Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

magicbastarder

#notallcyclists yadda yadda

but this thread was destined to be a bit of a car crash anyway. the opening post was a little, obscure in places, shall we say.
speaking as a cyclist, i'm more used to being given out to for not using cycle paths, rather than using footpaths.

J_E

magicbastarder wrote: »

#notallcyclists yadda yadda

but this thread was destined to be a bit of a car crash anyway. the opening post was a little, obscure in places, shall we say.
speaking as a cyclist, i'm more used to being given out to for not using cycle paths, rather than using footpaths.

Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.

Qrt

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Nearly run over by two teen girls cycling round a vend on a path at speed and with the constant lack of regular cycling meant much swerving and braking but we all survived. No virus passed between us, that I know of.

Yeah I wish they'd cycle on the road but traffic and. Lot of drivers are a bit*h.

Tbh loads of people don’t know how to Road cycle because they weren’t taught. The Irish version of the bikeability scheme was stopped in 2009 and afaik hasn’t been reimplemented...

I only know because I missed out by a year

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has every suburban jeep driver got the judgement of a five year old, all of a sudden?

https://twitter.com/karldeeter/status/1266274719906459652

Thank you for proving the points I've been making on this board for a long time now. :pac: Which is quite simply that when motorists do things that threaten other road users, they usually do so by doing things other than speeding (like cutting people off, stopping on pedestrian crossing etc).

Thanks for that Not that it even proved anything anyway because it was a strawman argument and a thread hijacking. No-one here will defend reckless drivers, but they were not the topic of the thread (until the thread was hijacked).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would it be so enraging to have it said that motorists are worse. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed 2 people over the same period.

So the ratio of danger is something like 1:2000 - broadly similar to the experience in the UK where motorists kill about 5 people each day while cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year.

And yet, Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user. The facts on this are clear and irrefutable.

Why is that simple factual context so enraging? Do those facts undermine attempts to enrage people about the very minor issues relating to cyclist behaviour?

Because they're meaningless. Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

Would you like to try sharing some of your reassuring statistics with the families of some of the twice the usual number of pedestrians killed by drivers so far this year?

What does this have to do with anything? Facts don't care about "who they reassure" they're just that. Facts.

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

See how well they get reassured and let me know please.

Any increase is unfortunate, but the facts remains that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

But hey, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

The topic was lawbreaking cyclists. And the only counter seems to be "look, look, motorists, breaking speed limits in one of the safest countries in the world."

You can hijack as many threads as you want with whataboutery, it doesn't change any facts.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user. The facts on this are clear and irrefutable.

probably should leave this lie, it's a nice weekend, but this is looking at the situation from one angle and missing the wider picture.
the 'reductio ad absurdum' response would be 'we don't need to take the sharks out of that swimming pool, because no one has been killed by a shark in it', and ignores the fact that people simply don't swim there because of the sharks.

one of the pieces of the puzzle of why ireland is so safe is because of the preponderance of the default to the car as the mode of transport*, where you have all the safety systems of modern cars.
it avoids the larger picture of 'what if we made cycling more attractive and popular', which might increase road deaths slightly but almost certainly have a greater counter effect of improved public health and fewer deaths as a result.

*e.g. more female secondary students drive to school than cycle.

micar

magicbastarder wrote: »

to expand on this further - cyclists cycling northbound on mobhi road, if they want to use the cycle lane, are directed to a pedestrian crossing near the bottom and transferred over the other side of the road onto an off-road cycle path:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3728366,-6.2658091,3a,75y,4.93h,80.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D121.00463%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

my assumption is that the council don't want people cycling on the road on the uphill stretch as they'd obviously be slow and holding up traffic/putting themselves in danger. it's a little odd as the cycle traffic then passes each other on the opposite side to normal - you're passing people going the opposite direction, but they're on your left (downhill cyclists remain on the road in the bus lane).

however, and this is where the fun starts; when you get to the home farm road junction, the bike path simply ceases:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3758677,-6.2647718,3a,75y,14.3h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA-dZetTcnPI3cHIs9eJV3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

by the council's own logic, presumably, they don't want cyclists on the road going uphill. yet halfway up mobhi road, the pretence at dealing with this is abandoned; it's not as if the hill has ended, or the road has gotten wider, they've simply abandoned the provision for uphill cyclists.
so a cyclist who has been on the cycle path now has two options - to use the road the council didn't want them on in the first place, or to continue on the path, but now they would be using it illegally.

in short, yes, many cyclists use the path, some when there's no need or benefit, but often cyclists use the path because the road simply hasn't been designed with them in mind.
it's an irritation when a cyclist is using a path when there's no need, of course. but that's only a small part of the story, if many cyclists have been conditioned to do so.

