Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

TaurenDruid

DoraDelite wrote: »

Except people do get hurt. Shrugging your shoulders and saying it's grand, nobody got hurt so poor driver behaviour is excused is deplorable.

Poor driving increases the chances of tragic consequences when the vehicle you are driving weighs 1.5-40 tonnes. The responsibility of that is not taken seriously be a large cohort of drivers and I find that abhorrent. Selfish individuals that put their own time and convenience ahead of the lives of everyone else.

Today's news made me sick to my stomach:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-dies-following-collision-between-car-and-lorry-in-kildare-1007458.html
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/young-boy-in-critical-condition-following-collision-between-bike-and-jeep-1007436.html

For context, Dora: the person I was replying to (Andy) and TheloniusMonk both reckon it's ok to cycle on footpaths and/or commit other breaches of the RotR, as long as nobody gets hurt. Thelonius has actually stated this, Andy "thanks" such posts. Hence my sarcastic comment.

I'm of the opposite view, personally. The Rules of the Road are there for a reason.

TaurenDruid

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I saw these, horrible. There was also a cyclist killed in Limerick last night -

https://www.thejournal.ie/limerick-rtc-5133576-Jun2020/

bad day all round. Those comments are going to get toxic very quickly on the journal I bet.
I had to cycle up to Ballymun yesterday hadn't been out on the bike in traffic like that in a while, but some of the driving is just atrocious, people passing within inches of me, buses too. I really hope more segregated infrastructure comes about from this PFG mullarkey.

And a driver, too. RIP to all three.

Totally with you on the segregated infrastructure.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

For context, Dora: the person I was replying to (Andy) and TheloniusMonk both reckon it's ok to cycle on footpaths and/or commit other breaches of the RotR, as long as nobody gets hurt. Thelonius has actually stated this, Andy "thanks" such posts.

I'm fairly sure that I've never said that it's OK to cycle on the footpaths.

If you're going to get all uppity about ROTR though, you'd want to be fairly confident that you never break a speed limit yourself. Ever.

Thelonious Monk

TaurenDruid wrote: »

For context, Dora: the person I was replying to (Andy) and TheloniusMonk both reckon it's ok to cycle on footpaths and/or commit other breaches of the RotR, as long as nobody gets hurt. Thelonius has actually stated this, Andy "thanks" such posts. Hence my sarcastic comment.

I'm of the opposite view, personally. The Rules of the Road are there for a reason.

I'm ok with it it harms no one, just try not to be obnoxious and in people's way. It isn't a big deal, you just hate cyclists like a massive cohort of motorists.

DoraDelite

TaurenDruid wrote: »

For context, Dora: the person I was replying to (Andy) and TheloniusMonk both reckon it's ok to cycle on footpaths and/or commit other breaches of the RotR, as long as nobody gets hurt. Thelonius has actually stated this, Andy "thanks" such posts. Hence my sarcastic comment.

I'm of the opposite view, personally. The Rules of the Road are there for a reason.

Cycling on the footpath is a symptom of the absence of safe cycling infrastructure so why focus on the symptom and not deal with the cause?
As for breaches of rules of the road, you know very well that the consequences are significantly different for a cyclist and a driver as has been seen in the last 24 hours. So this constant deflection from the real dangers on our roads (and footpaths - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8445141/Three-family-members-killed-47-year-old-driver-arrested-car-ploughs-walkers.html) serves no-one.

It is so tiresome at this point when you are subjected to aggressive and intimidating driving on a daily basis as both a pedestrian and cyclist. Even more disheartening is to see comments and objections on any infrastructure that would make cycling safer. You can guess what comments on these articles will be before even reading them.

Example would be the Liffey Cycle route which was supposed to happen 10 odd years ago and is a complete no-brainer but it took a pandemic to even get a temporary solution in place (and even that looked like it might face legal action from car park owners). It's exhausting to be honest.

