you consider great and safe cycling infra.

In my time cycle commuting I've done:

1. North inner city to Donnybrook
2. Inchicore to South Inner City along the canal
3. Inchicore to Blanch/Mulhuddart area
4. South suburbs to Blanch/Mulhuddart area

The current commute takes me through Kimmage, Crumlin, Rialto, Kilmainham, Castleknock and Blanch

site_owner wrote: »

surely you must understand, as a moderator of a large cycling forum, your assertions, flying in the face of internationlal experts and local testimony, that the streets of dublin are completely safe to cycle is difficult to take seriously

That's the thing. In my time on here I've met hundreds of people and most of them don't claim that commuting in Dublin is some sort of life threatening experience. You have to bear in mind that sometimes social media can give a false impression. People take to Twitter and other platforms to complain about stuff. Few people are going to be tweeting that they've had another pleasant, incident free commute today.

Finally, just to stress something. I'm not saying Dublin is "completely safe". Nowhere is and there's always room for improvement. What I'm disputing is the assertion that buses and HGV's trying to kill cyclists all the time. That's not my experience, nor the experience of most cyclists I know.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Lumen wrote: »

Road cycling = cycling on the road. It's not a noble pastime, it's a means of moving oneself from one place to another.

I'm not talking about cycling as a hobby.

That's exactly what segregated cycling will be used for, getting from one place to another, safely. Why do you want to share the road with the likes of HGVs?

Lumen

cletus wrote: »

So essentially, because you're ok with it, everybody else should be too, and if they aren't, or if they're worried about the idea of cycling on the road, they're making excuses?

No. I'm precisely not telling anyone else how they should feel about cycling. That's the point.

Several posters here seem to believe that there should be some kind of cosy hive-mind consensus about cycling infrastructure. I'm attempting to insert a variant view into the conversation.

My position is partly based on the cynical belief that any attempt to "improve" cycling infrastructure will fail, resulting in more unusable infrastructure (and here's the important bit) that I will then be compelled to use.

This happens right now with the "why don't cyclists use cycle lanes" bullsh!t.

The more we spend, the more of that I'll face. And I don't want it.

Grassey

nta-issues-tender-for-dedicated-dublin-cycling-office/

The main objective of this office, the NTA has said, is to assist in the delivery of cycling projects in Dublin, but also across the country.

A number of people will make up the ‘Core Design Team’, the primary role of which is to “develop various cycle schemes through the design and planning stages of each project,” the NTA has said.

The new dedicated design team will be made up of a project manager, four cycling scheme designers, one technician and one administrator.

The office will be responsible for developing an overall cycling investment plan for the NTA, conducting feasibility studies as well as assessing cycling route options.

Seth Brundle

Grassey wrote: »

nta-issues-tender-for-dedicated-dublin-cycling-office/

aah bloody hell
I had to take a glance at the stupid comments...

Great Idea!
Let’s put reg no on bikes too.
Only fair.
Cars have reg no so we can ID in the event of law breaking.
Same for bikes please!

Road rats the lot of them….
Cycle lane around Kilkenny and Waterford totally ignored by these selfish Lycra clad loonies…
Performance & adult bikes needs to controlled.
Pedal cycles used for commercial purposes should be controlled and have insurance.
Motorists have a responsibility towards vulnerable road users but these vulnerable road users need to be aware of other road users too.
Look over you right shoulder more often cyclists- try and stay in a straight line where possible and when you are passing other cyclists for god sake look over your shoulder for other vehicles.

ID tax and insurance . Perfect.. They use the road and should be treated the same as a motorist. End of.

Lumen

I'm not sure "End of." has ever been used by someone who isn't an absolute moron. It belongs in the same class of linguistic signifiers as "rightly or wrongly"

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

My position is partly based on the cynical belief that any attempt to "improve" cycling infrastructure will fail, resulting in more unusable infrastructure (and here's the important bit) that I will then be compelled to use.

Yeah, I think this road in Galway was considerably less easy to cycle after they added the lanes.



Infrastructure was definitely used in Ireland as a means of getting cyclists off the road, and taking away most right of way from them.

I guess at the very least you need minimum standards that have been agreed by somebody who doesn't regard cycling as a pastime for gob****es.

CramCycle

I agree with both sides (fence sitting) but a few points (or opinions)

- cycling with HGVs shouldn't be necessary because they shouldn't be there, most HGVs can be whittled don to smaller transport vehicles for last stage delivery. The HGV ban is not enforced and getting an exception licence seems to be easy. Everything from the port should go through the tunnel or be split at the port.
- cycling in heavy traffic shouldn't be necessary, not via more infrastructure but it shouldn't be there.
- I whinge about near misses all the time but the truth is, very few of them actually threaten my life
- infrastructure is unnecessary and in many parts unobtainable in most parts of Dublin
- what is obtainable, really easily and efficiently is enforcement of current road traffic laws, heavy handedly if so.
- what is also obtainable is the barring of private transport from multiple parts of the city, be it complete restriction or changing double and triple lanes down to single lanes or one way systems.