I have never crossed the road to use the cycle there. And I don't intend doing so.

I suppose the northbound cycle lane is place for kids cycling to the school and the GAA club. Never intended on cyclists going further.

When you get to the home farm road, I would then have to cross again as I cycle further up past DCU.

It's completely pointless for a 40 seconds cycle

Seth Brundle

SeanW wrote: »

The topic was lawbreaking cyclists. And the only counter seems to be "look, look, motorists, breaking speed limits in one of the safest countries in the world."

Why do you think some cyclists illegally use the footpath then?
My teenage son has started cycling on his own. I have informed him of his obligations under the law and how if he is using a footpath he must go in the knowledge that pedestrians have right of way and that whilst he may feel his overtaking speed is safe, a pedestrian may think otherwise.
I will at absolutely no point tell him to not use a footpath if he feels it is safer. He has seen enough of my videos showing how drivers have endangered me on a cycle to know how some dangerous drivers can be.

Hurrache

1 sheep2 wrote: »

The cycling lobby

Ha ha ha ha ha ha [deep breath] ha ha ha ha ha.

Repeat.

Hurrache

J_E wrote: »

Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.

Yeah, this is the stupidest thing we've seen, and probably will see, in this thread.

I know you're joking, but some people do think this is a justification.

CaSCaDe711

Far too many moans in the world nowadays moaning and moaning over stuff that's not as serious as they try to make it out to be. Moan moan moan, trying to get some sort of following online. Try to enjoy life, lighten up a bit, look at the positive things, and maybe have a look at what else is happening in the world, it might help you get some perspective :rolleyes:

Strumms

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations (Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html

The only people I see cycling on paths in my area are small kids occasionally , which isn’t a big problem...

If anyone’s argument is “well sorry, the roads are not safe enough for a cyclist the way people are driving, but I’m happy to cycle on a path actively endangering every, adult, child, pensioner, person with a disability because, well just because I think the roads are too dangerous for a cyclist..” you need to stop cycling and get the bus, a car or get walking... because if you hit me or a loved one with your bike you’ll end up picking the frame of said bike, out of your rectum.

MJohnston

SeanW wrote: »

But hey, this is SO relevant to the topic of lawbreaking cyclists on footpaths :rolleyes:

What exactly *is* relevant to this topic? If it’s just another thread to whine without retort, then it sounds like the topic would be best placed in After Hours.

As is, where does this topic go? A bunch of smarmy, condescending posts that do not attempt to understand the why of cycling on footpaths is really a completely pointless thread.

So, SeanW, as you are so concerned with topicality, what would you suggest this thread choose to try and elucidate or illuminate?

Seth Brundle

Strumms wrote: »

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations (Road Traffic Act) makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html

There's a man that cycles around here every day on the paths and keeps doing it despite my complaints.
I've even complained to An Post about him but they do nothing.

Strumms wrote: »

If anyone’s argument is “well sorry, the roads are not safe enough for a cyclist the way people are driving, but I’m happy to cycle on a path actively endangering every, adult, child, pensioner, person with a disability because, well just because I think the roads are too dangerous for a cyclist..” you need to stop cycling and get the bus, a car or get walking... because if you hit me or a loved one with your bike you’ll end up picking the frame of said bike, out of your rectum.

I don't think anyone has made the defence of roads are unsafe so its ok for cyclists to endanger people on a footpath. Maybe you can show us where this was suggested.

AndrewJRenko

Qrt wrote: »

Tbh loads of people don’t know how to Road cycle because they weren’t taught. The Irish version of the bikeability scheme was stopped in 2009 and afaik hasn’t been reimplemented...

I only know because I missed out by a year

Most local authorities fund cycle training for schools under the Cycle Right scheme;

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/page/programmes/cycle-right/cycle-right1

Hurrache wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha ha ha [deep breath] ha ha ha ha ha.

Repeat.

Someone should tell him the correct term for the omnipotent cycling lobby is 'BigCycling'.

