Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

my wife works (well, used to work, waiting to find out how permanent the WFH option is) in the city centre, and was saying you do *not* want to use the pedestrian crossings at the grattan bridge/parliament street/wellington quay junction without your wits well honed. she reckons she's witnessed several near fatalities there from motorists taking the piss or possibly genuinely just being dozy and misreading lights.
one of her colleagues witnessed a pedestrian being knocked down, motorist completely in the wrong.
and in the interests of balance, she's also shouted at cyclists too at the junction.

apropos of nothing (i think that's the general ethos of this thread):

https://twitter.com/J1Rooney/status/1286338662779826176

TaurenDruid

Duckjob wrote: »

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 ?

So much wrong in so much post...

It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...

magicbastarder

do buses, on average, drive through that junction at 50km/h?

eeeee

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.

Because it's not open yet :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So much wrong in so much post...

It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...

Can we take it that you're equally concerned about the vast number of '5 seconds per bus' delays that occur every time a car or (more often) a van or truck parks in a bus lane to make a delivery? These are a fairly constant feature along the Camden/Wexford/Aungier/George/Dame St axis into town. I recall one day have a 'clean run' along that route, and doing a little dance at the end to celebrate - but every other day, there were Guinness or Bulmers trucks at the hotel on Camden St or the Long Hall, or the bread van at Five Guys or the Urban Plant crowd watering the plants at the Trinity Hotel or a combination of these.

That's a big issue, right?

engleburt

I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.

SeanW

Thargor wrote: »

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

The standard excuse from cyclists for their lawbreaking is "nobody died, get over it" same thing is true here. And the hundreds of pics Andy has posted of inconsiderate parking (nobody died), so ... no big deal.

As pedestrians, we put up with this crap from Irish cyclists as a matter of general routine, why should we be bothered by the occasional gob****e doing it in a car, given both how that played out and more broadly, the statistics that show pedestrians are very safe on our streets?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

I suspect that it's 2020 that will be the outlier. The pandemic upset everyone's life and changed everyone's travel patterns, that's likely to have had some impact.

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.

The statement is misleading. A clearly loaded term, it implies that the motorists actions were responsible for the fatality in all cases. This is clearly false. In many of those cases, the pedestrian killed themselves by being a muppet and the motorist was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A more accurate statement would be that:
"27 pedestrians (that) lost their lives on Irish streets/roads under various circumstances" or something to that effect, but this statement has less punch than "Motorist killing pedestrians"

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.

If you have a problem with the 70% figure I suggest you take it up with the RSA. They don't have a mandate to cover for bad drivers so it's safe to assume they didn't pull it out of their backsides.

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.

They deemed the driver to be solely culpable in 26% of cases, joint culpability was 2% and unknown culpability was also at 2%. Even if we assign full fault to motorists in those cases, that still leaves 70% of fatalities caused by the pedestrian in some way.

Now, back to you for your analysis of the risks to justify helmet wearing for cyclists?

Well, for one thing, pedestrians spend most of their time on footpaths, whereas cyclists in theory are supposed to be on the street/road. And you all keep complaining about how horrible and dangerous it is for you to cycle with all the horrible Irish drivers that are out to get you :rolleyes: so it would seem to me that you should have at least some protection in the case of a collision. Like how motorists have crash-worthy car design, airbags and seat belts, I'd assume that having something between your head and the pavement or a car bumper would be a good idea.

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.

And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. Provably so, and by a very large margin.

Did the trucker not have any brakes though?

So the trucker is responsible for the cyclist veering out in front of them with zero warning? Kind of like how every fatal collision between a motorist and a pedestrian is an example of a "motorist KILLING pedestrians" ...

Duckjob

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So much wrong in so much post...

It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...

So much wrong with that reply....

I listed factors which, when set against the ease of continuing staight on for 100m to the lights, means humans being humans will take the easier option.

Not going to argue with you over how often that lane it gets parked in as I don't have the stats and I'm pretty sure you don't either - but its been blocked enough times as I came up there it to just make going straight the easier option.

If you want to argue that a bus that coming up behind a cyclist can slow from from 50kph down to maybe 20-25kph and accelerate back up to 50kph (up a hill), all without losing 5 seconds then well then... yeah....

Likewise, you want to argue that because you seeing some people using the lane must logically mean the infrastructure is not dangerous to use. That's a complete logic fail.

If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

With all due respect, I'm relating experience of using/getting on/getting off that particular piece of infrastructure, and I'm relating them from everyday experience of using the infrastructure, not just looking at it from behind the steering wheel of a car or from a bus. I'm not going to get involved in arguing the toss of those details with somebody who is coming from a position of little of no experience.

ewc78

Sure no one got hurt so its OK I suppose.

https://youtu.be/xq6MtArnpKk

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

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.

So a bit of paint and a law change suddenly make a cycle lane safe? As we have seen with the old pheonix park cycle lanes a big of paint and a legal designation did not make them safe. The decision to allow parking on Chesterfield avenue meant you had massive conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a death of cyclist on the cycle lane after colliding with pedestrian. Remember pedestrians are just as much a danger to cyclists as the other way around.