TLDR I also don't want segregated infrastructure, it never works here, it is always below par and in most cases there isn't suitable space. Maybe out in other parts of Ireland or in rural areas where a train track or road has been abandoned.

I would far prefer taking space from private transport and given over to pedestrians or Public transport (not taxis), and cyclists can work with in that space and reduced traffic.

An example would be one brought up here recently. Around SSG, Merrion Row and Baggot St.

Bar private transport, with the exception of Blue Badged vehicles, change Merrion row to single lane traffic, the same with Baggot St. Expand the pedestrian footpath to at least twice the width on both sides and have one single wide lane for buses and cyclists.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure "End of." has ever been used by someone who isn't an absolute moron. It belongs in the same class of linguistic signifiers as "rightly or wrongly"

Brexit means Brexit. End of.

tomasrojo

On a lot of roads, I'd just prefer them to remove slip lanes or arcing corners and replace with traffic lights and right-angle bends.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

On a lot of roads, I'd just prefer them to remove slip lanes or arcing corners and replace with traffic lights and right-angle bends.

This is being proposed near where I live, by the council. Narrowing junctions slows traffic and reduces the TED for peds. They're also planning to put Sheffield stands in the reclaimed space.

I like this plan because it benefits all road users and peds. It's not cycling infrastructure, it's just good spatial planning.

The plan is opposed by various idiot NIMBYs.

tomasrojo

I think there's pretty good evidence that networks of kerbed cycle lanes do help people who aren't "typical" cyclists to cycle though. Apart from the fact that the places with the highest rates of cycling have such networks, places that introduce them (networks, mind, not bits here and there) see a rise in cycling, and a change in the mix of people cycling.

But even in those countries, there are plenty of roads that don't have infrastructure per se. I'm not an expert on this subject though.

zell12

Cyclists versus haulage operators on Radio1 now
Fight!

cyclists overtaking on the inside
cyclists wearing no hi-vis meaning they blend into hedges
cyclists going through red lights and don't pay road tax
cyclists not using bells
Dundalk has the worst cycling infrastructure
etc etc

MichealD

Lumen wrote: »

No. I'm precisely not telling anyone else how they should feel about cycling. That's the point.

Several posters here seem to believe that there should be some kind of cosy hive-mind consensus about cycling infrastructure. I'm attempting to insert a variant view into the conversation.

My position is partly based on the cynical belief that any attempt to "improve" cycling infrastructure will fail, resulting in more unusable infrastructure (and here's the important bit) that I will then be compelled to use.

This happens right now with the "why don't cyclists use cycle lanes" bullsh!t.

The more we spend, the more of that I'll face. And I don't want it.

I don't think thats a cynical belief but one borne from user experience of the (mainly) poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly maintained infrastructure that has been provided to date. Unless these issues are addressed increased spending will have little benefit for cyclists.

On a personal basis I do almost all my cycling in on rural roads and on hard shoulders of main roads and through small towns (unfortunately where most cycling fatalities occur). An enforced Stayin' Alive at 1.5m campaign is of much great benefit to my safety and comfort cycling than any infrastructure that can be provided outside urban areas.

tomasrojo

zell12 wrote: »

cyclists wearing no hi-vis meaning they blend into hedges

Yes, I can quite see how wearing greeny-yellow clothing would make you stand out against a background of hedges.

what_traffic

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I think this road in Galway was considerably less easy to cycle after they added the lanes.

I took that photo 10 years ago. Doughiska Road. It looks even worse now - paint on the pavement has started to crumble.
Withoug a hint of irony. 6 years after it was built. Galway City Council gave themselves a "D" rating for building it. Dopes. They were told at design stage it was a disaster for pedestrians and cyclists. Still went ahead and built it.

tomasrojo

Quite a famous photo!

meeeeh

I think there needs to be acceptance by all that traveling in cities is not the same as traveling outside. I'm sorry but in the city cycling lanes are the safest and should be built if you want slower older cyclists and children to cycle. All cyclists should adapt their behavior to those users. Those who use cycling as exercise should do it in less busy areas. But you can't expect infrastructure adapted to fast cyclists if you want to increase numbers and widen the profile of people cycling.

ED E

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there needs to be acceptance by all that traveling in cities is not the same as traveling outside. I'm sorry but in the city cycling lanes are the safest and should be built if you want slower older cyclists and children to cycle. All cyclists should adapt their behavior to those users. Those who use cycling as exercise should do it in less busy areas. But you can't expect infrastructure adapted to fast cyclists if you want to increase numbers and widen the profile of people cycling.

