Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

People complain about people on footpaths, people complain about kids doing wheelies on roads, ergo people would explode by people doing wheelies, on footpaths. Nothing wrong with that conclusion, and it's in keeping with the general nonsense-ness of the whole last few pages.

But you specifically said I mentioned kids pulling wheelies on footpaths. I didn't,ergo you were wrong.

I think there is a massive difference with a group of teenagers pulling wheelies or cycling on a footpath and a group of teenagers pulling wheelies or cycling in large groups in the middle of a busy road. Maybe you don't.

Pinch Flat

Hurrache wrote: »

With all the absence of high vis you still managed to see all these people. I've always found this very strange.

I'm impressed the amount of attention people give to cyclists - I had no idea people were so interested in what we are wearing.

Hurrache

ewc78 wrote: »

But you specifically said I mentioned kids pulling wheelies on footpaths.

C'mon, I didn't specifically say that.

Well, as long as said kid doesn't pull any mad wheelies. Evidently wheelies seem to trigger rage in some people, and jealously in others.

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

C'mon, I didn't specifically say that.

Now I think we can both admit this is getting a bit boring at this stage, and it must be for the other posters reading this.
I understand that you are a cyclist and I'm convinced its in the cycling code to never admit you are wrong,so let's just agree to disagree.

Btw if you had a quick look back through my posts you'll see I've mentioned a few times I've no issue with someone cycling on a footpath. Just so you know.
Sure I run in the cycle lanes all the time

Thelonious Monk

ewc78 wrote: »

Sure I run in the cycle lanes all the time

I personally have no problem with that, you would be easy to pass, as long as it's not a car

AndrewJRenko

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I personally have no problem with that, you would be easy to pass, as long as it's not a car

I personally have a problem with that. I’ve no problem with a jogger moving out into a bike lane to avoid pedestrians, provided they are either facing cyclists and giving way to them, or that they have a good look to make sure there are no cyclists coming. I do have a problem with joggers taking the bike lane by default, to save them the bother of avoiding pedestrians. And I do have a problem with those who jog out into the bike lane without looking for cyclists.

SeanW wrote: »

Re-read the dictionary. Negligent actions in the run-up to an accident don't make it any less accidental. Intent matters. Either the crash was caused on purpose or it wasn't. It's really very simple. There's no such thing as Schroedinger's collision, that was accidental and on-purpose at the same time. It's one or the other. There is no in-between.

This is such a Bart Simpson level excuse; https://youtu.be/fmxLyHQfpLA?t=33
Drivers have no excuse for not knowing the likely consequences of their actions. We have ads all over TV and online showing them how speeding, mobile phone use and drink driving ends up.
But you don’t want me (and the RSA presumably and the Gardai and the Fire Brigade and the Ambulance service) to stop being mean to the poor drivers who couldn’t possibly be expected to realise the likely consequences of their deliberate actions?
When are drivers going to start taking responsibility for their actions? There are no accidents. We have crashes, or collisions and they are largely avoidable.

SeanW wrote: »

Which makes Irish motorists among the best in the world at not killing people. Demonstrably so. And by a VERY large margin.

So what? What’s the relevance of the international comparisons? We’re still seeing 2 or 3 people killed each week on the road, a hundred or so families devastated, all because drivers couldn’t be arsed sticking to traffic laws. Are our aspirations that low that we can’t see beyond international statistics? Good job we weren’t that narrow minded when it came to the smoking ban, eh?

SeanW wrote: »

Because the question is bull****. Public policy is not made on the basis of individuals, it is made on the basis of society as a whole. That's why every society tolerates road deaths. Usually far more than Ireland. Given that you are probably a left-wing collectivist yourself, you should understand that.
FWIW I have lost relatives on the road, under varying circumstances. But I still take the roads on foot and by car as the case requires, as and when I want or need to. Because I know the risks and accept them. It could all be over for any of us tomorrow. But I am satisfied that the risk-reward ratio for walking or driving as needed is favourable. As do most, all over the world.

Every society tolerates it because most of society is made of drivers who don’t fancy the idea of being held accountable for their actions. Or they don’t fancy the inconvenience of having to obey speed limits when they’ll probably get away with the oul speeding.
But it’s interesting to see that you won’t volunteer one of your family for the risk/reward ratio.

