Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some drivers seem a little confused about the distinction you're making between a road and a race track.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1271931940292173824

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1285572903749255170

But at the end of the day, nobody was hurt, so that's all good, eh, Andy? Grand.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

AKAIK that's already illegal here.

Don't think so, just a suggestion but maybe it should be enshrined into the statute books somewhere , to be sure.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you want to understand the challenges of cyclists being around drivers going at 120 kmph and higher, keep an eye on the Garda Traffic twitter account. Sadly, it is very much not a problem restricted to motorways.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1284528246374227970

》snipped《 wish you'd answer one post in a post and not fvck off all over the thread, makes it much easier to follow

What problem are we trying to solve here?

I dunno, but it just strikes me that if the Dutch think it's a good idea then it probably is, don't you think the Dutch have far more experience of cyclists and mobile devices than the Irish.

AFAIK, it's not illegal for a cyclist to use their phone. It's pretty dumb, but not illegal.

[

Maybe rather than imagining, maybe you could tell us - what's your view on the number of cycli《 Snipped rest of drivel that doesnt concern Dutch law on moble use 》 The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.

meeeeh

Zebra3 wrote: »

What accidents?

Please show us an accident that happened on Irish roads.

Go on, just one.

I'm not a native speaker and if the only way you can challenge what I wrote is to criticise my use of English language then knock yourself out.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I challenge you wearing a helmet? If you want to wear a helmet, knock yourself out (pun intended).

If you're going to have a go at parents who choose not to wear helmets on bikes, then be prepared for people to question why you don't have a go a parents who choose not to wear helmets in cars, where the majority of deaths (incl head injuries) happen?

Because wearing helmets in the car is not advised by any safety body. One is Gospel according to Andrew the other is what people who know a bit more about safety advise. I don't do Gospel.

Zebra3

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm not a native speaker and if the only way you can challenge what I wrote is to criticise my use of English language then knock yourself out.

I didn't criticise your use of the English language.

You made a claim about accidents, all I did was ask you to give proof of one accident on Irish roads.

So can give you give any proof of a single accident?

meeeeh

Zebra3 wrote: »

I didn't criticise your use of the English language.

You made a claim about accidents, all I did was ask you to give proof of one accident on Irish roads.

So can give you give any proof of a single accident?

I made a claim about road stats, you are nitpicking about use of word accident. You can supplement it by murder if you wish for what I care it still won't change the point about statistics. And yes I used accident because that would be the closest word for road incidents in my mother language translates to. Again you are just using that as an excuse to argue point I didn't make. So no I won't be bullied in some nonsense argument.

Frankly your dismissal of my explanation just points out to an ignorance about how certain things can be be lost or different in translation. My guess would be you do not speak any foreign languages.

Spook_ie

Zebra3 wrote: »

What accidents?

Please show us an accident that happened on Irish roads.

Go on, just one.

Is this another of the pedantic arguments that there are no accidents just collisions, if so I'd refer you to the dictionary definition of accident or accidental

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

Zebra3

meeeeh wrote: »

I made a claim about road stats, you are nitpicking about use of word accident. You can supplement it by murder if you wish for what I care it still won't change the point about statistics. And yes I used accident because that would be the closest word for road incidents in my mother language translates to. Again you are just using that as an excuse to argue point I didn't make. So no I won't be bullied in some nonsense argument.

Frankly your dismissal of my explanation just points out to an ignorance about how certain things can be be lost or different in translation. My guess would be you do not speak any foreign languages.

Whether I speak another language is irrelevant.

In English the word accident implies that there is no blame.

In a thread about safety and one in which people are discussing who is to blame for a huge number of road deaths, it is of the utmost importance to use the correct terminology.

And nobody is trying to bully you. :rolleyes: If you feel I was bullying you, report my post.

I'll take it then you don't have any accidents to inform us about then.

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

Whether I speak another language is irrelevant.

In English the word accident implies that there is no blame.

Well this part is just flat out untrue. Accident carries no meaning other than unintentional. Any collision is also an accident unless there was specific intent.