If you have to cycle at avg 12kph (taking in 100x yield signs per km) then people won't drop the car in favour of the bike. Makes the problem worse for everyone.

Look at what NL does. The cycle lanes are functional for normal pacing not the yield to yield to yield above.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there needs to be acceptance by all that traveling in cities is not the same as traveling outside. I'm sorry but in the city cycling lanes are the safest and should be built if you want slower older cyclists and children to cycle. All cyclists should adapt their behavior to those users. Those who use cycling as exercise should do it in less busy areas. But you can't expect infrastructure adapted to fast cyclists if you want to increase numbers and widen the profile of people cycling.

Here is my question, why is not travelling in cycle lanes dangerous?

Chips Lovell

I don't think I've ever come across someone (and I'm not saying it never happens because, you know, there's always one) who cycles in busy city areas "for exercise".

Those who cycle for exercise tend to go out of the city rather than in.

ED E

It can be part of a spin, we've plenty of northsiders who come deep into the southside before club spins even start.

tomasrojo

Some people do cycle to work as part of their weekly training though, I think? I mean, they choose to cycle certain days over other options because they want to get the kilometres in for the week. Which I guess could mean a somewhat harder and faster riding style than a commuter. Maybe not, based on the old Commuter Races thread.

Macy0161

For exercise? I know plenty of people. An active commute is one of the best things that people can do, and a major benefit of cycle commuting. However, I wouldn't confuse that with people "training". I think some people have a confused position of the pace of other cyclists - faster than them = someone going to fast.

However, I've never met any cyclist, whether just going about their business, for exercise or training who is happy with the ceding of priority that always seems to happen when cycle lanes are put in. It would be a major reason I don't use several sections of grade separated cycle lane on my commute.

Chips Lovell

What I mean is that if you're going out for a cycle for exercise, you wouldn't choose to cycle into town. Sure, you can get some exercise from cycling or walking to work, but your route is dictated by where you work rather than your need for exercise.

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

Here is my question, why is not travelling in cycle lanes dangerous?

Maybe it is not but if you think the right way to approach cycling infrastructure is to tailor it to 30-50 years old cohort of male confident cyclists who are the most vocal then don't complain why young girls and older people don't cycle.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe it is not but if you think the right way to approach cycling infrastructure is to tailor it to 30-50 years old cohort of male confident cyclists who are the most vocal then don't complain why young girls and older people don't cycle.

Alas you missed my point, I know the answer. Sticking in segregated infrastructure in is a band aid on a far bigger problem and not solving the issue, just treating the symptom.

I don't complain that old people and young girls don't cycle, although I do see them cycling, and I suspect in alot of cases, the reason most don't cycle has nothing to do with infrastructure and more to do with the fact that there are, for them, the apparently easier and more viable alternatives, eg the car.

I think you will find if you read through the thread over the last few pages, the cohort you are referring to are the ones who are not being vocal at all.

The reason cycling is dangerous is not a lack of infrastructure, it is an accommodation both at societal and structural level of private transport. Building infrastructure without addressing these things will not fix them, and make cycling possibly more unattractive to many people. Reduce the N11 down to one lane of private traffic along its entire length, do you think it would be safer to cycle on? Add in ANPR for average speed and red light jumpers across all of Dublin, do ou think in 6 months, it will be safer to cycle. Reduce the paperwork on Gardai and allow them more time and more incentive to get out and start clamping down on dangerous driving, without the time cost and do you think cycling will be safer. Widen footpaths, and turn many parts of Dublin to one way only. reduce Merrion Row and Baggot St. to single lane and one way only for private traffic, do you think it will be safer and more appealing to cycle.

Build the infrastructure, it really makes no odds on me but if you think it will solve anything without addressing other issues first, and all of the countries who people mention as having cycling infrastructure as the big change, also done all of these things as well, along side it, or just before it.

It hasn't worked here yet, and it won't work here now until the other issues are tackled, and that is a cold, hard fact. It is a fact that many campaigners seem to ignore, it is a fact governments won't touch as they are worried about a dip in the polls which actually wouldn't hold over time regardless.

Give me a red pen, a google map print out of the city between the canals, a decent salary and a promise of no arguments from lobbies and I would give you a far better and safer system that would cover nearly all of Dublin between the canals within three years that would cost less than the liffey cycle route, reduce pollution to a greater extent and for the first year at least be nearly self funding.

Lumen

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe it is not but if you think the right way to approach cycling infrastructure is to tailor it to 30-50 years old cohort of male confident cyclists who are the most vocal then don't complain why young girls and older people don't cycle.

That's incredibly ageist and sexist.