Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

The issue is not losing momentum, the issue with badly designed cycle lanes is danger of serious injury or death for those stupid enough/inexperienced enough to use them.

Good quality and well designed cycling infrastructure is used. I'd point out the Clontarf cycle lane and the Phoenix Park since they've removed parking from Chesterfield avenue. In case of the Phoenix Park all they had to do was get rid of parking which cost 0. Its also benefited pedestrians as the location of the old cycle lane and parking resulted in a lot of pedestrian cyclists conflicts. This resulted in the death of a cyclist in a collision with a pedestrian on the old cycle lane.

Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path.

The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

I pass a farm everyday, that doesn't mean i know anything about Farming!

Come back to us when you've cycled along this road every day for a few months. That is, come back to us when you know what your actually talking about.

Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path.

The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...

The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground. The people who would use it are the exact people you give out about cycling on the path.Then again that's what most cycle lanes in Dublin amount to. So if you are OK with the Fairview cycle lane through the middle of a park why are you complaining about cyclists cycling on the path. Other than a bit of paint on the ground there is no difference.

Leafs on the ground are a problem for pretty much every form of transport. Trains have issues with leafs on train lines, cars have to drive slower through roads that are covered with leafs. Leafs dramatically reduce grip for wheeled vehicles and can effectively make the road surface act like ice. Bikes are no different.

Thinking cycling at 40, 50km/hr is a sign of risk taking on its own just shows a lack of knowledge about cycling and using the road in general. It's all about context. For example there's a massive difference between going at 120km/hr on a motorway road and through a housing estate.

magicbastarder

i guess my attempt at light humour (the conflating the cycling on paths quip) was destined to end up with with Tauriendruid having a minor pop at me.

but i've also yet to have explained to me why it's easier or safer for cyclists to take that path.
the danger for cyclists is generally interacting with motorised traffic at junctions, and not on straight stretches of road. the configuration we're talking about here does nothing to make the junction safer for cyclists, it's about getting cyclists out of the way of motorists, plain and simple.

magicbastarder

though to be fair, there's a nugget of truth in my comment about the cycling on the path.
literally all they did there was run a line of paint along the footpath. nothing else, but somehow a line of paint changed a footpath into cycling infrastructure, and something that would have been considered a dangerous activity into what is now a safe one. paint is magic, indeed.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.

I know... I guess old age is turning me into a grumpy old man! I used to cycle along that road too and i thought it was fine at the time. but as you get older/more experienced your perspective changes and you see things differently.

07Lapierre

PeadarCo wrote: »

Leafs on the ground are a problem for pretty much every form of transport. Trains have issues with leafs on train lines, cars have to drive slower through roads that are covered with leafs. Leafs dramatically reduce grip for wheeled vehicles and can effectively make the road surface act like ice. Bikes are no different.

Leaves float too...so if a pothole is flooded and covered in leaves, it can he hidden from view. Same goes for broken glass, read debris. etc. All can be hidden under leaves.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd guess the families of the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year might have a different view. Should they not wear helmets too?

Well this is a lie. Actually two lies in one.

The number of pedestrians who died on Irish roads/streets last year was 27, not "forty-ish". Now, normally when someone mis-states statistics like this, a certain "benefit of the doubt" is warranted, but in your case, I don't think so.

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

And your claim that those pedestrians were "killed by Irish motorists" is also a lie because it ignores pedestrian culpability in those cases. RSA research suggests that pedestrian actions or negligence may be the deciding factor in 70% of fatalities.

https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

Also from that research, a maximum of 2% of drivers involved in pedestrian fatality accidents hit-and-run so your claim in other posts of motorists "not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie.

As to whether pedestrians should wear helmets, the data suggests that having an ounce of cop on is enough to lower an already infinitesimally low risk to even lower. Assuming the 70% figure is correct for 2019, then that means about 8 pedestrians died in accidents that were not their fault, and further that all motorists involved were punished in accordance with law because at most 2% hit and run. So ... (8/5,000,00)*100 = a fatality risk of 0.00016% for 2019. If we further assume that helmets would not have helped in some of those cases, the case gets even weaker. So ... no. Pedestrians don't need helmets. Just an ounce of cop-on.

magicbastarder

i'm not disputing the 70% figure for culpability, cos i haven't any good reason to, but it's a bit of a gap in a report like that there's no explanation at all on how culpability is judged, bar
"The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012)."
do they mean those files actually contain a judgement of culpability by the investigating garda? or does the researcher make that call based on the garda case notes?

having seen some reports of high profile cases, i'd question the results of the gardai's investigations in some of those cases. whether correcting this would push the figures up or down, is obviously a guessing game too.

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground.

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not disputing the 70% figure for culpability, cos i haven't any good reason to, but it's a bit of a gap in a report like that there's no explanation at all on how culpability is judged, bar
"The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012)."
do they mean those files actually contain a judgement of culpability by the investigating garda? or does the researcher make that call based on the garda case notes?

having seen some reports of high profile cases, i'd question the results of the gardai's investigations in some of those cases. whether correcting this would push the figures up or down, is obviously a guessing game too.

