If all cyclists waited at the red light...

jon1981

Actually maybe it's a good thing for motorists that not all cyclists obey the red light...would people prefer we went back to this?




Personally I wait at every light but I reckon if every cyclist was to wait at the red light during rush hour it would be a far worse situation for drivers waiting for a larger bunch of cyclists to move off.

Tabnabs

Yes?

MarkR

Yes. I find that ambulances take up an awful lot more space.

Wishbone Ash

jon1981 wrote: »

...would people prefer we went back to this?.

Yes.

jon1981

But why?

Some would argue a majority of cyclists break red lights yet I've not heard this to be a reason for any cyclists deaths on the road.

Again I'm not a red light jumper but there are plenty of junctions that could be relaxed abit for cyclists such as pedestrian crossings or left turns on to quieter roads. We need to be far more progressive here

seamus

Dunno about anyone else, but I see this all the time at rush hour.

PlaneSpeeking

jon1981 wrote: »

Actually maybe it's a good thing for motorists that not all cyclists obey the red light...would people prefer we went back to this?




Personally I wait at every light but I reckon if every cyclist was to wait at the red light during rush hour it would be a far worse situation for drivers waiting for a larger bunch of cyclists to move off.

Not for pedestrians trying to cross it wouldn't.

Red = Stop. That's it.

jon1981

seamus wrote: »

Dunno about anyone else, but I see this all the time at rush hour.

It would be double or triple the number if everyone actually obeyed the light.

amcalester

jon1981 wrote: »

But why? Again I'm not a red light jumper but there are plenty of junctions that could be relaxed abit for cyclists such as pedestrian crossings or left turns on to quieter roads. We need to be far more progressive here.

That’s a separate argument though. Currently it’s illegal for cyclists to break a red light so for that reason I would prefer a return to the above photo.

Now, if you want to argue the benefits of left on red or the like, then I would agree that in some cases that would make sense but it would have to be clearly signposted when it was allowed.

jon1981

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not for pedestrians trying to cross it wouldn't.

Red = Stop. That's it.

Many other countries permit it. So why not?

Sure lights don't matter to pedestrians either but you don't hear about that from drivers or cyclists.

Alanstrainor

seamus wrote: »

Dunno about anyone else, but I see this all the time at rush hour.

Exactly. This is already the case, a commute through Dublin at rush hour would see this everywhere. Kevin street and Wexford street junction, through Rathmines, even Harolds Cross is the same.

mloc123

seamus wrote: »

Dunno about anyone else, but I see this all the time at rush hour.

Same, cycle along the grand canal any morning and each traffic light is packed with groups of cyclists stopped (including those that insist on jumping to the top despite being so slow :rolleyes:)

RobertFoster

Was a brown overcoat the yellow hi-vis of the era? I think I'd melt.

jon1981

mloc123 wrote: »

Same, cycle along the grand canal any morning and each traffic like is packed with groups of cyclists stopped (including those that insist on jumping to the top despite being so slow :rolleyes:)

Not all junctions are equal but I pass plenty of junctions coming down the Malahide road, Fairview, north strand road and on towards the quays in which many cyclists would ignore the red light... especially when there's grid lock around Connolly station.

Chips Lovell

Don't know what the big deal is. Cyclists are traffic.

T-Maxx

Jaysus is it Friday already?

soups05

That all depends on the outcome. I personally have no problem with a cyclist breaking a light, using a footpath etc. Do what you gotta do bro, but where I do have a problem is when they do it dangerously.

ie empty footpath, road full of fast moving cars/trucks...off you go my man. footpath full of peds,buggies,small kids..stay on the road. its not safer for the cyclist i know, but its much safer for those using the footpath.

zebra crossings, if you can cycle through at a safe speed and not hit/cause a near heart attack to those crossing no problem. But if your the full speed, barge through while roaring gettouttawayyyy then prepare to be clotheslined.

If your at a road junction, lights are red, traffic crossing in front then stay put ya loon. However if the road is clear then away you go.

BUT, and it's a big but, take personal responsibility for your choice. you choose to jump a red and go out in front of me then you pay the price for any accident that results. I mean really pay the price, I slam on brakes and get rear ended, poor guy behind was not expecting it but he should leave enough room. I hit you and you get hurt, no big claim for you and you pay my damages just like a driver would.