J_E wrote: »

Some cyclists are not just lazy, they're outright dangerous. We know this and nobody would deny that unless they were being genuinely ignorant. There are cases for using the path though, in a way that is considered and the 'best case' for a bad situation.

Lazy? Do you reckon the drivers of the 60% (iirc) of car journeys that are under 4km are lazy?

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for proving the points I've been making on this board for a long time now. :pac: Which is quite simply that when motorists do things that threaten other road users, they usually do so by doing things other than speeding (like cutting people off, stopping on pedestrian crossing etc).

That's a bit of a leap there, from one particular video of one particular incident to 'proving' what motorists 'usually do'. I'm not quite sure that one video justifies your claim. There are also several decades of research into the causes of road deaths, showing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

SeanW wrote: »

Thanks for that Not that it even proved anything anyway because it was a strawman argument and a thread hijacking. No-one here will defend reckless drivers, but they were not the topic of the thread (until the thread was hijacked).

I was told earlier that the topic of the thread was the obstructions on the pavement that cause difficulties for pedestrians. Is that not the topic? Are you now the sole arbiter of topic creep?

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user. The facts on this are clear and irrefutable.

Because they're meaningless. Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

What does this have to do with anything? Facts don't care about "who they reassure" they're just that. Facts.

Any increase is unfortunate, but the facts remains that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.


The topic was lawbreaking cyclists. And the only counter seems to be "look, look, motorists, breaking speed limits in one of the safest countries in the world."

You seem to have missed the connection between speeding and road deaths. Road deaths aren't 'unfortunate'. They are almost always the direct result of the actions of one or more road users - whether in terms of their driving or their maintenance or their training.

Speeding isn't an academic, theoretical problem. it kills people with alarming regularity on our roads.

SeanW wrote: »

You can hijack as many threads as you want with whataboutery, it doesn't change any facts.

Hopefully we can agree that the facts of the significant increase in pedestrian roads is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently.

Casey78 wrote: »

No, you just came on spouting your usual whataboutery nonsense that you are well known for on this board.
Every thread that even dares mention anything about a cyclist doing something wrong you straight away bring up motorists. You're as predictable as they come.

Go back and read the thread. Mr Babbage speculated on the reasons for low enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists. I speculated on the reasons for the low enforcement of traffic laws for motorists. That's how discussions go.

If you have a problem with the post, you know where the report button is.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

It's so irritating to be misconstrued by these zealots. What I said was enraging is the whataboutery of those dismissing the misbehaviour of cyclists because of the behaviour of cars, which I had acknowledged in the very same post is frequently objectionable.

The cycling lobby often use these death statistics as if they were of any relevance whatsoever. It's the equivalent of justifying juvenile anti-social behaviour on the basis that the death rate of such attacks is much lower. Given the relative improbability of a cyclist killing a pedestrian in a collision, the same principle would justify cycling anarchy.

What these people are too ignorant to see is that a pedestrian never fears for their life on encountering a cyclist on the footpath. That's not the source of the gripe. It's the insecurity and irritation pedestrians feel that causes the anger. It's a pretty squalid mindset that assesses the morals of social interactions based only on death-rate.

I don't think anyone misconstrued you at all. If anything, you were fairly well construed.

Those death statistics would be fairly relevant to the families and friends of the two or three people killed by motorists on the road each week, including close to one pedestrian each week on average.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

As predicted when I saw the thread, yep, looooads of whataboutery, straight away. Drivers are assholes, too. We know.

Yep, drivers are assholes, cyclists are assholes, pedestrians are assholes.

Though just for context, cyclists and pedestrians aren't the ones killing a couple of people each week.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Maybe you could, I dunno, start your own thread about cars parking on footpaths?

Like I said above, if you have a problem with any of my posts, you know where the report button is.

VanHalen wrote: »

This debate started out about cyclists using the footpath meaning that social distancing is being ignored. What gets me is when cyclists do this and there is a perfectly good cycle path which they continue to disregard - not one littered with cars parked on it. The Grange Road from Baldoyle to the roundabout at Donaghmede. Cyclists (in both directions) refuse to use the cycle lane meaning I ( a pedestrian) have to walk out onto the cycle lane to avoid them. Only in Ireland!