IIRC they went by death certificates, and there was some missing data during the study period, so the figure might not be exactly 70%. But it's probably not far off. And it does underscore one point - not every pedestrian fatality where a motorist is involved is a case of "Irish drivers killing pedestrians". In fact, such cases are probably the minority. But cases of "motorists not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" that most certainly is the minority, and by a very, very wide margin.

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

Ah this getting ridiculous. Traffic lanes aren't bits of paint on the road. Most Irish back roads don't even have paint.

If you ever been to Ireland or pretty much any country aside from the poorest countries you'll see the design of footpaths and roads are very different. They are made of different materials and have different regulations ie a road has to be at least the width of most road going vehicles. With footpaths on the other hand don't have a standard width for a whole host of reasons. And that's just the start of the differences.

So I'll ask again why do you have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? You obviously don't think it is dangerous otherwise you would be giving out about the cycle lane going through Fairview Park. That lane is a relabled footpath that still has all the potential issues of cycling on a normal footpath.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

True, that.

https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

liamog

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of contraflow cycle lanes, but normally that means on a one way road, not just the other direction.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

True, that.

https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

Well I suppose that they could move the temporary dividers onto the cycle lane ( that would seem to be aimed at eventually tying in with the no right turn except cyclists at the bridge ) but then you'd just have Twitter going mad about blocking cycle lanes with temporary plastic bollards.

Duckjob

To those complaining about cyclists that don't use bits of cycle path and how they are "holding up traffic"...

Lets take the Nth Strand one as an example, since it was brought up by those complaining, and break down some stats a little-

There's a nice flat stretch just before the uphill to the lights where the cycle path starts. I would normally hit the start of the uphill there at 30-35kph and might just under 30kph at the top (assuming lights are green),. That's a (conservative) average of 30kph in that uphill stretch. I'm far from a top cyclist so I would say thats a fairly reasonable speed for the type of commuting cyclist that posts on here.

Imagine one such cyclist coming to the start of that cycle path who decides to stay on the road, and averages 30kph on that stretch with a bus behind them.

Current speed limit on that stretch is 50kph (I would argue 50kph for a double decker bus going up that hill with a wall on one side and a line of cars on the other would be pretty inappropriate speed, but let's discount that and just go with the current legal limit).


100m @ 30kph = 12 seconds
100m @ 50kph = 7.2 seconds

Assuming a worse case scenario where the bus is stuck behind the whole length of the 100m, and the lights are green at the top, that's a difference of 4.8 seconds.

4.8 seconds ! Really lads? Really?

And now here's the bonus part....

Consider that if the bus was following behind the bike, and the bike was doing 30kph-35kph, the cyclist would need to slow down by at least 10-15 kph in order to safely enter the cycle path (with an 18 tonne vehicle approaching from behind - sounds delightfully safe).

...so the bus would also have to slow by the same amount, and then accelerate again after the cyclist was clear in the cycle path. By the time the bus has accelerated back up to speed, it could well have lost more than 4.8 seconds.

So all in all, where faster cyclists are concerned, there's an excellent chance those cyclists going into the cycle path will actually slow buses more than if the cyclist remained in the bus lane, as well as being:-

- slower for the cyclist
- less pleasant for the cyclist (uneven surface, pedestrians, parked vehicles)
- more dangerous for the cyclist (slowing down with an 18 tonne vehicle right behind you)


Finally, it's 100 metres .... Why on earth would anyone in their right minds take a) more inconvenience and b) more danger to turn off the main road for 100 metres, only to have to stop and ask to get back on ? If it were a 2 or 3 km cycle track fair enough,. Hell even 1km of a half decent cycle track would have me sold to be away from traffic for a bit, but 100 meters ?

namloc1980

.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

My cake is very big and can have many slices.

I'm sure it's a very nice cake, though it is finite.

So every slice of cake focused on cyclists on footpaths is a slice of cake not focused on reducing the death toll on the roads.

Likewise, our legislative resources, our research resources and our enforcement resources are finite.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

As to whether pedestrians should wear helmets, the data suggests that having an ounce of cop on is enough to lower an already infinitesimally low risk to even lower. Assuming the 70% figure is correct for 2019, then that means about 8 pedestrians died in accidents that were not their fault, and further that all motorists involved were punished in accordance with law because at most 2% hit and run. So ... (8/5,000,00)*100 = a fatality risk of 0.00016% for 2019. If we further assume that helmets would not have helped in some of those cases, the case gets even weaker. So ... no. Pedestrians don't need helmets. Just an ounce of cop-on.

Try the same calculation for cyclists and let us know how it works out please.

07Lapierre

gibgodsman wrote: »

I cycle to work every single day to and from, sometimes to and from 4 times in a day if I go home for lunch. I literally never use the roads and always use the paths, I do not feel safe at all using roads and do not trust any drivers on such.

I do not fly past anyone on the path either, I take paths that are usually fairly empty but if there is anyone on them I would slow down to almost a stop and let them past if they are coming towards me and otherwise I would slow down behind them to their pace and once the road is clear go on it to pass them

In Dublin maybe its different, but in Navan its impossible to cycle on the roads and not fear for your life

Are there no cycle lanes in Navsn?