Thelonious Monk

DoraDelite wrote: »

It is so tiresome at this point when you are subjected to aggressive and intimidating driving on a daily basis as both a pedestrian and cyclist. Even more disheartening is to see comments and objections on any infrastructure that would make cycling safer. You can guess what comments on these articles will be before even reading them.

Example would be the Liffey Cycle route which was supposed to happen 10 odd years ago and is a complete no-brainer but it took a pandemic to even get a temporary solution in place (and even that looked like it might face legal action from car park owners). It's exhausting to be honest.

I think it will be looked back upon in the future the way we look back at people who objected to smoking being banned from pubs etc., the furore from morons complaining about anything cycling related.
I couldn't believe the traffic yesterday on a Thursday afternoon in suburban Dublin when I had to cycle to a HSE office in Ballymun. And I'd say 4 or 5 cars passed me about 2 feet from my handlebars. Drivers seem frustrated, and I wouldn't blame them with the amount of traffic out there. Every time I go out I see drivers breaking red lights too, it's usually just as they turn red from amber, 1 or 2 keep going as they can get away with it. If you stand at the crossroads at Raheny village close to where I live, you'll see this at almost every single change of lights.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that I've never said that it's OK to cycle on the footpaths.

If you're going to get all uppity about ROTR though, you'd want to be fairly confident that you never break a speed limit yourself. Ever.

Do you ever break a speed limit, Andy? Ever?

Should cyclists stick to speed limits, too?

TaurenDruid

DoraDelite wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is a symptom of the absence of safe cycling infrastructure so why focus on the symptom and not deal with the cause?
As for breaches of rules of the road, you know very well that the consequences are significantly different for a cyclist and a driver as has been seen in the last 24 hours. So this constant deflection from the real dangers on our roads (and footpaths - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8445141/Three-family-members-killed-47-year-old-driver-arrested-car-ploughs-walkers.html) serves no-one.

It is so tiresome at this point when you are subjected to aggressive and intimidating driving on a daily basis as both a pedestrian and cyclist. Even more disheartening is to see comments and objections on any infrastructure that would make cycling safer. You can guess what comments on these articles will be before even reading them.

Example would be the Liffey Cycle route which was supposed to happen 10 odd years ago and is a complete no-brainer but it took a pandemic to even get a temporary solution in place (and even that looked like it might face legal action from car park owners). It's exhausting to be honest.

I think you're new to the thread?

It started out with the subject line of "Cycling on paths" and got amended later.

One of the first problems highlighted in the thread was whataboutery - people pointing to a genuine problem (e.g., cycling on the wide footpaths at the likes of Stephen's Green or pedestrianised Sean O'Casey Bridge) but immediately get the whataboutery and deflection from a certain cohort of cyclists, who refuse to admit they can ever be in the wrong.

It is so tiresome at this point when you are subjected to aggressive and intimidating driving on a daily basis as both a pedestrian and cyclist.

Absolutely. No excuse for it. Some of us pedestrians experience it from cyclists, though.

I fully support segregated cycling infrastructure. The Liffey cycleway is brilliant and should have been introduced years ago.

TaurenDruid

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I think it will be looked back upon in the future the way we look back at people who objected to smoking being banned from pubs etc., the furore from morons complaining about anything cycling related.
I couldn't believe the traffic yesterday on a Thursday afternoon in suburban Dublin when I had to cycle to a HSE office in Ballymun. And I'd say 4 or 5 cars passed me about 2 feet from my handlebars. Drivers seem frustrated, and I wouldn't blame them with the amount of traffic out there. Every time I go out I see drivers breaking red lights too, it's usually just as they turn red from amber, 1 or 2 keep going as they can get away with it. If you stand at the crossroads at Raheny village close to where I live, you'll see this at almost every single change of lights.

Every time I go out I see cyclists breaking red lights too, but it's not just when the lights turn red from amber.

If you stand at the likes of the corner of Stephen's Green and Grafton Street, where the lights change to red after about three cars go through, you will see bicycles continue to go through for the whole time they're red. As they can get away with it.