SeanW wrote: »

Every time you hijack a thread, you start with your pointless platitudes about speed, and you keep hammering the point.

No, wrong again – I started out with the pavement parking this time, and moved on to speed to enlighten Charlie as to the reasons for low enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists.

SeanW wrote: »

Now, maybe you think that punishing all those awful, evil motorists who sail past cow pastures at 55kph in "core urban areas" is going to save any number of lives, but I for one am deeply skeptical. Look over the examples I provided of what Irish transport planners call "urban areas" and you'll see why I take your figures on "urban speeding" with a massive grain of salt.
Both Ireland and Canada are Western societies with a strong English influence and many political, cultural, legal and ideological similarities. It IS relevant. Your kind always complain that motorists are not regulated enough, that more rules, more regulation and more restrictions are needed for motorists and their cars. Well guess what, places like Canada a lot of that, and MORE people die.

‘Punishing’? Interesting way of thinking there – so cyclists are ‘lawbreaking scum’ but motorists are ‘punished’ if they have to obey the law.
Maybe this would be a good time for you to come clean and stop pretending that this is anything to do with a safety issue for you? It’s just plain old personal prejudice.
I generally haven’t called for more rules, more regulations and more restrictions. I’ve called for the existing rules/regulations to be actually enforced, so that motorists have more than a snowball’s chance in hell of getting caught for speeding.

SeanW wrote: »

You are aware of penalty points right? And their effect on drivers licenses and insurance?

Yes, I’m acutely aware of the negligible effect of penalty points on the licences of dangerous drivers.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/over-80-of-banned-drivers-fail-to-surrender-licence-1.3446037
Cyclists can get penalty points too, as was explained to you on this thread for nearly 10 years ago;
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056424423
You’ve some neck to be complaining about me when you’ve been banging your anti-cyclist drum for ten years. Have you not looked at the actual evidence in all that time?

SeanW wrote: »

I suspect you don't spend much time in Irish city centres then ... red light jumping and riding on the footpath is the rule, not the exception in our major city centres.

True enough, endemic levels of red light jumping, the vast majority of which is done by motorists in Irish city centre.
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

SeanW wrote: »

And many of the lawbreakers who do that probably come home to whine on boards about lawbreaking motorists ...

Are the lawbreaking motorists scum too, or is that just the cyclists who don’t kill people that you reserve that particular term for?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

True enough, endemic levels of red light jumping, the vast majority of which is done by motorists in Irish city centre.
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

No, that's not what that research shows.

Please stop claiming it is.

That's a study of two road junctions, junctions with LUAS tracks. They show that 67.4% of those who broke those red lights were cars. 12.6% were cyclists. Absent figures for the totals using those junctions, and the totals breaking the red lights, they're actually fairly devoid of meaningful information.

They also recorded things like "time after the red light was displayed" - but mysteriously the cycling blog doesn't report those figures. I wonder why?

Yes, cars break the lights. No, they shouldn't break the lights, but they do.

In the vast majority of cases, it's cars speeding up to get through a light on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red. Again - tot disputing that's wrong, not disputing that it happens.

But compare that to almost any other traffic light situation, where a large majority of cyclists will just continue straight on through a red light, if there's no easily visible actual motor traffic coming towards them. Pedestrians? Even other cyclists? Going through...

And that's 10 seconds, 20 seconds, even longer, after a light has turned red.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No, that's not what that research shows.

Please stop claiming it is.

That's a study of two road junctions, junctions with LUAS tracks. They show that 67.4% of those who broke those red lights were cars. 12.6% were cyclists. Absent figures for the totals using those junctions, and the totals breaking the red lights, they're actually fairly devoid of meaningful information.

They also recorded things like "time after the red light was displayed" - but mysteriously the cycling blog doesn't report those figures. I wonder why?

Yes, cars break the lights. No, they shouldn't break the lights, but they do.

In the vast majority of cases, it's cars speeding up to get through a light on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red. Again - tot disputing that's wrong, not disputing that it happens.

But compare that to almost any other traffic light situation, where a large majority of cyclists will just continue straight on through a red light, if there's no easily visible actual motor traffic coming towards them. Pedestrians? Even other cyclists? Going through...

And that's 10 seconds, 20 seconds, even longer, after a light has turned red.