In a thread about safety and one in which people are discussing who is to blame for a huge number of road deaths, it is of the utmost importance to use the correct terminology.

This thread has very little to do with road safety.

meeeeh

Zebra3 wrote: »

I'll take it then you don't have any accidents to inform us about then.

I would consider the example I posted where a child crashed into a pensioner and killed her an accident. But you are right, the police there did find pensioner culpable for cycling on the sidewalk and child's mother culpable for not supervising child and for deficiencies on the bike (I don't know what courts will say). It will make feck all difference for dead pensioner but knock yourself out.

I'm also pretty sure some force of nature events would be considered an accident in every sense. Unless you are planning to fine the tree falling on the road or car/bike/pedestrian for being on the road to be hit by the tree.

And by the way according to the dictionary definition linked above 'accident' implies there is no intent not that there is no blame. So maybe educating yourself on the meaning of words wouldn't be amiss.

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

Well this part is just flat out untrue. Accident carries no meaning other than unintentional. Any collision is also an accident unless there was specific intent.

This thread has very little to do with road safety.

So if someone in their car ploughs in to you while they're driving along and texting their mate, and they tell you afterwards it was an accident, you'd have no issue with that?

The thread has plenty to do with road safety.

meeeeh

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accident

accident
noun
UK /ˈæk.sɪ.dənt/ US /ˈæk.sə.dənt/

A2 [ C ]
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:
Josh had an accident and spilled water all over his work.
She was injured in a car/road accident (= when one car hit another).
Synonyms
collision (ACCIDENT)crash (ACCIDENT)smash (ACCIDENT) UKsmash-up UK

TaurenDruid

Yes, Zebra, someone said "accident" when they meant "incident." Pedantic lesson delivered. Move on.

There are some on this thread who love to deflect. Utter pedantry is one of their favourite methods of doing so. I refer you to, for example, "Ah, you didn't say the cyclist had a phone in their hand while cycling, it could have been in an armband or on their handlebars!"

Tea drinker

GT89 wrote: »

Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road.

In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.

100% agree, waste of money and inconsiderate to not use a cycle lane where people have gone to the expense and time to provide it.
With the same caveat that you used - if the cycle lane is safe. TBH I think where possible it's better to have the vehicles and traffic segregated completely. E.g. a wall or hedge between them, and in quite a few places it is possible. I would prefer to cycle away from traffic and fumes, can't see why there's not more push for it. Some of the South Dublin parks adjacent the N11 give a peaceful alternate to cycling beside noisy smelly traffic.
Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.

micar

Tea drinker wrote: »

Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.

Stupid stuff by the cyclist or the van driver or both

Tea drinker

micar wrote: »

Stupid stuff by the cyclist or the van driver or both

Cyclist shouldn't have been oblivious to traffic but it's more the driver should have seen an issue emerging

micar

Tea drinker wrote: »

Cyclist shouldn't have been oblivious to traffic but it's more the driver should have seen an issue emerging

Van driver showed a complete inability to read the road ahead........a common occurrence on our roads.

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

100% agree, waste of money and inconsiderate to not use a cycle lane where people have gone to the expense and time to provide it.
With the same caveat that you used - if the cycle lane is safe. TBH I think where possible it's better to have the vehicles and traffic segregated completely. E.g. a wall or hedge between them, and in quite a few places it is possible. I would prefer to cycle away from traffic and fumes, can't see why there's not more push for it. Some of the South Dublin parks adjacent the N11 give a peaceful alternate to cycling beside noisy smelly traffic.

I must have a word with all the drivers on Grange Road and Ballyroad Road to let them know about the expense and time that went into building the M50 for them and how they won't use it - awfully inconsiderate of them.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.

If only the van driver had some kind of pedal or control that allowed him to slow or stop his vehicle when he finds he doesn't have room to overtake safely.:rolleyes:

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

So if someone in their car ploughs in to you while they're driving along and texting their mate, and they tell you afterwards it was an accident, you'd have no issue with that?