Same for the crazy/lazy peds who will cross ten feet from traffic lights without a second thought. Or who wander into the road from between two parked vans near to but not at a zebra crossing. Why the hell should they get rich for being stupid?

you go buzzing past a red and hit me when am crossing the road then you pay compo just as if you were a car driver. ( assuming am not just crossing like above of course.)

The biggest problem is attitude, of all road users. peds think cars and bikes should stop for them no matter what, some cyclists think they can go the wrong way up a one way street and its grand cos they are only small compared to cars. some drivers think they can force cyclists off the road cos they are more important in their two tons of metal.

There are always gonna be problems with a selection of peds/cyclist/drivers who think they are more important, they will never learn to share the road. That's why I believe in personal responsibility, if am driving I am supposed to watch out for the vulnerable road users. Well how about they also look out for themselves too, it's not that much to ask.

oh, and on another note, why do cyclists not have a big ass stick coming out the side of the bike with something sharp and pointy on it, would stop a lot of those asshole close passes i see on youtube, then just reach down and fold it in for the tight spots. prob not legal but def safer, just a thought.

DavyD_83

soups05 wrote: »

That all depends on the outcome. I personally have no problem with a cyclist breaking a light, using a footpath etc. Do what you gotta do bro, but where I do have a problem is when they do it dangerously.

ie empty footpath, road full of fast moving cars/trucks...off you go my man. footpath full of peds,buggies,small kids..stay on the road. its not safer for the cyclist i know, but its much safer for those using the footpath.

zebra crossings, if you can cycle through at a safe speed and not hit/cause a near heart attack to those crossing no problem. But if your the full speed, barge through while roaring gettouttawayyyy then prepare to be clotheslined.

If your at a road junction, lights are red, traffic crossing in front then stay put ya loon. However if the road is clear then away you go.

BUT, and it's a big but, take personal responsibility for your choice. you choose to jump a red and go out in front of me then you pay the price for any accident that results. I mean really pay the price, I slam on brakes and get rear ended, poor guy behind was not expecting it but he should leave enough room. I hit you and you get hurt, no big claim for you and you pay my damages just like a driver would.

Same for the crazy/lazy peds who will cross ten feet from traffic lights without a second thought. Or who wander into the road from between two parked vans near to but not at a zebra crossing. Why the hell should they get rich for being stupid?

you go buzzing past a red and hit me when am crossing the road then you pay compo just as if you were a car driver. ( assuming am not just crossing like above of course.)

The biggest problem is attitude, of all road users. peds think cars and bikes should stop for them no matter what, some cyclists think they can go the wrong way up a one way street and its grand cos they are only small compared to cars. some drivers think they can force cyclists off the road cos they are more important in their two tons of metal.

Not sure if the above is partly tongue in cheek, but I agree completely.
My basic rule is that you should know the rules of the roads, and treat them as guidelines, primarily to understand how traffic is most likely to move.
The ultimate goal is just to not get hit by anything.

But in all cases, if you are breaking the rules, you lose all right of way.
My golden rule: If you are doing something against the rules, you should never hinder the actions of somebody who is acting within the rules

DavyD_83

soups05 wrote: »

and on another note, why do cyclists not have a big ass stick coming out the side of the bike with something sharp and pointy on it, would stop a lot of those asshole close passes i see on youtube, then just reach down and fold it in for the tight spots. prob not legal but def safer, just a thought.

If the whole pass at 1.5 thing is actual workable (as some people will adamantly claim), then this is definitely the most effective way to enforce it.
All bikes should just have a bar that sticks out 1.5m (flexible, so it doesn't knock the cyclist over if hit, but with a spiky,(magnetic?,) damaging end that will destroy paint work of any car that hits it.

Alanstrainor

DavyD_83 wrote: »

If the whole pass at 1.5 thing is actual workable (as some people will adamantly claim), then this is definitely the most effective way to enforce it.
All bikes should just have a bar that sticks out 1.5m (flexible, so it doesn't knock the cyclist over if hit, but with a spiky,(magnetic?,) damaging end that will destroy paint work of any car that hits it.

doozerie

Arguments in favour of cyclists being allowed to ignore the rules of the road generally boil down to "it's fine for me to do it, 'cos I'm a lovely caring and conscientious person that wouldn't hurt a fly, but by jaysus if someone else subjects me to such behaviour that's out of order" or, in short, "do as I say, not as I do".

