Dooradoyle Bikelane/footpath

santino

Being meaning to post here for a while. Call it a query/rant if you will.

I live and cycle in the Dooradoyle area mostly.
For those of you who know the area, to my mind there is a bike lane/footpath from the small roundabout near the Motor Tax office to the Garryowen RFC entrance. At this point the cycle lane joins the main road and the footpath carries on solely.

Now, there are bike symbols painted on the bikelane/footpath but unfortunately these have more or less faded away, but they are there.
My point is, I often encounter pedestrians/dogs on the path and I wanted to know are they just oblivious or am I in the wrong? It is very annoying (and potentially dangerous as there is a slope down there and bikes pick up speed fast). I normally tend to get by just muttering under my breath but last night I tried to get past 3 pedestrians (3 abreast), rang my bell and they told me to fu$k off and use the road (where there is no bike lane. I know this is a universal problem but I'd like to know where I stand.

Cheers.

jelly&icecream

I know where you're talking about. It nearly looks like the bike marks have been removed from the tarmac there on purpose. There are also no signs so I'm not sure if it is a legal cycle lane anymore to be honest. You should contact the council for verification (if they ever respond to you). Emailing the local councillors might be a good way to get info.

Its pretty silly if it has been removed given the awful traffic and the secondary school being so close.

I cycle a bit and also run/walk a lot and would only use those cycle lanes that are mixed with a busy footpath if I was going very slowly. They aren't really meant for high speed cycling. You're better off on the road in that case.

carbonceiling

I feel your pain, I regularly encounter pedestrians on the bike lane. Ideally the bike lane should be a slightly different height to the footpath to stop pedestrians straying into them.

I have spent some time working in Holland and as a pedestrian you would not dare step into the bike lane, those guys take no prisoners.

panda100

santino wrote: »

Being meaning to post here for a while. Call it a query/rant if you will.

I live and cycle in the Dooradoyle area mostly.
For those of you who know the area, to my mind there is a bike lane/footpath from the small roundabout near the Motor Tax office to the Garryowen RFC entrance. At this point the cycle lane joins the main road and the footpath carries on solely.

Now, there are bike symbols painted on the bikelane/footpath but unfortunately these have more or less faded away, but they are there.
My point is, I often encounter pedestrians/dogs on the path and I wanted to know are they just oblivious or am I in the wrong? It is very annoying (and potentially dangerous as there is a slope down there and bikes pick up speed fast). I normally tend to get by just muttering under my breath but last night I tried to get past 3 pedestrians (3 abreast), rang my bell and they told me to fu$k off and use the road (where there is no bike lane. I know this is a universal problem but I'd like to know where I stand.

Cheers.

It's a similar situation with the bicycle path from the Absolute Hotel out to UL beside the canal. There is a separate bike track but the symbols are pretty much faded at this stage so a steady stream of pedestrians walk on the cycle path. I have a bell but many have pedestrians have earphones on and are completely oblivious to the fact it's a cycle lane due to lack of signage.

I've contacted the council three times about it since August and they say they have logged my request with the council maintenance team. Maybe they have run out of bike stencils after the great job they did on Davis Street :rolleyes: I'll leave it until December and if still not done I will contact the maintenance department directly and email a councillor or two.

santino

Thanks for the replies.

Ya I think I will contact someone alright and see can they shed any light. I agree It Is a dangerous road but also I try my best to keep the speed down if I am on the path..you never know what's around the corner.

On a lighter note, and still on topic I saw this video the other day...it made my day. Worth a look:

https://youtu.be/Ehh8ZdIMMj4

L.T.P.

People regularly jog in that bike lane, even when the footpaths are empty!!! Footpath mustn't be good enough for them...

panda100

santino wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

Ya I think I will contact someone alright and see can they shed any light. I agree It Is a dangerous road but also I try my best to keep the speed down if I am on the path..you never know what's around the corner.

On a lighter note, and still on topic I saw this video the other day...it made my day. Worth a look:

https://youtu.be/Ehh8ZdIMMj4

Ha, brilliant! I think I might be turning into him on the UL pathway :pac:

Whatever you do, don't be that guy who cycles around the city (usually on pavements) honking a very loud horn. That guy guves cyclists a bad name! I think he thinks it's funny, but its actually terrifying for pedestrians!

bitent

You mean people actually use the Bicycle lanes out there?.
All I encounter is grown men and women using the footpath to cycle.
They hurtle along at full speed on single file pathways and give you a stare of death if your in the way.
I'm not talking about children here but actual adults.