Do you think you might possibly have missed the elephant in the room when it comes to problems on pavements that impact social distancing, both in terms of frequency and impact?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think you might possibly have missed the elephant in the room when it comes to problems on pavements that impact social distancing, both in terms of frequency and impact?

Maybe you could, I dunno, start your own thread about cars parking on footpaths?

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think you might possibly have missed the elephant in the room when it comes to problems on pavements that impact social distancing, both in terms of frequency and impact?

the main reason AndrewJRenko liked 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace' was because cars have killed more people than that movie.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably should leave this lie, it's a nice weekend, but this is looking at the situation from one angle and missing the wider picture.
the 'reductio ad absurdum' response would be 'we don't need to take the sharks out of that swimming pool, because no one has been killed by a shark in it', and ignores the fact that people simply don't swim there because of the sharks.

one of the pieces of the puzzle of why ireland is so safe is because of the preponderance of the default to the car as the mode of transport*, where you have all the safety systems of modern cars.
it avoids the larger picture of 'what if we made cycling more attractive and popular', which might increase road deaths slightly but almost certainly have a greater counter effect of improved public health and fewer deaths as a result.

*e.g. more female secondary students drive to school than cycle.

My point is that the opprobrium directed at Irish motorists from certain quarters is for the most part both unwarranted, hypocritical and misguided.

Unwarranted in the sense that Irish drivers are not bad by any international standard and the statistics bear that out, hypocritical in the sense that many of those dishing out the opprobrium are profligate lawbreakers themselves, and misguided in the sense that where there is some legitimate room for criticism, it is misdirected towards the wrong things.

If Irish motorists were so uniquely horrible, generally speaking you would expect to see that reflected in road death statistics. But you don't.

I defy anyone who says otherwise to go to China, Vietnam, India or parts of Africa and come back and tell us that Irish drivers are uniquely awful. Literally, try crossing a street in Vietnam when there is an unending stream of motorcycles and crossing is like playing Frogger, or try being a motorcyclist in China where everyone treats you like a lower life-form and drives like they're trying to kill you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHPGFQVXkvk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abh5BvIXRaw

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Someone should tell him the correct term for the omnipotent cycling lobby is 'BigCycling'.

More like "hypocrites".

That's a bit of a leap there, from one particular video of one particular incident to 'proving' what motorists 'usually do'. I'm not quite sure that one video justifies your claim. There are also several decades of research into the causes of road deaths, showing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

It bears out my own experience as a daily pedestrian in Dublin City. Every time motorists have done something that put me in danger, speed was not involved. Things like blocking pedestrian crossings so that me and 20 or 30 other pedestrians have to shimmy between bumpers in the 10 seconds you have the "green man".

Speed? 0 kph. As a pedestrian, within reason, I don't care what speed the motorists around me are doing, as long as they obey traffic controls (red lights, yield, pedestrian crossing controls etc). As a pedestrian, every time a motorist has done something to put me in danger, speed had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Other things create danger too, like footpaths not wide enough for the pedestrians (Baggot St. is a great example) or city junctions with no facilities for pedestrians at all.

I was told earlier that the topic of the thread was the obstructions on the pavement that cause difficulties for pedestrians. Is that not the topic? Are you now the sole arbiter of topic creep?

Re-read the thread title and the first post. Quite a drift from "Cycling on paths" to "Motorists speed"

Speeding isn't an academic, theoretical problem. it kills people with alarming regularity on our roads.

In a country like Ireland, it largely is.

Hopefully we can agree that the facts of the significant increase in pedestrian roads is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently.

Except your own link shows that this is little more than a statistical variance.

Meath Chronicle wrote:

60 people have been killed in 56 fatal collisions up to the 27th May 2020, compared to 55 deaths in 48 fatal collisions up to 27th May 2019.

So ... an increase of 5 - and you don't even identify the cause of those fatalities (the driver(s) involved in those cases might not have been speeding). While unfortunate, it does not change the underlying trend. Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

I'm sorry that the reality does not correspond to your bias, but it just doesn't. I don't how else I can slice this for you.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think you might possibly have missed the elephant in the room when it comes to problems on pavements that impact social distancing, both in terms of frequency and impact?