A cyclist running a red light is a muppet and a danger to him/herself. A motorist running a red light is a bigger muppet AND a potential death sentence (or at best, serious injury) TO THEMSELVES and also any pedestrians or other road users.There is also the cost of any material damage to property/road furniture etc. Yet Cyclists who run red lights are seen as a major, MAJOR, danger/hazard on our roads? Just doesn't make sense.

micar

07Lapierre wrote: »

A cyclist running a red light is a muppet and a danger to him/herself. A motorist running a red light is a bigger muppet AND a potential death sentence (or at best, serious injury) TO THEMSELVES and also any pedestrians or other road users.There is also the cost of any material damage to property/road furniture etc. Yet Cyclists who run red lights are seen as a major, MAJOR, danger/hazard on our roads? Just doesn't make sense.

In fact every cyclist is perceived as an absolute menace causing mayhem on our roads and who contribute nothing towards the road infrastructure.

Simply not the case.

J_E

TaurenDruid wrote: »

That's a study of two road junctions, junctions with LUAS tracks. They show that 67.4% of those who broke those red lights were cars. 12.6% were cyclists. Absent figures for the totals using those junctions, and the totals breaking the red lights, they're actually fairly devoid of meaningful information.

How is 67.4% not 'a vast majority'?

In the vast majority of cases, it's cars speeding up to get through a light on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red. Again - tot disputing that's wrong, not disputing that it happens.

But compare that to almost any other traffic light situation, where a large majority of cyclists will just continue straight on through a red light, if there's no easily visible actual motor traffic coming towards them. Pedestrians? Even other cyclists? Going through...

Is this anecdotal or actual presented evidence? Need to also remember that there is a big difference between a ton-heavy machine and a tubular frame in terms of what happens if it impacts something.

Why is this now about red traffic lights? Who is advocating for that at all? It seems like a desperate scrape at cyclists again

SeanW wrote: »

I suspect you don't spend much time in Irish city centres then ... red light jumping and riding on the footpath is the rule, not the exception in our major city centres.

This is pure fantasy by someone who has clearly never had any experience cycling themselves in city centre.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's gas the way the thread started off with people being outraged with cyclists on paths and has morphed into a thread moaning about cyclists legal right in using the roads. Bit disappointed "road tax", helmets or insurance didn't come up. I'll check back later.

I'm baffled, honestly. I didn't think people were so angry about cyclists. It seems mostly based on imaginary scenarios that don't happen. If anything, the cyclist is going to be the most injured individual in any of these situations, thought they would at least take delight in that?

07Lapierre

We cycle too fast on cycle lanes and are a danger to pedestrians. We cycle too slow on roads and "hold up traffic"
If we cycle in single file, close to the ditch, we get a slap from the passenger side door mirror.
If we cycle two abreast, we are "blocking the road" even though most of the time we're travelling at 30kph ( which will soon be the normal speed limit)

If we cycle in a group of 4 or more on country roads, we are "blocking traffic"
If we cycle in a group of 4 or more on wide roads, we are "a danger to ourselves and others and "why can't you cycle on smaller/quieter roads?"

We don't pay road tax, yet I personally pay Motor tax, USC levy, PRSI and VATon everything I buy? (Including vat on my bike, bike helmet)
We won't use cycle lanes, even the ones that don't have access ramps, deny me right of way at every driveway, junction and nearly all end at PEDESTRIAN crossings. Most cycle lanes have a crappy road surface, have sign post poles in the middle of them, guide cyclists off the road, onto the pavement and then back onto the road again and were designed to simply keep bicycles out of the way of cars!
We are reckless if we don't wear some styrofoam on out heads,which apparently will save our life's if hit by a car (from behind) at 60kph.

We are reckless if we choose to only use lights when it's dark! Apparently we have to also wear a builders yellow waistcoat with "RSA" printed on it, because again, this magic fleece will prevent drunk drivers who are texting while driving at 100 kph from hitting us!

We are reckless for cycling in broad daylight if we don't wear our styrofoam hat and magic yellow fleece without which we are completely invisible!

Did I miss anything?... oh yeah..whatever you do NEVER cycle while listening to music! It is vital that a cyclist can hear the wind while cycling! It could save your life apparently!

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No, that's not what that research shows.

Please stop claiming it is.

That's a study of two road junctions, junctions with LUAS tracks. They show that 67.4% of those who broke those red lights were cars. 12.6% were cyclists. Absent figures for the totals using those junctions, and the totals breaking the red lights, they're actually fairly devoid of meaningful information.

