Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Casey78

Pinch Flat wrote: »

yep. and cycling with kids. Some older folks as well. Just generally cyclists who feel too intimidated to use the roads due to aggressive drivers.

And we have gone full circle again!

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

You don't need to lay it along all the roads, the idea is you take it with you.

Not good enough so.

Podge_irl

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yield signs are just normal for cycle lanes. Nothing strange or exciting about the video if that's what it's about

Yield signs are normal for cycle lanes in Ireland, cause cycle lanes in Ireland are utterly useless. The idea that the person on the main road should have to yield to people coming out of side streets or private property is utterly asinine. Not least because the person coming out of the side entrances has no priority onto the road so will have to just sit there blocking the cycle path until they can proceed onto the road.

07Lapierre

DoraDelite wrote: »

Shame the footpaths are also taken up with those same aggressive drivers.

Walking past this today on a very busy pedestrian route between Drumcondra and Fairview. The bonnet of this tank was about 10cm off the height of my shoulder (I'm 166cm). In the wrong set of circumstances, when the driver of this tank moves off from their free parking spot, there is seriously potential not to even see a child in front of them and run them over. The risk of this is reasonable given the massive blind spot due to the height of the vehicle and also the fact this route is so busy for peds. No doubt if this happens, "tragic accident" will be rolled out as par for the course, even though there's nothing accidental about creating a situation where there is a deliberate increase in risk to a child getting killed.

What I want to see is:
- Cars off footpaths: Zero tolerance, pedestrian space is already limited and the dominance of vehicles in this space is ridiculous.
- Safe cycle infra so people cycling don't feel they need to be on a footpath to be safer
- Zero tolerance for aggressive driving (speeding, road rage, dangerous driving)

SUV's can cause serious, SERIOUS injuries!

#https://twitter.com/Cycliq/status/1258269135840174080?s=20

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

SUV's can cause serious, SERIOUS injuries!

#https://twitter.com/Cycliq/status/1258269135840174080?s=20

Yep but then again so can

Hit by distracted legally blind driver

https://upride.cc/incident/his-by-distracted-legally-blind-driver/

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yep but then again so can


https://upride.cc/incident/his-by-distracted-legally-blind-driver/

if he had been driving a regular car, like a Mondeo or passat, The impact would have been lower. A "normal" car would have taken the bike out from under the cyclists and the impact would have been spread over a larger area. As you can see from the video, the SUV smashed into the cyclist at waist/above waist height. crushed pelvis/cracked crushed vertebrae are among the most obvious injuries. as the article says.. the cyclists are "recovering". this is true..its a long. long road to rehabilitation. they are lucky to be alive.

As for the fact that the driver was legally blind? well, that's a different discussion.

Spook_ie

DoraDelite wrote: »

Shame the footpaths are also taken up with those same aggressive drivers.

Walking past this today on a very busy pedestrian route between Drumcondra and Fairview. The bonnet of this tank was about 10cm off the height of my shoulder (I'm 166cm). In the wrong set of circumstances, when the driver of this tank moves off from their free parking spot, there is seriously potential not to even see a child in front of them and run them over. The risk of this is reasonable given the massive blind spot due to the height of the vehicle and also the fact this route is so busy for peds. No doubt if this happens, "tragic accident" will be rolled out as par for the course, even though there's nothing accidental about creating a situation where there is a deliberate increase in risk to a child getting killed.

What I want to see is:
- Cars off footpaths: Zero tolerance, pedestrian space is already limited and the dominance of vehicles in this space is ridiculous.
- Safe cycle infra so people cycling don't feel they need to be on a footpath to be safer
- Zero tolerance for aggressive driving (speeding, road rage, dangerous driving)

5'5" I don't really do cm's

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

if he had been driving a regular car, like a Mondeo or passat, The impact would have been lower. A "normal" car would have taken the bike out from under the cyclists and the impact would have been spread over a larger area. As you can see from the video, the SUV smashed into the cyclist at waist/above waist height. crushed pelvis/cracked crushed vertebrae are among the most obvious injuries. as the article says.. the cyclists are "recovering". this is true..its a long. long road to rehabilitation. they are lucky to be alive.

As for the fact that the driver was legally blind? well, that's a different discussion.

Have to disagree with you on that, a lower bonnet would likely have lifted them into the air( like a wedge ) and just as bad injuries, my opinion anyway

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have to disagree with you on that, a lower bonnet would likely have lifted them into the air( like a wedge ) and just as bad injuries, my opinion anyway

Fair enough...hopefully i never find out either way. We can probably agreed on the fact that the driver was blind so Hi-viz/day glow makes feck all difference. Also the speed and severity of the incident also means helmets in this case were useless too.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fair enough...hopefully i never find out either way. We can probably agreed on the fact that the driver was blind so Hi-viz/day glow makes feck all difference. Also the speed and severity of the incident also means helmets in this case were useless too.

Unknown, can't find a link detailing the injuries, so factor of head hitting road or part of vehicle is uncertain in type of injuries caused, avoided or mitigated.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Er, roads and streets?

They don't have junctions that you need to give right of way at?

The beef raised is having to give right of way. This occurs in the path, cycle lanes or roads. Correct?

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you have to have a yield sign to indicate when you should yield, if so I'd say that you are a dangerous road user.

Nice shifting of goalposts there. Are you suggesting that all Yield signs are removed now?

