Journalism and cycling

Weepsie

Deedsie wrote: »

I cycle the N11 everyday, its horrendous. The worst part is Southbound between Nutley Lane and Nutley Park/UCD flyover. I have emailed DCC about it several times over the last few years. Its getting worse.

I cycled the N11 for the first time the other day from Shankhill to City centre. It was awful. Took the bus lane as much as possible.

tomasrojo

Without wishing to be a Pollyanna, or appear to be callous, or disrespectful of the terrible tragedy of these road deaths, it's very hard to conclude much from four deaths. There was a spate of road deaths in London a few years ago (2012?) with a cyclist being killed nearly every day for days on end. But it was just a horrible fluke in the end (more or less).

Which isn't to say that I'm entirely confident this is a fluke (if it continued to the end of the year, it would be 16 cycling fatalities, which is higher than usual), but it's probably more constructive for authorities to figure out why the death happened, and then fix the contributing factors, rather than extrapolating to the end of the year from the vantage point of March.

More resources should be given to walking and cycling anyway. It has to be made an option that people regard as socially acceptable, fun and efficient, not a penance to be paid by tree huggers and paupers.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

Some sections of the cycle lane are ok, but some parts are shocking. No one seems to care how bad it gets. The section I mentioned above between Nutley lane and UCD flyover Southbound could easily be the next serious incident.

The stretch from the flyover to Donnybrook is pretty unpleasant, I find.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

Northbound from UCD flyover to Leeson Street Upper can be fairly hairy alright. I was involved in two collisions and both happened in Donnybrook.

Yeah, I hate that bit.

I started going that way in August, and decided to use the Ranelagh-bound road, and cut over using Marlborough Road so that I didn't have to go through Donnybrook -- or use the N11 cycle track. My starting point makes it a viable option, luckily.

Marlborough Road gets very backed up in the morning, but I walk around that bit; only takes a few minutes.

looie

I only caught bits and pieces of the segment on Newstalk earlier but found it to be a bit distasteful in light of the tragedy yesterday.

Corca Baiscinn

tomasrojo wrote: »

It would be a bit of fun, albeit quickly a friendless existence, to respond in a driversplaining mode every time anyone mentions a car journey they are undertaking."

Funnily enough, there were numerous posts on one of the Boards cycling fora last year I think, from people who said they don't use their bell as they consider it rude. I think it makes sense in shared space as long as it's a tinkly bell and not a hooter. Mind you I want a hooter too to use to express my displeasure at motorists who cut across me .

Also posts now on the Waterford Greenway forum re some bad-mannered cyclist behaviour vis-a-vis pedestrians over the weekend so maybe we can forgive the odd bit of driversplaining

Pinch Flat

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motorists-warned-of-hail-and-thunder-showers-as-bus-eireann-enters-sixth-day-of-strike-action-35574869.html

More heavy rain, with hail, thunder on the way that's going to cause havoc for motorists. Only impacts motorists though, so they don't have to be more aware around other vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. However, it might cause delays and hold them up while. So that's worthwhile of a prominent headline in a national newspaper.

The Bus strike is also only impacting motorists - there is a noticeable upturn of bikes into Dublin recently (Anecdotally on my own commute) - perhaps a combination of the strike and the relatively settled weather. Or it could just be an increase in people who can't afford a car.

Fian

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motorists-warned-of-hail-and-thunder-showers-as-bus-eireann-enters-sixth-day-of-strike-action-35574869.html

More heavy rain, with hail, thunder on the way that's going to cause havoc for motorists. Only impacts motorists though, so they don't have to be more aware around other vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. However, it might cause delays and hold them up while. So that's worthwhile of a prominent headline in a national newspaper.

The Bus strike is also only impacting motorists - there is a noticeable upturn of bikes into Dublin recently (Anecdotally on my own commute) - perhaps a combination of the strike and the relatively settled weather. Or it could just be an increase in people who can't afford a car.

To be fair the warning they are reporting comes from AA roadwatch and is directed at motorists. From the body of the article:

As heavy rain is forecast in some places today, AA Roadwatch are warning motorists to slow down.

Pinch Flat

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/why-cyclists-and-pedestrians-are-more-at-risk-now-than-in-winter-35572438.html

So, basically, wear and hi-vis jacket and you'll be grand. That hi-vis stuff is amazing - it can stand out against the many billions of lumen created by the sun. N No wonder it's the panacea to all our road safety issues.

No need for motorists to wear sun glasses, use the visor, slow down or even stop when driving into low sun where they can't see where they're going and a pedestrian or cyclist could be obscured by the sun.

Tenzor07

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/why-cyclists-and-pedestrians-are-more-at-risk-now-than-in-winter-35572438.html

Who writes this rubbish?

In fact you are probably more at risk as a pedestrian or cyclist during the brighter, and drier days of summertime than you are in winter.

And there can be no excuse about getting your hands on them either.

mcgratheoin

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Who writes this rubbish?

"Our Road Safety Authority expert" apparently :rolleyes:

Chuchote

I would guess that all four of the people killed cycling in the last week were wearing helmets and hi-viz (I know it of two). This kind of article is pure irresponsibility.

Weepsie

Although you can't be responsible for the way people drive, you can make yourself safer while out walking, jogging or cycling, by increasing your visibility to other road users.

Where are the articles preaching to drivers to drive carefully, don't overtake dangerously, don't use full beams all the effin time, check tyres regularly, paint your car fluo green/yellow, don't speed, don't RLJ etc etc.

The bolded bit is to me basically giving drivers a free pass. It's similar to victim blaming. It's awful, and invalidates any expertise this person has

magicbastarder

i'd love to see a road safety expert in the motoring section writing an article giving advice to cyclists on taking the primary position, controlling the junction at lights, etc.

magicbastarder

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070

plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Weepsie

Why was someone stopped on a roundabout?