Same with the pedestrian lights at Westland Row. And the Liffey Cycle Route at the pinch points where there's pedestrian lights.

Hurrache

Nobody cares, or few do, and they have an unhealthy obsession with it. Move on with your life.

Thelonious Monk

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Every time I go out I see cyclists breaking red lights too, but it's not just when the lights turn red from amber.

If you stand at the likes of the corner of Stephen's Green and Grafton Street, where the lights change to red after about three cars go through, you will see bicycles continue to go through for the whole time they're red. As they can get away with it.

Same with the pedestrian lights at Westland Row. And the Liffey Cycle Route at the pinch points where there's pedestrian lights.

Yes, but bicycles are harmless. Cars aren't. You're not quite getting it. We will always get away with it unless there's some kind of 1984 monitoring system put in place. Cars need to adhere to rules of the road to avoid loads more people dying, yet everyone breaks the speed limit. Bikes do not cause any problems, the opposite in fact.

Stark

The reasons why cars stop breaking the lights after the first two or three have gone through on red is because they're blocked by the one who chose to stop.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Every time I go out I see cyclists breaking red lights too, but it's not just when the lights turn red from amber.

If you stand at the likes of the corner of Stephen's Green and Grafton Street, where the lights change to red after about three cars go through, you will see bicycles continue to go through for the whole time they're red. As they can get away with it.

Same with the pedestrian lights at Westland Row. And the Liffey Cycle Route at the pinch points where there's pedestrian lights.

If their were no cars in the city centre, we wouldn't need traffic lights.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113837150&postcount=1824

DoraDelite

07Lapierre wrote: »

If their were no cars in the city centre, we wouldn't need traffic lights.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113837150&postcount=1824

I was actually just thinking this the other day. We only have traffic lights in the first place to stop drivers crashing into each other and running over people.

DoraDelite

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I think you're new to the thread?

It started out with the subject line of "Cycling on paths" and got amended later.

One of the first problems highlighted in the thread was whataboutery - people pointing to a genuine problem (e.g., cycling on the wide footpaths at the likes of Stephen's Green or pedestrianised Sean O'Casey Bridge) but immediately get the whataboutery and deflection from a certain cohort of cyclists, who refuse to admit they can ever be in the wrong.

I have read the entire thread actually for my sins . cycling on footpaths is a problem, in the grand scheme of problems it's miniscule compared to the problem of vehicles on footpaths. There is no data to back up the assertion that footpath cycling is the danger that some in this thread make it out to be and as I've said in the absence of safe infrastructure for cycling, you will find some people on the path as it's safer. So fix the issue and not the symptom.

On the whole in terms of rules of the road, a percentage of the population will always break these no matter what method of transport they use, especially with our non-existent enforcement. Again going back to actual data and not anecdotal tales, it's the people in the large heavy vehicles causing the deaths and injuries.

We have a culture in this country of not wanting to follow rules or enforcing them. If you want culture change in any aspect of life, it starts from the top down (the big fish), not the with the tiddlers in the shallow pool. So picking on kids on bikes on a footpath will never solve the cultural issues around rules of road.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Should cyclists stick to speed limits, too?

a solution in search of a problem. the majority of cyclists wouldn't cycle at 30km/h, let alone 50km/h; and if you allowed a 5km/h buffer whch does/does not apply (depending on who you ask) brings you to a speed that most fit cyclists would find difficult to maintain.

07Lapierre

DoraDelite wrote: »

I was actually just thinking this the other day. We only have traffic lights in the first place to stop drivers crashing into each other and running over people.

The Dutch are almost there. They still have traffic lights, but they don't have helmets/hi-viz etc. They have designed their cities in such a way that driving is not given the priority we give it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDlmn-Ipdns

TaurenDruid

DoraDelite wrote: »

I have read the entire thread actually for my sins . cycling on footpaths is a problem, in the grand scheme of problems it's miniscule compared to the problem of vehicles on footpaths. There is no data to back up the assertion that footpath cycling is the danger that some in this thread make it out to be and as I've said in the absence of safe infrastructure for cycling, you will find some people on the path as it's safer. So fix the issue and not the symptom.