They also recorded things like "time after the red light was displayed" - but mysteriously the cycling blog doesn't report those figures. I wonder why?

Yes, cars break the lights. No, they shouldn't break the lights, but they do.

In the vast majority of cases, it's cars speeding up to get through a light on amber, or the first couple of seconds of red. Again - tot disputing that's wrong, not disputing that it happens.

But compare that to almost any other traffic light situation, where a large majority of cyclists will just continue straight on through a red light, if there's no easily visible actual motor traffic coming towards them. Pedestrians? Even other cyclists? Going through...

And that's 10 seconds, 20 seconds, even longer, after a light has turned red.

Would you like to add the truck, taxi and bus driver figures to that for car drivers and see where that leaves you for motorists?

Also, what's the obsession with comparing numbers jumping red lights about anyone? Let's bring speeding into the frame and see where that leaves your comparison.

micar

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0603/1145254-bike-cycling/

"In Ballincollig in Co Cork, Independent Councillor Marcia D'Alton says she had not cycled much for the year but in recent weeks has had wonderful bike trips with her children.

She says her children are competent cyclists but last week her 10-year-old son had a very distressing experience. He had got a little ahead of her and when she caught up with him she found him bruised, grazed and shaken.

She says a car drove so close he was forced off the road and fell from his bike hitting his head on a wall. She believes it could have been far worse if he was not wearing a helmet. She doesn’t know what to do now as she loves cycling with her children but doesn’t want to put them at risk. "

A motorist who could not give a fu(k about the safety of a 10 year old boy.

ewc78

I see we have hit new levels of whataboutery on this thread!

whisky_galore

I don't know why this thread was left open when it's got the same old neverending arguments as all the others.

ewc78

07Lapierre wrote: »

Most cycle lanes have a crappy road surface, have sign post poles in the middle of them, guide cyclists off the road, onto the pavement and then back onto the road again and were designed to simply keep bicycles out of the way of cars!

Great for running in though! means I don't have to navigate around those pesky dog walkers with their leads extended to the max.
There's a great cycle lane where I live that stretches about 10km on both sides of the road.
20km of pedestrian/dog walkers free blissful running.!
Sure if you lads don't wanna use them, I will..:)

Hurrache

Despite casting over and over, you still won't find anyone taking your bait ewc78. People just don't care that you find people not on bikes in cycle lanes.

Thelonious Monk

Hurrache wrote: »

Despite casting over and over, you still won't find anyone taking your bait ewc78. People just don't care that you find people not on bikes in cycle lanes.

Joggers actually wouldn't bother me, groups of people meandering into the bike lanes would be frustrating like what happens on the Clontarf cycleway but I'll take that over sharing a space with cars.

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

Despite casting over and over, you still won't find anyone taking your bait ewc78. People just don't care that you find people not on bikes in cycle lanes.

Lovely run on my usual run route/cycle lane this morning. 4 cyclists passed me, 3 said hello they seemed nice even if they were cyclists.
One just blanked me, the bastard...:(

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Also, what's the obsession with comparing numbers jumping red lights about anyone?

I dunno. You tell me. It's your obsession. You keep quoting the Kerry cycling blog's years old report on someone else's study that leaves out most of the relevant data.

FinnC

I've just read the whole thread on here and it makes depressing reading. Non cyclists hating on all cyclists and cyclists hating on all motorists. All this hating on each other must mean a lot of you are constantly in a state of stress.

I've been a cyclist for years but one of the worst days of my life was when I hit and nearly killed a cyclist while I was driving a car.

It still gives me shivers to this day, I was badly shaken by it and was a nervous wreck for months afterwards. I have suffered from bouts of depression on and off over the years, even before the incident,and I really don't know what I would have done to myself if I had actually killed the guy. I'm not sure I could have lived with the guilt even though it wasn't my fault.

To cut a long story short the guy sailed straight through a red light as I was coming from the other side of a junction. I couldn't avoid him as it happened so quick. He was badly broken up the poor guy. I got to know him a bit actually as I visited him in hospital a few times. In fairness he saved me a lot of grief as he admitted he was completely in the wrong.
The Guards at the start they kept implying it was my fault and asking me had I broken the lights and that sort of questioning.