I called one out and he mentioned that it was too dangerous to cycle on the road.
Well if you choose to cycle you are opting in to that danger just like someone on a motorcycle.
By cycling on the pathway you are now making it dangerous for pedestrians.
It's ridiculous and a much bigger problem than pedestrians wandering into the few bikes lanes that there are.
I'm not saying it's safe on the roads but don't make the pathways dangerous for me by cycling on the paths.
So yes, two sides to every story.

Mc Love

What really annoys me are the cyclists that dont dismount when using pedestrian crossings, and cycle on paths even though they have safety gear on.

LB6

when you contact them, tell them that along with the bicycle sign, they should also put directional arrows on them. Sick and tired of random cyclists dropping down onto the cycle path and going in the wrong direction, forcing the person going in the right direction into the path of the traffic!

panda100

bitent wrote: »

You mean people actually use the Bicycle lanes out there?

In fairness, there are not many cycle lanes to use in limerick. There aren't any on my commute through the city and very little room for cyclists beside car traffic

Donutz

I used to cycle on these cycle lanes when they were new and back then people didn't give a fiddlers about walking in the cycle lanes and it looks like nothing has changed.

It also made my blood boil when cars parked up on the cycle lane further down the road close to the roundabout at the crescent making the cycle lane useless and causing a safety hazard to any cyclists. Do the motorists still do this?

santino

Hi All,

Quick update, I emailed a local Councillor asking for clarification. He kindly forwarded me an email he received from the Council which confirms 'there has been no down-grading of the cycle-lane at this location, it is just that the markings have faded over time. We will arrange shortly to have these markings renewed'.

I'm going to take the optimistic view on this one and hopes that it helps cyclists and pedestrians if and when it happens. Watch this space...

zulutango

Mc Love wrote: »

What really annoys me are the cyclists that .. cycle on paths even though they have safety gear on.

You can't really blame them for cycling on the paths if the roads are too dangerous. A helmet isn't going to do much for you if you're hit by a vehicle. Would you give your kids helmets and then expect them to cycle across the Shannon Bridge, for example?

panda100

santino wrote:

Quick update, I emailed a local Councillor asking for clarification. He kindly forwarded me an email he received from the Council which confirms 'there has been no down-grading of the cycle-lane at this location, it is just that the markings have faded over time. We will arrange shortly to have these markings renewed'.

Well done for taking action Santino they still haven't redone the markings on the UL cycleway despite it being logged with the maintenance department for the last 4 months. I haven't had a chance to follow up but will do when my exams are over!. The maintenance team seem to put anything cycle related on the long finger!

santino

panda100 wrote: »

Well done for taking action Santino they still haven't redone the markings on the UL cycleway despite it being logged with the maintenance department for the last 4 months. I haven't had a chance to follow up but will do when my exams are over!. The maintenance team seem to put anything cycle related on the long finger!

Oh right! Hopefully they'll get onto that soon enough. Haven't ventured over to UL yet but would like to in the new year. Best of luck in the exams.

I will assume that most of us nowadays are multi-road users. We all walk, drive, cycle etc. I'm not a bike-nut but I do enjoy it and I have to say, like most other things, I gained so much more insight into the areas that could be improved only after I took it up. When one isn't aware (or concerned) about other road users, a kind of blissful ignorance exists. How many people do we witness walking out in front of cars even, people are so wrapped up in their own heads these days.

I think things are getting better (e.g. the coca cola bike scheme) but I do genuinely think it will take a generation to get right. I heard on a podcast recently that cycling only gained popularity in the Netherlands as a result of so many road deaths in the 70's, and a high majority were children. But education does begin at home, and I don't think we're quite there yet.

*dismounts from high horse*

Vladimir Poontang

We're not a cycle friendly country. Or a pedestrian friendly country. Or a motorist friendly country.

It is everyone for themselves with rude, ignorant aggressive arseholes ruining it for everyone, be you any of the above road users.

We don't follow signs or directions. Cycle lanes are ignored, neglected, badly designed and otherwise redundant.

Our footpaths are covered in clutter, broken paving and dog ****.