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070

plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Forensic engineer Alan Conlan told the court that the cycle lane was used in both directions on the round-about, the lay-out of which had since been changed

It's not clear where the 4x4 stopped that he ran into the side; if the lane was used in both directions, the cyclist was surely using the road correctly. The helmet is beside the point, since it's not mandatory.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070

plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

I was picturing this, except two-way: https://goo.gl/maps/6Z2nVistoCv

So not /on/ the roundabout, but around it. No idea why you'd take a case though - chancing your arm?

flatface

New shared bike scheme in Beijing, interestingly there are a few competing operators and you can leave the bikes anywhere.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/bikes-go-full-cycle-in-china-as-share-schemes-take-off-1.3027955

RayCun

magicbastarder wrote: »

and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

because sure why not? :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

Why was someone stopped on a roundabout?

the article says stopped at, rather than stopped on.

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070
plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Journalism aside, 60 grand for a little scrote who cycled into the side of a car, well, there neck must be made of leather!

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

The driver said that; did the cyclist dispute it?

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

a few weird things about this article; do they mean a contra-flow cycle lane on a roundabout? and why would you take a case against someone who was stationary when you cycled into them?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-who-cycled-wrong-way-on-roundabout-loses-60-000-damages-case-1.3029070

plus, he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Very odd. The article quotes an engineer who says that the cycle-lane was used in both directions at the time, but they've since changed the layout. The streetview has 2014 images on it which suggest that the cycle-lane was designed precisely in such a manner as to put you in maximum danger at each point it crossed the road. Another example of poor cycle lane layout.

I can't understand the case as described either. If the car had nudged out of a sideroad and then the cyclist on the path collided with it I could see where an insurance claim would arise. As described, I can't quite work it out.

I think the layout of the cycle path could explain it. As a car stops to wait to enter the roundabout, they are already blocking road where the cycle lane is. This would lead an oncoming cyclist into a collision if they were not aware of the layout and the change in priority.

If the cyclist was cycling clockwise on the lane (which was bi-directional at the time apparently), would they have normal priority over cars entering the roundabout? Probably not, due to the bad design of the path. Anything you know about normal use of roundabouts would be turned on its head by the bad layout. Being ultra-cautious would save you, but we're looking at a teenager in this case, so that quality may have been in short supply.

It mentions helmets twice in the article, but they are both in relation to the boy on the bike, no mention of the driver's headgear.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

The driver said that; did the cyclist dispute it?

there's no mention in the article of this statement being called into question anyway.

AndrewJRenko

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Also posts now on the Waterford Greenway forum re some bad-mannered cyclist behaviour vis-a-vis pedestrians over the weekend so maybe we can forgive the odd bit of driversplaining

Where is this forum?

Tenzor07

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where is this forum?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057210663&page=17

check_six

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Journalism aside, 60 grand for a little scrote who cycled into the side of a car, well, there neck must be made of leather!

€60k seems to be the go to value for turned down claims nowadays. There was a lad who fell off his ladder looking for the same amount turned down yesterday.

Meanwhile, €20k is a much more successful number to go for, it seems. A lady slipped in what she hopes was gravy in Dunnes Stores and got 20k, and another fellow got 20k for being accused of stealing a jambon from a Centra.

If anyone sees me marching around with a barrel of brown liquid and a selection of savoury pastries, don't take any photos until I'm rolling around on the floor, please!

blackwhite

Chuchote wrote: »

It's not clear where the 4x4 stopped that he ran into the side; if the lane was used in both directions, the cyclist was surely using the road correctly. The helmet is beside the point, since it's not mandatory.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3486259,-6.4056468,3a,75y,225h,81.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGb1lZoyBoi5UM0J30WYXsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Roundabout in question is here (and pics are from before the changes in layout).

One side of the roundabout the cycle lane is marked as one-way only - the other side isn't.

Either way - I'm really struggling to see how you can claim that somebody that cycled into the side of a stopped vehicle was "surely using the road correctly."
If the vehicle had its hand-brake engaged, then it's not a case of it suddenly coming to a stop in front of him.


Either way - it's absolutely nuts that costs were not awarded against the plaintiff in this case. Really encouraging people to take frivolous cases.

blackwhite

check_six wrote: »

Very odd. The article quotes an engineer who says that the cycle-lane was used in both directions at the time, but they've since changed the layout. The streetview has 2014 images on it which suggest that the cycle-lane was designed precisely in such a manner as to put you in maximum danger at each point it crossed the road. Another example of poor cycle lane layout.

I can't understand the case as described either. If the car had nudged out of a sideroad and then the cyclist on the path collided with it I could see where an insurance claim would arise. As described, I can't quite work it out.

I think the layout of the cycle path could explain it. As a car stops to wait to enter the roundabout, they are already blocking road where the cycle lane is. This would lead an oncoming cyclist into a collision if they were not aware of the layout and the change in priority.

If the cyclist was cycling clockwise on the lane (which was bi-directional at the time apparently), would they have normal priority over cars entering the roundabout? Probably not, due to the bad design of the path. Anything you know about normal use of roundabouts would be turned on its head by the bad layout. Being ultra-cautious would save you, but we're looking at a teenager in this case, so that quality may have been in short supply.

It mentions helmets twice in the article, but they are both in relation to the boy on the bike, no mention of the driver's headgear.

If the handbrake was engaged - as the article states - then it doesn't sound like the car could have been "nudging" out.

From google maps it looks like a very poor design on the cycle lanes - but none of that excuses cycling into the side of a stopped vehicle - and especially doesn't excuse looking for €60k to compensate the teenager's own stupid actions.