On the whole in terms of rules of the road, a percentage of the population will always break these no matter what method of transport they use, especially with our non-existent enforcement. Again going back to actual data and not anecdotal tales, it's the people in the large heavy vehicles causing the deaths and injuries.

We have a culture in this country of not wanting to follow rules or enforcing them. If you want culture change in any aspect of life, it starts from the top down (the big fish), not the with the tiddlers in the shallow pool. So picking on kids on bikes on a footpath will never solve the cultural issues around rules of road.

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Grand.

I have never complained about kids on the footpath on a bike on this thread or elsewhere, and I don't think anyone else has, either. I'm fine with kids on the footpath. When they hit puberty, turn 16, and get their mountain bikes, now - that's a different story.

I don't think anyone is saying there's a huge danger to pedestrians from rude/inconsiderate/lazy ****ers on bikes on footpaths (though collisions and injuries do occur and the vast majority go unrecorded) - just that it's rude, inconsiderate and lazy and is annoying to pedestrians.

All of this has already been gone over, multiple times, on the thread.

Can you enlighten me, though - why are people cycling on Seán O'Casey Bridge; or on the wide footpath on the likes of Stephen's Green (which actually has a segregated cycle lane in parts). There's no danger from cars in either place. But it would be a tad longer to cycle the long way around the Green, or to get off your bike and wheel it across SOC Bridge...

Can you really complain about drivers breaking the ROTR by parking badly if you're fine with cyclists breaking the ROTR? You don't find that a little hypocritical, no?

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

If their were no cars in the city centre, we wouldn't need traffic lights.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113837150&postcount=1824

Genius!

Oh, wait. Buses. And taxis. And fire brigades, gardaí and ambulances. And delivery trucks. And An Post vans. And motorbikes. And...

Yeah... genius.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

a solution in search of a problem. the majority of cyclists wouldn't cycle at 30km/h, let alone 50km/h; and if you allowed a 5km/h buffer whch does/does not apply (depending on who you ask) brings you to a speed that most fit cyclists would find difficult to maintain.

Should cyclists stick to speed limits. Yes or no?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Grand.

I have never complained about kids on the footpath on a bike on this thread or elsewhere, and I don't think anyone else has, either. I'm fine with kids on the footpath. When they hit puberty, turn 16, and get their mountain bikes, now - that's a different story.

I don't think anyone is saying there's a huge danger to pedestrians from rude/inconsiderate/lazy ****ers on bikes on footpaths (though collisions and injuries do occur and the vast majority go unrecorded) - just that it's rude, inconsiderate and lazy and is annoying to pedestrians.

All of this has already been gone over, multiple times, on the thread.

Can you enlighten me, though - why are people cycling on Seán O'Casey Bridge; or on the wide footpath on the likes of Stephen's Green (which actually has a segregated cycle lane in parts). There's no danger from cars in either place. But it would be a tad longer to cycle the long way around the Green, or to get off your bike and wheel it across SOC Bridge...

Can you really complain about drivers breaking the ROTR by parking badly if you're fine with cyclists breaking the ROTR? You don't find that a little hypocritical, no?

there's your answer.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

a solution in search of a problem. the majority of cyclists wouldn't cycle at 30km/h, let alone 50km/h; and if you allowed a 5km/h buffer whch does/does not apply (depending on who you ask) brings you to a speed that most fit cyclists would find difficult to maintain.

Can never understand why this even comes up. The 30kph limits within Dublin are not adhered to by 100% of drivers.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Genius!

Oh, wait. Buses. And taxis. And fire brigades, gardaí and ambulances. And delivery trucks. And An Post vans. And motorbikes. And...

Yeah... genius.

Ah thanks... like i said IF there were no cars (by cars i mean motorised vehicles) we wouldn't need traffic lights. we'd still have streets.