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yield signs are normal for cycle lanes in Ireland, cause cycle lanes in Ireland are utterly useless. The idea that the person on the main road should have to yield to people coming out of side streets or private property is utterly asinine. Not least because the person coming out of the side entrances has no priority onto the road so will have to just sit there blocking the cycle path until they can proceed onto the road.

As I said above, cycle lanes intersect with roads in other countries too. There's really no alternative.

From my door to my work, regardless of mode of transport or route, I need to stop and yield to others. Actually, using the cycle Lane helps me avoid some of the lights.

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So, a smart reply.

That many yields completely depends on where now doesn't it? Cycling through an industrial estate will have plenty.

Get off your high horse Andrew and spend just a little time with us less intelligent people. You are coming across like the cycling version of adda now

No, you won't see that many Yields within such a short distance for motorists in any industrial estate or anywhere else
But some gob****e thought it was good enough for cyclists. And you had to get the problem spelled out for you?

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Kealys, the Airport entrance at ALSAA and the Airport entrance/exit at the Coachmans ?

I could join the road? penny beginning to drop?

Hows your "bunny hopping" skills?

https://goo.gl/maps/hwXoC5wB9CjqMnoN6

"You want a large dedicated cycle Lane from your front door to everywhere?" I already have this..their called ROADS.

And using the road along the same route, you will encounter traffic lights at those exact same locations plus 2 pedestrian crossings which you can bypass using the cycle Lane.

There's also ample slope to safely enter and exit.

Again I repeat, there's no more of transport that allows you to go straight from A to B without having to yield to others at some point so again I ask, what is the realistic option?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, you won't see that many Yields within such a short distance for motorists in any industrial estate or anywhere else
But some gob****e thought it was good enough for cyclists. And you had to get the problem spelled out for you?

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

Pedestrians don't have to yield.

The problem was patently obvious to anyone who looked at the video. It was so obvious that I didn't think anyone would need to have it spelt out.

Stark

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Pedestrians don't seem aggrieved and again, you appeared to not see that problem yourself

No yield signs for pedestrians, only for the cyclist plebs.

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

And using the road along the same route, you will encounter traffic lights at those exact same locations plus 2 pedestrian crossings which you can bypass using the cycle Lane.

There's also ample slope to safely enter and exit.

Again I repeat, there's no more of transport that allows you to go straight from A to B without having to yield to others at some point so again I ask, what is the realistic option?

Pedestrian lights are ALWAYS red for pedestrians and green for traffic

pleasant Co.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Pedestrian lights are ALWAYS red for pedestrians and green for traffic

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

Stark

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

Was probably a cyclist driving. They love terrorizing pedestrians.

07Lapierre

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Sometimes when they’re green for pedestrians they’re still green for some motorists. My near miss was roughly this time last year - I, as a person on foot, had a green go light, as I crossed the road an older regged Volvo ran its red light at speed and missed me by half a foot (maybe, I have no idea of the actual accurate distance as it was to the back of me). It’s ok though, the driver blared it’s horn at me, because fcuk me right.

Were you wearing hi viz? Did you have a valid road tax disc on display?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nice shifting of goalposts there. Are you suggesting that all Yield signs are removed now?

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

pleasant Co.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Were you wearing hi viz? Did you have a valid road tax disc on display?

My backpack actually did have a reflective strip on it. Oh and it was day time.

Stark

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

pleasant Co.

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I'm saying I have to yield or prepare to yield in numerous places, you seem to think it needs a sign to be required, you're a danger to yourself and other road users.

I think you're misunderstanding Andrew, he's specifically referring to yield signs - where you are obligated to come to a stop before proceeding. Yielding (or being prepared to yield but continuing) in the course of a drive by exercising common sense is not the same thing.

You are / were? a taxi driver so of course you know how to drive yourself, but there definitely appears to be a miscommunication in the point you're making Vs what Andrew has said.

07Lapierre

Stark wrote: »

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

Imagine if the left lane on the m50 directed traffic up every slip road at every junction. Every car had to go up the slip road, stop at the lights, then once the light went green, the car could then drive down the slip road and rejoin the M50. Now imagine the left lane is covered in broken glass, gravel, debris and pedestrians. imagine that their is no legal requirement to use the left lane.
How many people would do this, when they could just as easily move into lane 2 and bypass the slip roads and stay on the M50?

This is exactly what is expected of cyclists and our cycle lanes. They are badly designed, not fit for purpose and It's more convenient to stay on the road.

Spook_ie

pleasant Co. wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding Andrew, he's specifically referring to yield signs - where you are obligated to come to a stop before proceeding. Yielding (or being prepared to yield but continuing) in the course of a drive by exercising common sense is not the same thing.

You are / were? a taxi driver so of course you know how to drive yourself, but there definitely appears to be a miscommunication in the point you're making Vs what Andrew has said.

You getting confused between yield and stop signs? Don't worry one of the cyclists who drive will be along to explain the difference to you.

Spook_ie

Stark wrote: »

You have to yield to every single driveway and side road while driving along the main road?

Where the priority of the roads isn't marked then yes, as in numerous housing and industrial estates, they are called unmarked junctions.

I take it that you are the type of road user that assumes a road is the main road without any indication of that fact.

pleasant Co.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You getting confused between yield and stop signs? Don't worry one of the cyclists who drive will be along to explain the difference to you.

Yes I possibly am, you are correct. You know there's also a polite why to conduct yourself in a discussion too, why you would you choose to get other peoples back's up I guess is beyond me.