Our roads are badly designed, poorly maintained and dangerous.

Nobody cares and I don't see things changing significantly any time soon.

A lot of it is due to poor planning and management, a lot of it is down to the piss poor attitude in this country towards civic responsibility and giving two ****s about your country and fellow countrymen.

It's depressing.

bitent

zulutango wrote: »

You can't really blame them for cycling on the paths if the roads are too dangerous. A helmet isn't going to do much for you if you're hit by a vehicle. Would you give your kids helmets and then expect them to cycle across the Shannon Bridge, for example?

Your missing the fact that Cycling on the path now makes it dangerous for pedestrians.

Mc Love

zulutango wrote: »

You can't really blame them for cycling on the paths if the roads are too dangerous. A helmet isn't going to do much for you if you're hit by a vehicle. Would you give your kids helmets and then expect them to cycle across the Shannon Bridge, for example?

Is the road that dangerous or they not competent enough to cycle with road going traffic? Thats the real question.

zulutango

Mc Love wrote: »

Is the road that dangerous or they not competent enough to cycle with road going traffic? Thats the real question.

It's dangerous for even the most experienced and confident of cyclists.

zulutango

bitent wrote: »

Your missing the fact that Cycling on the path now makes it dangerous for pedestrians.

Would you rather a child cycle on a footpath and risk hitting a pedestrian, or would you rather a child cycling on a road and risk getting hit by a vehicle?

The first situation isn't particularly dangerous for anybody. The second situation is extremely dangerous for the child. In the absence of segregrated infrastructure for cyclists, the first option is clearly the best one.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Would you rather a child cycle on a footpath and risk hitting a pedestrian, or would you rather a child cycling on a road and risk getting hit by a vehicle?

The first situation isn't particularly dangerous for anybody. The second situation is extremely dangerous for the child. In the absence of segregrated infrastructure for cyclists, the first option is clearly the best one.

The poster is quite obviously not talking about children cycling on paths.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The poster is quite obviously not talking about children cycling on paths.

He was responding to the point I made about children cycling on the Shannon Bridge. He even quoted that point.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

He was responding to the point I made about children cycling on the Shannon Bridge. He even quoted that point.

You were replying to this originally.

Mc Love wrote: »

What really annoys me are the cyclists that dont dismount when using pedestrian crossings, and cycle on paths even though they have safety gear on.

He wasn't taking about kids and that's the post I was referring to.

zulutango

So, are we now saying it's ok for kids to cycle on footpaths if the roads aren't safe, but not adults? What about elderly people?

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

So, are we now saying it's ok for kids to cycle on footpaths if the roads aren't safe, but not adults? What about elderly people?

You're twisting eveyones words to suit your own argument. It's not safe to for pedestrians to have adult cyclists cycling on footpaths. I've often been shouted out of it for having the temerity to not know that a cyclist was approaching behind me on a footpath and not getting out of their way.

It's also not actually legal to cycle on a footpath.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It's not safe to for pedestrians to have adult cyclists cycling on footpaths.

What about the path to UL along the river bank?

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

What about the path to UL along the river bank?

You mean the path that's designed as a shared pedestrian/cycling route that's nowhere near a road? It's completely different to a normal footpath that's not designed as a shared space.

Mc Love

I've no problem with kids (below 12) cycling on footpaths as I believe any older and they should be able to cycle competently on any road. But if you are an adult and you cant cycle competently on a road, you shouldnt be cycling at all. Same goes for motorists that cant competently drive on roads, shouldnt be driving.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You mean the path that's designed as a shared pedestrian/cycling route that's nowhere near a road? It's completely different to a normal footpath that's not designed as a shared space.

What are the design features that make it completely different to a normal footpath?

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

What are the design features that make it completely different to a normal footpath?

It was designed as a shared use cycle/walking path. All users are aware of this. A normal footpath along a road is not designed for bicycle users. The difference is obvious, but as usual you're just being obtuse.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

It was designed as a shared use cycle/walking path. All users are aware of this. A normal footpath along a road is not designed for bicycle users. The difference is obvious, but as usual you're just being obtuse.

Not being obtuse at all. I don't think you can point out how the shared path to UL along the riverbank has design features that make it more safe for pedestrians and cyclists to interact than a regular footpath has. You're saying it's a completely different design, but you well know, and anybody who is on it knows full well that that's just rubbish.