It's the very same mindset that many pedestrians and motorists apply to their own behaviour, us humans are all too often fundamentally selfish and self-serving after all. So you get, for example, cyclists/motorists complaining about motorists/cyclists that break red lights (= a reasonable complaint) while defending their own right to do so (= hypocritical), people complaining about the "reckless" cyclists who zoom past them as they walk on the pavement while defending their own right to ride on the pavement "safely" as it suits them, etc.

We can try to delude ourselves that our own social responsibilities are flexible and changeable at our whim, while those of everyone else are aren't, but we really should just grow up and act like the responsible adults we expect everyone else to be.

07Lapierre

soups05 wrote: »

That all depends on the outcome. I personally have no problem with a cyclist breaking a light, using a footpath etc. Do what you gotta do bro, but where I do have a problem is when they do it dangerously.

ie empty footpath, road full of fast moving cars/trucks...off you go my man. footpath full of peds,buggies,small kids..stay on the road. its not safer for the cyclist i know, but its much safer for those using the footpath.

zebra crossings, if you can cycle through at a safe speed and not hit/cause a near heart attack to those crossing no problem. But if your the full speed, barge through while roaring gettouttawayyyy then prepare to be clotheslined.

If your at a road junction, lights are red, traffic crossing in front then stay put ya loon. However if the road is clear then away you go.

BUT, and it's a big but, take personal responsibility for your choice. you choose to jump a red and go out in front of me then you pay the price for any accident that results. I mean really pay the price, I slam on brakes and get rear ended, poor guy behind was not expecting it but he should leave enough room. I hit you and you get hurt, no big claim for you and you pay my damages just like a driver would.

Same for the crazy/lazy peds who will cross ten feet from traffic lights without a second thought. Or who wander into the road from between two parked vans near to but not at a zebra crossing. Why the hell should they get rich for being stupid?

you go buzzing past a red and hit me when am crossing the road then you pay compo just as if you were a car driver. ( assuming am not just crossing like above of course.)

The biggest problem is attitude, of all road users. peds think cars and bikes should stop for them no matter what, some cyclists think they can go the wrong way up a one way street and its grand cos they are only small compared to cars. some drivers think they can force cyclists off the road cos they are more important in their two tons of metal.

There are always gonna be problems with a selection of peds/cyclist/drivers who think they are more important, they will never learn to share the road. That's why I believe in personal responsibility, if am driving I am supposed to watch out for the vulnerable road users. Well how about they also look out for themselves too, it's not that much to ask.

oh, and on another note, why do cyclists not have a big ass stick coming out the side of the bike with something sharp and pointy on it, would stop a lot of those asshole close passes i see on youtube, then just reach down and fold it in for the tight spots. prob not legal but def safer, just a thought.

You cant have it both ways....the Law is there for EVERYONE, regardless of your chosen mode of transport. Red means STOP, pavements are for Pedestrians ONLY, etc. etc.

They will learn to share the road if:
1. we had better enforcement of the ROTR (for all road users)
2. Stiffer penalties for rule breakers.

Brian

After Hours >>>

tomasrojo

DavyD_83 wrote: »

If the whole pass at 1.5 thing is actual workable (as some people will adamantly claim), then this is definitely the most effective way to enforce it.
All bikes should just have a bar that sticks out 1.5m (flexible, so it doesn't knock the cyclist over if hit, but with a spiky,(magnetic?,) damaging end that will destroy paint work of any car that hits it.

Guess that was partly the rationale of these things (though not the damage to cars):


I don't think they made much difference, but I don't think anyone rigorously checked their efficacy.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

You cant have it both ways....the Law is there for EVERYONE, regardless of your chosen mode of transport. Red means STOP, pavements are for Pedestrians ONLY, etc. etc.

They will learn to share the road if:
1. we had better enforcement of the ROTR (for all road users)
2. Stiffer penalties for rule breakers.

I don't like people breaking lights, and I don't like cycling on footpaths. However, I do the latter almost every day, as it's the easiest way to get into my estate from town. I have to go 1-2km out of my way to get in otherwise, and mix it up with cars on four-lane roads, including a large crossroads.