If someone hit me because they were being muppets and not paying attention to what they were doing, I would be irked at them - to put it mildly - for being a muppet and hitting me. So long as they did not try to dodge responsibility, I'd find it difficult to give two figs what they called their muppetry.

The thread has plenty to do with road safety.

As you're new to this thread I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt (it's probably unwarranted, but hey) and assume the reason you think this is that you haven't read the entire thread. Which would make sense because it is a dumpster fire.

But suffice it to say that some of those shouting the loudest about "road safety" are not really primarily concerned with that, but rather a broader agenda. And they've let the mask slip a few times.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm also pretty sure some force of nature events would be considered an accident in every sense. Unless you are planning to fine the tree falling on the road or car/bike/pedestrian for being on the road to be hit by the tree.

If you go out driving in a red storm warning, and you crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

If you go out driving on the morning after a yellow or amber storm warning, and you fly around a blind bend and crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, just a suggestion but maybe it should be enshrined into the statute books somewhere , to be sure.

Ah here...cycling for years and always have my phone in my pocket. Now you tell me I could have been watching GCN videos while cycling home? I feel cheated!

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

But suffice it to say that some of those shouting the loudest about "road safety" are not really primarily concerned with that, but rather a broader agenda. And they've let the mask slip a few times.

Funnily enough, I fully agree with you there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

》snipped《 wish you'd answer one post in a post and not fvck off all over the thread, makes it much easier to follow

Spook_ie wrote: »

I dunno, but it just strikes me that if the Dutch think it's a good idea then it probably is, don't you think the Dutch have far more experience of cyclists and mobile devices than the Irish.

Well, if we're talking about changing laws and standards, the first thing we need is to know what problem we're trying to solve.

Spook_ie wrote: »

[

?

07Lapierre

GT89 wrote: »

Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road.

In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.

Making cycle lanes mandatory? The vast majority of our cycle lanes are not safe, not fit for purpose etc. That's why they are not mandatory.

Also, sometimes cyclists have to turn right...that's easier to do if your in the right hand lane.

micar

07Lapierre wrote: »

Making cycle lanes mandatory? The vast majority of our cycle lanes are not safe, not fit for purpose etc. That's why they are not mandatory.

Also, sometimes cyclists have to turn right...that's easier to do if your in the right hand lane.

If the cycle lane was mandatory I'd end up past ballymun and at the m50 flyover rather than being able to cross 2 over lanes of traffic onto collins ave.

07Lapierre

micar wrote: »

If the cycle lane was mandatory I'd end up past ballymun and at the m50 flyover rather than being able to cross 2 over lanes of traffic onto collins ave.

That's because most cycle lanes are designed by people who don't see bicycles as "vehicles". If you think of cyclists as "pedestrians on wheels", the lanes makes sense. That's why most of them end at pedestrian crossings and it's assumed that a cyclist that wants to turn right, will stop at a pedestrian crossing and walk across the road.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you go out driving in a red storm warning, and you crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

If you go out driving on the morning after a yellow or amber storm warning, and you fly around a blind bend and crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

Any event someone is not expecting is unexpected for them. Or is my understanding of word unexpected wrong? Let's look at dictonary:

If an event or someone's behaviour is unexpected, it surprises you because you did not think that it was likely to happen.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/unexpected

I can do word definitions all week. I find it quite entertaining.

magicbastarder

i, for one, am heartened that a thread and about cycling safety is still going after over two and a half thousand posts. you must have a lot of constructive feedback to present, it's great to see people so interested and invested in cycling.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Any event someone is not expecting is unexpected for them. Or is my understanding of word unexpected wrong? Let's look at dictonary:

If an event or someone's behaviour is unexpected, it surprises you because you did not think that it was likely to happen.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/unexpected

I can do word definitions all week. I find it quite entertaining.

If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver.

Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver.

Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?

No maybe we should continue nitpicking when we know exactly what the other person is trying to say. Don't start whinging when someone else plays your game.