LB6

santino wrote: »

Hi All,

Quick update, I emailed a local Councillor asking for clarification. He kindly forwarded me an email he received from the Council which confirms 'there has been no down-grading of the cycle-lane at this location, it is just that the markings have faded over time. We will arrange shortly to have these markings renewed'.

I'm going to take the optimistic view on this one and hopes that it helps cyclists and pedestrians if and when it happens. Watch this space...

Please GOD you told him to put directional arrows on them for the ejits that cycle against the traffic on them. :-)

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

Not being obtuse at all. I don't think you can point out how the shared path to UL along the riverbank has design features that make it more safe for pedestrians and cyclists to interact than a regular footpath has. You're saying it's a completely different design, but you well know, and anybody who is on it knows full well that that's just rubbish.

the design means f@@k all. You shouldnt be cycling on a normal footpath!!

If you where to be pedantic you could pick out the fact that along the canal walk it mentions it is a shared space for cyclists and pedestrians which in itself is a design.

Speaking of, the cyclists out there dont seem to realise that they are not supposed to be travelling at high speeds out there because of pedestrians.

zulutango

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the points put forward by others here.

Cyclists shouldn't be cycling on footpaths, but in the absence of safe roads, it is the best option. You'll regularly see cyclists cycling on the footpaths on the Shannon Bridge, for example. And you can't really blame them given how dangerous the road is since it was redesigned to enable increased traffic volumes some years ago. The sooner it is redesigned again and this time to include cycle lanes the better.

Why can't they dismount from their bicycle when they need to use the footpath? You know like walk with the bike alongside them like they're legally supposed to do? Not tear along the footpath knowing they can't be hurt by the vulnerable pedestrians. They're basically doing to us pedestrians what the motorists do to them and they get so upset about. Lots of them are complete pigs and then there's the total gimps that silently cycle up behind you. Have to laugh at the ****wits with safety gear and vis stuff when they're cowardly up on the footpath.

I challenged one gimp one day and his excuse was that the road was too dangerous for the poor dear. Why don't you alter your route or like I said walk with the bike? I'll you why: laziness. They can't be bothered walking but they don't want the negative side of cycling so they get up on the path and have the best of both worlds.

I wonder what the excuse is for the winners who break red lights and cycle the wrong way down a one way road?

zulutango

Deleted User wrote: »

They're basically doing to us pedestrians what the motorists do to them and they get so upset about.

That's not really true now is it? 15 cyclists have been killed by motorists in Ireland this year. Zero pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.

Vladimir Poontang

Thread is a pretty good example of the kind of attitudes that make this country difficult to live in at times

Mr.H

I do agree that we need safer bicycle lanes in this city and country as a whole. I also believe that not every cyclist is a bad one, just like not every driver is a bad one.

But all that aside is not excuse to cycle on a footpath. While stats are not there to show how many pedestrians are killed by cyclists, it is absolutely moronic to believe that not one pedestrian has been hit by a cyclist. So killed, may be not. Injured or hurt, yes definitely. The problem is there are no stats to back that up other than common sense.

Some might argue that a pedestrian being hurt by a cyclist is not as bad as a cyclist being killed by a driver (no matter which party is the reason for that death). Those people are selfish.

A car belongs on the road. If I think the road is too dangerous Im not going to start driving on the footpath am I??? ffs ridiculous argument. If the roads are too dangerous then dont cycle

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

While stats are not there to show how many pedestrians are killed by cyclists, it is absolutely moronic to believe that not one pedestrian has been hit by a cyclist. So killed, may be not. Injured or hurt, yes definitely. The problem is there are no stats to back that up other than common sense.

I'd say it's moronic to imply that anybody has suggested this.

Mr.H wrote: »

Some might argue that a pedestrian being hurt by a cyclist is not as bad as a cyclist being killed by a driver (no matter which party is the reason for that death). Those people are selfish.

Those people are not selfish. They are correct. To suggest that a car or truck will likely do more damage to a cyclist than the damage a cyclist will do to a pedestrian has nothing at all to do with selfishness. It's a fact.

Mr.H wrote: »

A car belongs on the road. If I think the road is too dangerous Im not going to start driving on the footpath am I??? ffs ridiculous argument.

Yes, that is indeed a ridiculous argument. How'd you come up with that one?