I could just walk the bike though the pedestrian entrance, and I do if there are any pedestrians around at all, but if there aren't I just cycle it. The sight lines are excellent, so I'm literally not bothering anyone, once I dismount when a pedestrian comes along.

Sort of confession, invalidated by self-justification.

C3PO

I often wonder whether all the people on here who insist that cyclists should stop for every red light actually do so themselves and in all circumstances? I leave my house at 5.30am every day and cycle into town - should I really stop at every red light on the often deserted road? Should I always stop when turning left and the turn is clear of traffic and pedestrians? I understand that the law states that I should and that I may be prosecuted for not so doing but that is a risk I am willing to take in certain circumstances! Similarly, like most people, I may sometimes drive in excess of the speed limit depending on the conditions.
I am not that far off 60 now and have cycled, motorcycled and driven for 40 years without a major incident or a prosecution and hopefully will continue to do so. I would emphasise that I will never break a light if I will pose a danger to other road users or myself and I would always be conscious of not pissing other people off too. But I sometimes find the attitude of some posters here to be a bit sanctimonious and "holier than thou" when it comes to this issue! I just wonder do they always practice what they preach?

07Lapierre

C3PO wrote: »

I often wonder whether all the people on here who insist that cyclists should stop for every red light actually do so themselves and in all circumstances? I leave my house at 5.30am every day and cycle into town - should I really stop at every red light on the often deserted road? Should I always stop when turning left and the turn is clear of traffic and pedestrians? I understand that the law states that I should and that I may be prosecuted for not so doing but that is a risk I am willing to take in certain circumstances! Similarly, like most people, I may sometimes drive in excess of the speed limit depending on the conditions.
I am not that far off 60 now and have cycled, motorcycled and driven for 40 years without a major incident or a prosecution and hopefully will continue to do so. I would emphasise that I will never break a light if I will pose a danger to other road users or myself and I would always be conscious of not pissing other people off too. But I sometimes find the attitude of some posters here to be a bit sanctimonious and "holier than thou" when it comes to this issue! I just wonder do they always practice what they preach?

The answer is No. we all break the law in minor ways all the time. My point is that we do this because the risks (of being caught or causing injury) are so low.

tomasrojo

I only break red lights that won't change. Lights with an induction loop buried in front of them. I can't think of any others I'd break.

I think the difference for me with footpath cycling (when no pedestrians are around) is that even if the offence and risk are very minor, the inconvenience of stopping is usually small, while the inconvenience of following a route designed for cars and trucks can be very large.

Mind you, the inconvenience of wheeling the bike isn't large either. It's just that if there are literally no pedestrians around, there are good sight lines, and I don't cycle faster than a jogger would run, I don't see what harm I'm doing.

CorMc

tomasrojo wrote: »

I only break red lights that won't change. Lights with an induction loop buried in front of them. I can't think of any others I'd break.

I think the difference for me with footpath cycling (when no pedestrians are around) is that even if the offence and risk are very minor, the inconvenience of stopping is usually small, while the inconvenience of following a route designed for cars and trucks can be very large.

Mind you, the inconvenience of wheeling the bike isn't large either. It's just that if there are literally no pedestrians around, there are good sight lines, and I don't cycle faster than a jogger would run, I don't see what harm I'm doing.

Isn't it illegal to cycle on the footpath over the age of 16?

tomasrojo

CorMc wrote: »

Isn't it illegal to cycle on the footpath over the age of 16?

It is, unless there a cycle track or shared space sign. Who's going to enforce it when there's no-one around, and who is being inconvienced?

tomasrojo

It's illegal under the age of 16 too. The Gardaí just have an unofficial policy of ignoring it, and the Department of Transport unofficially support ignoring it too.

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is, unless there a cycle track or shared space sign. Who's going to enforce it when there's no-one around, and who is being inconvienced?

Just curious...If you were caught rideing a bike on the pavement... would you pay the fine or contest it?

silverharp

Commuting I'd tend to obey the lights through D4 and D6, as I hit injun country out past Crumlin I would break some so long as there is no danger. A lot of the time though you can lead and lag the lights so its not like you end up stopping that often anyway. there are one or 2 large junctions where I feel safer getting a bit of lead on the traffic especially if there is a large truck beside or behind me.