Anyway basically all I'm saying is when I hear people trying to justify cyclists breaking red lights it just makes me cringe a bit.
Yes I know a car is going to do more damage by breaking a red light and it is becoming more and more common to see motorists do this,but the cyclist also needs to stop and think of themselves when they break the red light because as the cyclist I hit found out it can have some pretty serious consequences.

Ironically enough as I mentioned above, I ended up taking up cycling myself,well when I say cycling I mean triathlon! But I find it great for the head and helps keep the black dog from the door.

Hurrache

FinnC wrote: »

Non cyclists hating on all cyclists and cyclists hating on all motorists.

All this is not mutually exclusive though. Many (most?) cyclists also drive, just like yourself. I'm sure there's a segment who would never drive a car for ideological reasons, but I'm pretty sure most of the regulars here also have cars.

(Not to ignore your terrible experience either.)

Seth Brundle

FinnC wrote: »

Anyway basically all I'm saying is when I hear people trying to justify cyclists breaking red lights it just makes me cringe a bit.

In fairness, to my knowledge, nobody in this thread has justified cyclists breaking a red light.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Glad to hear people are not falling for this nonsense! Hi-Viz? in Summer? on what have been some of the brightest/warmest days we've had so far.

Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight

07Lapierre

FinnC wrote: »

Anyway basically all I'm saying is when I hear people trying to justify cyclists breaking red lights it just makes me cringe a bit.

You must have missed post #399?

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight

Day glow? that was big in the 70's right?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0023/6178/6426/articles/1970s-disco-costumes_1400x.progressive.jpg?v=1528209242

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight

technically correct, if my understanding of flourescence is correct - that it's the UV portion in the light which stimulates the fluorescence. and that's not present at night.

the question as to how *effective*a fluorescent jacket is, is equivocal at best.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I dunno. You tell me. It's your obsession. You keep quoting the Kerry cycling blog's years old report on someone else's study that leaves out most of the relevant data.

No obsession for me - I just present the data (which is entirely complete) when people want to give the incorrect impression that breaking red lights by cyclists is a big problem.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually, the day glow portion of a HI viz garment works better in sunlight

Works better for what - blending in to the bright yellow background? If you want to be visible in sunlight, you need to contrast with the background, not blend in.

FinnC wrote: »

Anyway basically all I'm saying is when I hear people trying to justify cyclists breaking red lights it just makes me cringe a bit.
Yes I know a car is going to do more damage by breaking a red light and it is becoming more and more common to see motorists do this,but the cyclist also needs to stop and think of themselves when they break the red light because as the cyclist I hit found out it can have some pretty serious consequences.

In fairness, how big of a problem is breaking of red lights by cyclists. I'm fairly sure that no-one has been killed doing this in the last ten years. Serious injuries arising from this aren't being reported in the press.

Of all the problems we have on the roads (particularly the ones that result in two or three people getting killed by motorists each week), how big a problem is the breaking of red lights by cyclists?

FinnC wrote: »

Ironically enough as I mentioned above, I ended up taking up cycling myself,well when I say cycling I mean triathlon! But I find it great for the head and helps keep the black dog from the door.

Great to hear - great for physical and mental health.

ewc78 wrote: »

Lovely run on my usual run route/cycle lane this morning. 4 cyclists passed me, 3 said hello they seemed nice even if they were cyclists.
One just blanked me, the bastard...:(

Just ICYMI.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Day glow? that was big in the 70's right?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0023/6178/6426/articles/1970s-disco-costumes_1400x.progressive.jpg?v=1528209242

No it's part and parcel of approved HI Viz clothing.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

technically correct, if my understanding of flourescence is correct - that it's the UV portion in the light which stimulates the fluorescence. and that's not present at night.

the question as to how *effective*a fluorescent jacket is, is equivocal at best.

Absolutely correct, however the derisory comments and posts that certain board members ( seemingly exclusive to the cycling forum members ) would seem to be that they aren't interested in facts.

The effectiveness of HI Viz is dependent on the observer and their reactions, but if an observer fails to react to HI Viz then they won't react any better to no Hi Viz, so the question is ( fill your own figures in as these figures are just for the post )

If 80% of observers react positively earlier when they see Hi Viz ( because they actually see it ) is that not better than the 100% who react later when there is no Hi Viz?