Mr.H wrote: »

If the roads are too dangerous then dont cycle

That's quite a backward approach. Given that there are so many positives for society in getting more people cycling a more sensible approach is to make dangerous roads safer.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

I'd say it's moronic to imply that anybody has suggested this.

Yet you dont think it matters that a pedestrian could be hurt by someone wrongfully cycling on the footpath

Let me ask you this. What scale of "hurt" do you think a little child would suffer by some idiot cycling fast on the footpath??

zulutango wrote: »

Those people are not selfish. They are correct. To suggest that a car or truck will likely do more damage to a cyclist than the damage a cyclist will do to a pedestrian has nothing at all to do with selfishness. It's a fact.

Yes they are selfish

You have missed the point of what I said. Doing any damage is a bad thing. Cycling on the footpath and putting pedestrians in danger is the mindset of selfish morons.

zulutango wrote: »

Yes, that is indeed a ridiculous argument. How'd you come up with that one?

The argument that I implied is ridiculous is the one you are trying to start.

zulutango wrote: »

That's quite a backward approach. Given that there are so many positives for society in getting more people cycling a more sensible approach is to make dangerous roads safer.

Maybe making cyclists take a cycle test might go a long way toward your ideal but until people using the road actually know the rules then I dont think they belong there either. Before you give the usual "most cyclist drive as well" rubbish, not all do. The 16 year old at work cycles every day to work. He wouldnt have a notion of the rules of the road. In fact he has been knocked off his bike twice while going through a solid red light.

Sensible approaches would be everyone using the road actually knowing how to do so. Also the fact that they will know they are not allowed to use the footpath. But I am sure you already knew that part..........................

LimerickCity

Cycling on a footpath is illegal. Any parent who encourages their children to cycle on a footpath is breaking the law.

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

Let me ask you this. What scale of "hurt" do you think a little child would suffer by some idiot cycling fast on the footpath??

What scale of hurt do you think an idiot would suffer when hit by a little child cycling on the footpath?

Mc Love

Pedestrian crossings arent bicycle crossings, I've seen maybe one cyclist dismount and walk across, out of the hundreds I've seen that cycle across and then continue their journey on the road!

Pedestrian footpaths are just that - for pedestrians, if there is no cycle lane, then cyclists should use the road, regardless of how dangerous it is, and isnt a motorway, then they should be perfectly competent to cycle on the road, if not, then they shouldnt cycle, simple as.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

What scale of hurt do you think an idiot would suffer when hit by a little child cycling on the footpath?

you tell me? your the one that thinks its ok.

Im not talking about a 3 year old girl with stabilisers on her bike ffs. Im talking about grown adults who are scared of the road so they cycle at full speed on a footpath where THEY ARE THE DANGER to pedestrians.

Its not just kids who are fragile by the way. Not everyone is sturdy and able to take a hit from some selfish moron on a bike.

This is the last response to you on this matter though unless you actually start debating with actual sense instead of coming across like someone looking for attention.

Mc Love

Mr.H wrote: »

you tell me? your the one that thinks its ok.

Im not talking about a 3 year old girl with stabilisers on her bike ffs. Im talking about grown adults who are scared of the road so they cycle at full speed on a footpath where THEY ARE THE DANGER to pedestrians.

Its not just kids who are fragile by the way. Not everyone is sturdy and able to take a hit from some selfish moron on a bike.

This is the last response to you on this matter though unless you actually start debating with actual sense instead of coming across like someone looking for attention.

It's not funny but getting a wheel driven into the back of your leg/ankle from any bike is sore!

Mr.H

Mc Love wrote: »

It's not funny but getting a wheel driven into the back of your leg/ankle from any bike is sore!

More than sore for some people

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

you tell me? your the one that thinks its ok.

Im not talking about a 3 year old girl with stabilisers on her bike ffs. Im talking about grown adults who are scared of the road so they cycle at full speed on a footpath where THEY ARE THE DANGER to pedestrians.

Its not just kids who are fragile by the way. Not everyone is sturdy and able to take a hit from some selfish moron on a bike.

This is the last response to you on this matter though unless you actually start debating with actual sense instead of coming across like someone looking for attention.