Lambay island

Someone mentioned it above but the only ones i would break when there is a sensor that doesnt recognise the weight of the bike. There are two out my way that you could be waiting for 5 minutes for a car to come for a green light if you didn't break them- poor design. Of all the people I see breaking lights on bikes a massive percentage of them are causing no issues to anyone else and quite often doing it for their own protection which i get. I tend to try to get out in front and anticipate the change to green and shoot off ahead of the cars once clear(hardly ever clear though as one to 2 vehicles break every red light at the end)
Yesterday I did witness a deliveroo cyclist on dame street not slowing down towards a ped crossing on dame street and gave an awful fright to an elderly couple crossing on a green man. As they stopped and said something to him he shouted at them and cycled thru. It was so needless as all he had to do was slow a little even if he wasnt going to stop and let them past. Always a few arseh0les out there.

doozerie

C3PO wrote: »

I just wonder do they always practice what they preach?

Yes.

But I make mistakes/bad decision too. I am under no illusions that I am anything other than an imperfect person, which means I (like everyone else) am only ever one bad decision away from being at least as much of a problem/arsehole/danger as the worst offenders I see on the roads.

I have to constantly remind myself of that when I'm tempted to break a red light, cycle on the footpath, break the speed limit while driving, etc. And I am tempted frequently, as I'm sure everyone is. It's hard work resisting those urges, I'm as selfish as anyone else and am more than capable of plucking from the air ludicrous self-serving justification for all sorts of stupid and/or dangerous behaviour on my part, but I consider the effort of resisting those urges as simply a necessary part of being a member of society - I don't need to like it, I just have to lump it.

So you may interpret my post above as being "holier than thou", but it's actually a plea for everyone, and that includes me, to take more responsibility on the roads.

Dismiss that if you like, but remember that if I decide to shirk myself of that responsibility, I could be the person that collides with you or someone you know, the next time I give in to that desire to ride on the footpath, break the red light, or overtake dangerously while driving just because I'm in a hurry. You probably don't want that. And neither do I, to be honest, I have no desire to live with the guilt of having harmed someone just because I willingly made a bad choice.

silverharp

Lambay island wrote: »

Someone mentioned it above but the only ones i would break when there is a sensor that doesnt recognise the weight of the bike....

I havnt seen these, do you have a link or describe what they look like?

CorMc

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is, unless there a cycle track or shared space sign. Who's going to enforce it when there's no-one around, and who is being inconvienced?

Was more just curious than anything! I've nothing against people cycling slowly on the footpath. I do take issue with cyclists running red lights. (Road biker and casual mountainbiker myself. Have a few too many bikes!)

doozerie

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt seen these, do you have a link or describe what they look like?

They are usually only visible as a patched rectangle on the road at a junction. They aren't triggered by weight though, they detect metal. On a bike you sometimes have to pass over a specific part of them to trigger them, and even then there are some that a bike doesn't trigger at all.

There are several on my commute that only trigger if you roll over a very narrow/specific part of them, and a couple that don't seem to ever trigger when I am on the bike (but trigger every time when I am driving). The right (southbound) turn at Yellow House pub in Rathfarnham is one of the latter.

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is, unless there a cycle track or shared space sign. Who's going to enforce it when there's no-one around, and who is being inconvienced?

No-one is being inconvenienced. Until someone is.

As one example, there are plenty of instances of people being hit by cars because the driver "didn't see them". It happens that cyclists hit people too, in any such collisions that I've seen happen I'm pretty sure that at least one of the parties would argue that they didn't see the other.

With the extremely rare exception people don't willingly collide with other (road) users, it typically happens because someone made a mistake knowingly or otherwise. Personally I don't want to be the person saying "I'm sorry, I just didn't see you, are you okay?" (I've been there, it sucks!) so I make every effort to ensure I don't create circumstances where the chances of that scenario arising are increased.

I don't always succeed, but I'm certain that my life has been made easier (by my posing less of a danger to others and therefore feeling less like an arsehole afterwards if something does happen) for trying.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

I havnt seen these, do you have a link or describe what they look like?

They can sometimes have them at the exit of housing estates onto main roads, like here

There is another one at the junction of Marlborough St and Cathal Brugha st when travelling the same direction as the LUAS. It will only trigger when a car or tram goes over it.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Just curious...If you were caught rideing a bike on the pavement... would you pay the fine or contest it?