If this was other than isolated evidence there would be no space for cyclists

Note: the thread is not about how many people are killed 🀔

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

My point is that the opprobrium directed at Irish motorists from certain quarters is for the most part both unwarranted, hypocritical and misguided.

i would agree wholeheartedly that the vast majority of motorists are reasonable people.
but when i'm driving, it's other motorists i need to watch out for most.
when i'm cycling, it's motorists i need to watch out for most.
when i'm walking, it's motorists i need to watch out for most.

motorists (and i know this comes across as inflammatory language) have brought a gun to a knife fight. the balance of power is so skewed, it's absurd. and this is the crucial part, which is more important than the point i've just made - road design is frequently skewed entirely in the motorist's favour, to the detriment of other road users.

that's why cyclists often get their backs up about threads like this; because many people (and i'm not including you in this) will cast all cyclists as being from the same mould, and address their complaints to people who simply don't post here, who don't 'self identify' as cyclists and generally act sensibly. but they're the ones who often have their safety threatened, and then open up boards and see nonsense like what's in the OP of this thread. such is life. i'm not trying to cast light on the topic that opened this thread (yes, it annoys me too), just on the idea that's frequently promulgated that most cyclists are lawless and dangerous.

i'm somewhat tipsy, so the above probably is somewhat disjointed.

John_Rambo

I've been a habitual pedestrian recently (new baby, walks, go to f*****g sleep etc... ) I'm also a keen motorist and I cycle a little bit for short runs.

I don't come across many cyclists on the footpath and when I rarely do they don't bother me, the pace they go by me and the distance they give me is fine.

I don't see it as being a big issue in comparison to the antics of other road/path users (or path users that shouldn't be on the path). The Gardai are obviously of the same opinion. Bigger fish to fry.

1 sheep2

Hurrache wrote: »

Ha ha ha ha ha ha [deep breath] ha ha ha ha ha.

Repeat.

It's validating to see the sheer lack of class from those asserting the right of cyclists to impinge on pedestrians.

Chiparus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Bless your eyesight that you can see them spewing germs.
But yes, it's illegal, germs or not, but no-one is bothered doing anything to put a stop to it.

its not illegal.

micar

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There's a man that cycles around here every day on the paths and keeps doing it despite my complaints.
I've even complained to An Post about him but they do nothing.

I don't think anyone has made the defence of roads are unsafe so its ok for cyclists to endanger people on a footpath. Maybe you can show us where this was suggested.

You mean the postman?? You actually made a complaint.

So you want the postman to, leave his bike at the pillar, deliver mail to one house, hop on the bike, check the road for on coming traffic, off the driveway back into the road, spin to the driveway of your neighbour, back onto the driveway, leave the bike against the pillar and deliver the mail.

magicbastarder

Chiparus wrote: »

its not illegal.

this is article 13 from the 1997 law:
"13 Driving on Footway

13. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a vehicle shall not be driven along or across a footway.

(2) Sub-article (1) does not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the footway.

(3) A reference in sub-article (1) to driving along or across a footway, includes s reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a footway."
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article13

also, the above mentions this lest there be confusion:
"(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle."

if you know of any superseding law, it'd be interesting to see it.

Pkiernan

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Not for parking on, not for cycling on. That's the law. Unfortunately, rarely enforced. I see and pass cyclists on the footpath every day on the way to work (pre-covid), been hit by them twice in the last year and had a couple more near misses (why would you cycle while looking at your phone?! Oh, deliveroo, yeah, rules of the road, red lights and common sense don't apply to you...)

Problem is some cyclists are lazy. Yes, you could get from George's Street to Baggot Street cycling legally - but actually following one-way streets? Nah, I'll just cycle on the footpath instead, it's not like I'm a car! (And even then, I often see cyclists cycle the wrong way down the one-way road that is Stephen's Green North).

Which kinda gives the lie to the whole "It's not safe to be on the road!" argument...

As predicted when I saw the thread, yep, looooads of whataboutery, straight away. Drivers are assholes, too. We know.

I struggle as to why you would accept a someone hitting you while you are walking.
Would you not shove them off the bike?

Seth Brundle

micar wrote: »

You mean the postman?? You actually made a complaint.

So you want the postman to, leave his bike at the pillar, deliver mail to one house, hop on the bike, check the road for on coming traffic, off the driveway back into the road, spin to the driveway of your neighbour, back onto the driveway, leave the bike against the pillar and deliver the mail.