I never once said it was ok. In fact, I said it wasn't but you blithely ignored because it didn't fit with your anti-cycling rhetoric. I pointed out that the danger presented to pedestrians by cyclists on footpaths is not in the same league as the danger cyclists face on the roads. It is stupid to suggest otherwise. People cycling on paths really isn't a big problem. People getting killed or seriously injured while cycling is a big problem.

The real issue is that we have dangerous roads. 15 cyclists have been killed this year. They were competent, experienced cyclists cycling legally and doing everything right. The grown up, rational response to that shouldn't be to say that cyclists are the problem. It should be to make the roads safer for cyclists.

Mc Love

zulutango wrote: »

I never once said it was ok. In fact, I said it wasn't but you blithely ignored because it didn't fit with your anti-cycling rhetoric. I pointed out that the danger presented to pedestrians by cyclists on footpaths is not in the same league as the danger cyclists face on the roads. It is stupid to suggest otherwise. People cycling on paths really isn't a big problem. People getting killed or seriously injured while cycling is a big problem.

The real issue is that we have dangerous roads. 15 cyclists have been killed this year. They were competent, experienced cyclists cycling legally and doing everything right. The grown up, rational response to that shouldn't be to say that cyclists are the problem. It should be to make the roads safer for cyclists.

While it is unfortunate that those competent cyclists died, it is the same for motorbikes, its part of the risk you take not being in a cage while cycling. Just because a road is dangerous doesnt mean its perfectly acceptable to cycle on footpaths. If there's room on the footpath I'll always make sure there is room for them to pass but if there isnt, I'm not going to get out of their way if they dont have the courtesy to dismount or stop to let me pass.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

I never once said it was ok. In fact, I said it wasn't but you blithely ignored because it didn't fit with your anti-cycling rhetoric.

just read the next part.............

zulutango wrote: »

I pointed out that the danger presented to pedestrians by cyclists on footpaths is not in the same league as the danger cyclists face on the roads. It is stupid to suggest otherwise. People cycling on paths really isn't a big problem. People getting killed or seriously injured while cycling is a big problem.

You also said "in the absence of safe roads its the best option".

This is saying that it is ok. You are saying that it is ok.

zulutango wrote: »

The real issue is that we have dangerous roads. 15 cyclists have been killed this year. They were competent, experienced cyclists cycling legally and doing everything right. The grown up, rational response to that shouldn't be to say that cyclists are the problem. It should be to make the roads safer for cyclists.

Ok here is a logical debate that I will actually give you credit for. Lets stay off the subject of footpaths because obviously you see nothing wrong with it and I do.

Yes roads have become very dangerous for cyclists. I think we do need to make the roads safer. We need to get to the bottom of why so many cyclists have been killed. Its a sensitive subject so Im not going to talk about any actual incidents.

If it was up to me I would take a 5 pronged approach to easing the danger.

• Investigate accidents and publish the details to make people aware of what actually happened. If the driver was in the wrong, drivers will hopefully learn. If the cyclist was in the wrong, hopefully cyclists will learn.
• cyclist license. If you wanna cycle on the road then get a license. A lot of places are talking about this now. Los Angeles and parts of the UK are bringing one in. Poland already have a similar system. Germany and France are talking about introducing one. ensuring everyone on the road knows how to use the road will go a long way to making it safer.
• Punish Cyclists who break the law. Three strikes. You go through a red light, cycle on a footpath or pedestrian crossing, not wear adequate safety equipment or cycle the wrong way down a one way road. These would all result in fines. But if you have any three of these against you in a certain period (I would say 28 days) then the bike is impounded and sold at auction.
• Punish drivers who break the law and are aggressive on the road. I know its hard to catch but if a driver is being aggressive towards a cyclist they should be punished. Also when drivers get 10 penalty points (for this purpose it doesnt matter if your points have been cleared after two years. When you get your 10th ever point then this is you) they should have to resit a rules of the road test. If they get 20 they should have to do the actual driving test again.
• Start a drivers education style system in schools. Replace religion and teach kids as young as 10/11 the basis of road safety. When they reach 15 start to teach them how to drive. Make them do their drivers test in school. Doesnt need to be a leaving cert subject or anything but do it in school.

I feel like this would go a long way to making roads safer for everyone

zulutango

Unfortunate that 15 cyclists died ... but part of the risk. Are you suggesting that it's an acceptable number of deaths? If you are not suggesting that, then what do you propose should be done about it? Ban cycling perhaps?