I'd just pay it. Though a minor part of using good sight lines to see if pedestrians are around includes looking around for the Peelers.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

No-one is being inconvenienced. Until someone is.

Oh yeah, if there were blind bends pr alleyways off to one side I would just wheel the bike. But the bit of footpath I use is about 20m long, straight and is surround by a flat expanse of grass. You really can see people from a long distance away. And it's uphill. Given that I'm usually going up that hill on a 40kg cargo bike with payload of 40+kg of children, I really am not going any faster than someone walking.


Anyway, it's one of my very few infractions, it makes my life slightly easier, doesn't seem to affect other people (pedestrians incredulously thank me when I dismount, which is a bit sad), so I'm sticking with it.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

They are usually only visible as a patched rectangle on the road at a junction.

Once you become aware of them you see them everywhere in suburban Dublin!

C3PO

doozerie wrote: »

They are usually only visible as a patched rectangle on the road at a junction. They aren't triggered by weight though, they detect metal. On a bike you sometimes have to pass over a specific part of them to trigger them, and even then there are some that a bike doesn't trigger at all.

There are several on my commute that only trigger if you roll over a very narrow/specific part of them, and a couple that don't seem to ever trigger when I am on the bike (but trigger every time when I am driving). The right (southbound) turn at Yellow House pub in Rathfarnham is one of the latter.

There's one at the junction of Stonebridge Road and Dublin Road in Shankill that's very close to the white "stop" line. It's a regular occurrence that cars don't pull up to the line and the traffic can sit there until somebody local gets out of their car and walks down the line of traffic to tell the 1st car to pull up a bit!! No idea whether a bike will trigger it .... refer to my post above!!

Wishbone Ash

I stop at red lights 99% of the time.

The one I occasionally break is the one on the street where I live. I only do so when out very early in the morning as the induction loop won't work with a carbon bike. I could wait around until a motor vehicle comes along or I could walk through the junction - but I don't.

If that makes me holier than thou, so be it.

site_owner

i thought this forum advocated queueing on the left in single file

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

...There is another one at the junction of Marlborough St and Cathal Brugha .....

They are at most junctions.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Just curious...If you were caught rideing a bike on the pavement... would you pay the fine or contest it?

This is slightly different from being fined for breaking a red, now I think about it. It's not a FPN offence (because of the blind-eye treatment of minors cycling on footpaths), so I'd have to go to court rather than get a fine in the post.

EDIT: Now I think about it again, I'd probably get a fixed-charge notice for "driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration."

Chips Lovell

The thing about ignoring the law and instead adopting your own interpretation of what's "dangerous" and what's "safe", is that it's entirely subjective.

Pretty much everyone who breaks road traffic law does so because they think its safe to do so. Nobody intentionally does something they think is dangerous.

tomasrojo

C3PO wrote: »

There's one at the junction of Stonebridge Road and Dublin Road and Shankill that's very close to the white "stop" line. It's a regular occurrence that cars don't pull up to the line and the traffic can sit there until somebody local gets out of their car and walks down the line of traffic to tell the 1st car to pull up a bit!! No idea whether a bike will trigger it .... refer to my post above!!

I've been like Marcel Marceau on my bike at the head of the queue of traffic, trying to find some kind of arm gestures that says: "Please come closer; I can't trigger the induction coil to change the lights"

tomasrojo

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The thing about ignoring the law and instead adopting your own interpretation of what's "dangerous" and what's "safe", is that it's entirely subjective.

Oddly enough, the pedestrian entrance to my estate splits in two directions. In the direction I go, it's got great sight lines, it leads quickly to a quiet road, but it doesn't have any bicycle signage.

In the other direction, it has bike signage, and it leads straight to a blind bend, shared with pedestrians, and bikes coming the other way.

In my direction, cycling is definitely safer, and illegal; in the other direction, it's definitely got a much higher likelihood of collision, including with elderly pedestrians who are heading to the Luas, and it's legal.

I think the path that goes my way is a later addition, where they've paved over a pedestrian desire line worn in the grass. In that case, it probably never occurred to them they could join up my estate with the cycle lane at the bottom of the hill.