Gardai / Ambulances/ fire engine have sirens lights etc. people tend to see/hear them and would allow them access. With no other traffic on our streets, fires would be attended to quicker. with no cars on our streets their would be less Traffic accidents.

As for An post... they have bikes!

LeinsterDub

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Every time I go out I see cyclists breaking red lights too, but it's not just when the lights turn red from amber.

If you stand at the likes of the corner of Stephen's Green and Grafton Street, where the lights change to red after about three cars go through, you will see bicycles continue to go through for the whole time they're red. As they can get away with it.

Same with the pedestrian lights at Westland Row. And the Liffey Cycle Route at the pinch points where there's pedestrian lights.

https://youtu.be/Brh9Dv_5NaA

Other cities have similar. Traffic lights where intended to control the flow of cars and give pedestrians a tiny windows in which to cross the road. People cycled for decades before cars without lights

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Should cyclists stick to speed limits. Yes or no?

Bicycles no. E-bikes yes (Speed limits apply to motorised vehicles only)

DoraDelite

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Grand.

I have never complained about kids on the footpath on a bike on this thread or elsewhere, and I don't think anyone else has, either. I'm fine with kids on the footpath. When they hit puberty, turn 16, and get their mountain bikes, now - that's a different story.

I don't think anyone is saying there's a huge danger to pedestrians from rude/inconsiderate/lazy ****ers on bikes on footpaths (though collisions and injuries do occur and the vast majority go unrecorded) - just that it's rude, inconsiderate and lazy and is annoying to pedestrians.

All of this has already been gone over, multiple times, on the thread.

Can you enlighten me, though - why are people cycling on Seán O'Casey Bridge; or on the wide footpath on the likes of Stephen's Green (which actually has a segregated cycle lane in parts). There's no danger from cars in either place. But it would be a tad longer to cycle the long way around the Green, or to get off your bike and wheel it across SOC Bridge...

Can you really complain about drivers breaking the ROTR by parking badly if you're fine with cyclists breaking the ROTR? You don't find that a little hypocritical, no?

I never said I was fine with cyclists breaking the rules of the road, in fact it annoys me but in the grand scheme of things it's inconsequential to the numbers of people getting killed or injured by drivers breaking the rules of the road. The data bears that out. So being a lot more vocal about drivers and rules of the road makes more sense to me and that's where the focus should lie. At the end of the day, am I going to be more bothered about something that annoys me or something that could kill me?

In relation to Stephens Green and Sean O'Casey bridge, for the bridge it's been a few years since I used to walk that bridge every day to and from work and I do recall at the time that the no cycling signage was tiny and not very clear, maybe that has changed now so yes I agree cyclists should dismount on that. I don't walk the Green area of town much so I can't comment on that as I don't know the location very well.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Should cyclists stick to speed limits. Yes or no?

speed limits don't apply to cyclists, so there's no speed limit for them to stick to.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

Bicycles no. E-bikes yes (Speed limits apply to motorised vehicles only)

My local park has a speed limit posted for bikes. It's completely ignored by 100% of cyclists. Most of the time, that's grand, but the park has been really busy of late, and there's still muppets treating it as a sprint track.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

My local park has a speed limit posted for bikes. It's completely ignored by 100% of cyclists. Most of the time, that's grand, but the park has been really busy of late, and there's still muppets treating it as a sprint track.

I know how you feel. My local MOTORWAY has a speed limit posted for vehicles. It's completely ignored by 100% of Vehicles. Most of the time, that's grand, but the Motorway is getting busier of late, and there's still muppet's treating it as a race track.

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

My local park has a speed limit posted for bikes. It's completely ignored by 100% of cyclists. Most of the time, that's grand, but the park has been really busy of late, and there's still muppets treating it as a sprint track.

There are no speed limits for bikes, so someone has posted a meaningless sign. Also bikes are not equipped with speedometers, so add another layer of idiocy to your latest angle.