AndrewJRenko

Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

https://streamable.com/bjo2st

Tea drinker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

https://streamable.com/bjo2st

well... yes, per the thread title, yes.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The North Strand one brings you into a bus lane right before a junction with traffic lights and excellent visibility. No reason whatsoever to not use the cycle path.

No reason whatsoever other than the many reasons pointed out in this post


including the six tweets with photos showing examples of the blockages that cyclists have encountered on that route.
Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

Wow.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try the same calculation for cyclists and let us know how it works out please.

Maybe once you've withdrawn your false claim about:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

https://streamable.com/bjo2st

So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Maybe once you've withdrawn your false claim about:



So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?

Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!
https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Well this is a lie. Actually two lies in one.

The number of pedestrians who died on Irish roads/streets last year was 27, not "forty-ish". Now, normally when someone mis-states statistics like this, a certain "benefit of the doubt" is warranted, but in your case, I don't think so.

https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

And your claim that those pedestrians were "killed by Irish motorists" is also a lie because it ignores pedestrian culpability in those cases. RSA research suggests that pedestrian actions or negligence may be the deciding factor in 70% of fatalities.

https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

Also from that research, a maximum of 2% of drivers involved in pedestrian fatality accidents hit-and-run so your claim in other posts of motorists "not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie.

Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, it wasn’t 40 in 2019. There was what looks like a statistical blip in the numbers for 2019, down to 27. The average for the previous ten years was 37 pedestrians killed each year, closer to my estimate than yours. Sadly, given the increased numbers of pedestrian deaths already this year, I’d guess that that average will be climbing back up.
You seem to have overreached just a little in your analysis of culpability.
For a start, the question of culpability doesn’t change the facts that these pedestrians were killed by motorists. That is a factual description of what happened. Culpability is a different question, an important question – but it does change that actual fact.
On the question of culpability, that presentation unfortunately doesn’t actually define the basis for their allocation of culpability, which is a bit of a fatal flaw. You also seem to have ignored the significant chunk of deaths they deemed to be jointly culpable – 26%. You also seem to be applying an analysis of 2008-2012 deaths to 2019 data – a little leap there.
So it doesn’t really seem like a very sound conclusion.
Now, back to you for your analysis of the risks to justify helmet wearing for cyclists?

SeanW wrote: »

So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?

I suppose the difference would be that she’s supposed responsible for a couple of tonnes of metal, rather than 10kg-20kg of bike. That’s a fair old difference, right?

namloc1980 wrote: »

.

Honestly, it’s a bit disappointing. It’s good to see some progress for sure, but an increase of €250 on the purchase price is just pi$$ing about – it does nothing to make eBikes reachable for commuters.

SeanW wrote: »

IIRC they went by death certificates, and there was some missing data during the study period, so the figure might not be exactly 70%. But it's probably not far off. And it does underscore one point - not every pedestrian fatality where a motorist is involved is a case of "Irish drivers killing pedestrians". In fact, such cases are probably the minority. But cases of "motorists not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" that most certainly is the minority, and by a very, very wide margin.

I don’t think we need to redo the culpability argument again, so let’s focus on the responsibility question. We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits. We have the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel, like the nice lady in Stillorgan.
So eh, taking responsibility?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!
https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c

Sure, they were both on the wrong side of the road! Oh wait, no, we're trawling the world to drag in anecdotal 'evidence' to try to distract attention from the actual facts of what's happening on Irish roads.

Did the trucker not have any brakes though?

Thargor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I suppose the difference would be that she’s supposed responsible for a couple of tonnes of metal, rather than 10kg-20kg of bike. That’s a fair old difference, right?

How many times has this lad had that explained to him in his time on Boards do you think? Its at least 20 times in this thread alone, he'll be back tomorrow saying the same thing, its pathological

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

So I'll ask again why do you have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? You obviously don't think it is dangerous otherwise you would be giving out about the cycle lane going through Fairview Park. That lane is a relabled footpath that still has all the potential issues of cycling on a normal footpath.

Because it's against the law.

Because as a teenager cycling along the path by the sea wall at Clontarf, I clearly terrified a pensioner who thought I was going to hit him, and gave out to me and my mate, and I thought yeah, that's pretty ****ty, I shouldn't do that. Empathy. It's a thing.

Because I've been hit twice by cyclists on the footpath twice in the last 18 months.

Because I've seen other pedestrians had to jump out of the way of bikes on the footpath.

Because in the vast majority of cases, for adults, cycling on the footpath is completely unnecessary, certainly so in the city centre, and it's just laziness to avoid having to follow the one-way system.

I'm not giving out about the cycle path going through Fairview because it's a bloody segregated cycle lane, which is what I thought we all wanted, and there's a pedestrian path there too, so the cyclists shouldn't be on the footpath part! This isn't rocket science.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

True, that.

https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

That's an amazingly stupid design and I wouldn't dream of endorsing it for one minute.