Apologies. Obviously some people need to see a smiley go to realise sarcasm :rolleyes:

micar

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Apologies. Obviously some people need to see a smiley go to realise sarcasm :rolleyes:

Ok.........to be fair I'm sure they have had complaints.

AndrewJRenko

1 sheep2 wrote: »

It's validating to see the sheer lack of class from those asserting the right of cyclists to impinge on pedestrians.

Can you point to a single post here that asserts the rights of cyclists to impinge on pedestrians please?

Deleted User wrote: »

If this was other than isolated evidence there would be no space for cyclists

Isolated evidence? Seriously? Would you like me to post a similar set of photos today? And tomorrow? And the next day? If you think this is isolated, I'd suggest that you never drive a car because you clearly have a serious problem with observation.

Check out these sets of photos from Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23makewayday&src=typed_query&f=image
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23freethecyclelanes&src=typed_query&f=image

Deleted User wrote: »

Note: the thread is not about how many people are killed ��

OK, should we focus on those injured instead? You'll find the stats for those seriously injured by motorists on the RSA website.

SeanW wrote: »

My point is that the opprobrium directed at Irish motorists from certain quarters is for the most part both unwarranted, hypocritical and misguided.

Unwarranted in the sense that Irish drivers are not bad by any international standard and the statistics bear that out, hypocritical in the sense that many of those dishing out the opprobrium are profligate lawbreakers themselves, and misguided in the sense that where there is some legitimate room for criticism, it is misdirected towards the wrong things.

If Irish motorists were so uniquely horrible, generally speaking you would expect to see that reflected in road death statistics. But you don't.

I defy anyone who says otherwise to go to China, Vietnam, India or parts of Africa and come back and tell us that Irish drivers are uniquely awful. Literally, try crossing a street in Vietnam when there is an unending stream of motorcycles and crossing is like playing Frogger, or try being a motorcyclist in China where everyone treats you like a lower life-form and drives like they're trying to kill you.

Why would you think that international comparisons are relevant? It really doesn't matter in the slightest how good or bad things are in other countries.

The relevant comparison is to compare against the option of not killing two or three people each week.

SeanW wrote: »

More like "hypocrites".

Yeah, bloody hypocrites killing one person each decade, while improving public health, avoid toxic emissions and reducing traffic chaos. Who the hell do they think they are?

SeanW wrote: »

It bears out my own experience as a daily pedestrian in Dublin City. Every time motorists have done something that put me in danger, speed was not involved. Things like blocking pedestrian crossings so that me and 20 or 30 other pedestrians have to shimmy between bumpers in the 10 seconds you have the "green man".

Speed? 0 kph. As a pedestrian, within reason, I don't care what speed the motorists around me are doing, as long as they obey traffic controls (red lights, yield, pedestrian crossing controls etc). As a pedestrian, every time a motorist has done something to put me in danger, speed had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Other things create danger too, like footpaths not wide enough for the pedestrians (Baggot St. is a great example) or city junctions with no facilities for pedestrians at all.

Again, your own personal experience isn't a great yardstick for measuring safety, given the ever-present risk of confirmation bias.

If you want to understand safety, have a look at several decades of research from safety authorities in Ireland and abroad showing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

SeanW wrote: »

Re-read the thread title and the first post. Quite a drift from "Cycling on paths" to "Motorists speed"

I read all the posts, not just the first one, and I respond to issues brought up by others. If you think I'm off-topic, you know where the report button is. Please stop back-seat moderating.

SeanW wrote: »

In a country like Ireland, it largely is.

Except your own link shows that this is little more than a statistical variance.

So ... an increase of 5 - and you don't even identify the cause of those fatalities (the driver(s) involved in those cases might not have been speeding). While unfortunate, it does not change the underlying trend. Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

I'm sorry that the reality does not correspond to your bias, but it just doesn't. I don't how else I can slice this for you.

I can only imagine that families and friends of the increased number of road victims might have a different view to you on the relevance of these stats. I'm not sure that being told that your dead father/brother/mother/child is a statistical variance is going to give much comfort.

You're right in that we don't know if speeding is an issue in these deaths. Speeding is just one of the main driver behaviours that result in road deaths, but it's certainly not the only one.

Casey78

More whataboutery from Andrew lol.
I think he's a bot.

Casey78

Pkiernan wrote: »

I struggle as to why you would accept a someone hitting you while you are walking.
Would you not shove them off the bike?

That's what I'd be doing.