For all your anecdotal evidence for how dangerous cyclists are to pedestrians the most recent death from a pedestrian cyclist collision was a cyclist. Give give you my own accedote from being clipped by a cyclist on the footpath (handlebar clipped my shoulder) the cyclist went flying off their bike and I barely noticed the glancing impact.

The decision in the Phenoix Park to move the cycle lane into the vacated parking spaces had made the Park a far more enjoyable and safer experience for everyone.

From a personal point of view I generally don't have an issue with cyclists going a long a path as long as they move slowly. Slow moving cyclists are no different from joggers and pose no greater danger if you.

Given you are so law abiding and emphatic I'm sure you'll understand when cyclists use the roads which they are legally entitled to use instead of the dangerous/terrifying cycle lanes.

If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

do buses, on average, drive through that junction at 50km/h?

On average, probably not, because they're driving between a stone wall and another lane of traffic, uphill, approaching the brow of a hill, and a junction with traffic lights, and quite often there'll be a cyclist slowing them down to maybe 15 or 20k.

TaurenDruid

Duckjob wrote: »

If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

versus

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

versus

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

Your easily confused!

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.

Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

How did you work that out please?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored.

It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

That's why it's ignored.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How did you work that out please?


It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

That's why it's ignored.

So cycling on the cycle path not properly segregated from the pedestrian is worse than cycling on the road not being segregated from killing machines as you call them. So the pedestrians are the problem now?

Duckjob

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

Here's a genuine question for you:

Is your stance:

a) I'll question behaviors I don't get and maybe by the answers I'll get an insight that I don't have at the moment .

or

b) I'll ask questions and then reject the answers I get and continue to try to assert my logic as someone who has little or no experience of the situations over the logic given by people who live and breath these situations every day.


It seems like b) - You're questioning, but at the same time you're not willing to accept the answers to the questions, which renders the questioning pretty pointless.

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!

But here's the issue what you consider to be a well designed cycle lane isn't up to scratch. To say you've been ignored all the responses that go into great detail about why a cycle lane might not be suitable. The people who decide if a cycle lane is adequate are the people who use it. If they don't use it, it tells all you need to know about its quality.

And if you say you have no problems with cyclists using the road why complain about cyclists on the road ? If you agree that cyclists are entitled to use the road what's the problem? It shouldn't matter if they are on a cycle lane or the road because according to you, you consider them entitled to use the road. Therefore a cyclist on the road beside a segregated cycle lane is perfectly entitled to be on the road if I understand you correctly.

Leaves covering the road are a massive problem for all forms of wheeled transport. They can stop trains from running, make road dangerous to drive if enough leaves cover a road(in an urban environment this will never be an issue due to the lack of trees and number of vehicles) they can hide pot holes or other obstacles. Again all this has been explained to you. Even if you walk down a path covered in leaves you'll have to walk slower. There is a reason leaves are swept off paths and roads. They interfere with the contact between a wheel/foot and road/footpath/rail. It isn't rocket science.

I understand the issue with cyclists on footpaths and in most cases agree with it. But if want these cyclists to use the road you need to take the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Ignoring people give a multitude of explanations for certain decisions is not taking the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Which is important because if you can't listen and understand issues with defective cycle lanes you won't be able to sort out your core problem. Getting people off paths and onto roads means addressing driver behaviour and enforcing road traffic laws ie actually enforcing the 30km/hr zone in Dublin City centre etc. This is far broader issue than the causes of bad cycle lanes.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

True, that.

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

I can only assume that road/cycle lane is still "under construction" ? that cant be the final design..can it?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

Here's an example of such a bike lane:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drd93p8XcAEGuS0?format=jpg&name=medium

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I can only assume that road/cycle lane is still "under construction" ? that cant be the final design..can it?

That's already been surmised due to the amount of temporary plastic bollards.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

So cycling on the cycle path not properly segregated from the pedestrian is worse than cycling on the road not being segregated from killing machines as you call them. So the pedestrians are the problem now?

You might want to try arguing with what I actually said, rather than your deeply twisted variant. I don't think I've ever used the term "killing machine" for a start.

If you're having trouble understanding my words, perhaps a picture might help you to grasp the issue with this particular cycle lane.



Photo credit to Anto: https://twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776?s=19

meeeeh

I could get by.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

That's not generally the main criteria people use when choosing their route in any mode of travel.

Here's another good reason for not using that cycle lane.

https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1101937681385304064

Duckjob

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

Of course you could, as could most people. That's not in dispute.

But that doesn't address the fact that for somebody whose already been faced with that situation a good couple of times on their commute, it's the most naturally human response in the world to just go: "Ah screw it, from now on i'm better off just staying on the bus lane for the 100m to the lights".

Amirani

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

I think we can be a bit more ambitious with our pedestrian and cycling infrastructure than whether or not you particularly can "get by". Lots of people aren't as mobile and agile as you.

Furthermore, if a stream of cyclists decide to get by, it makes it fairly **** to be a pedestrian trying to "get by" simultaneously.

meeeeh

Amirani wrote: »

I think we can be a bit more ambitious with our pedestrian and cycling infrastructure than whether or not you particularly can "get by". Lots of people aren't as mobile and agile as you.

Furthermore, if a stream of cyclists decide to get by, it makes it fairly **** to be a pedestrian trying to "get by" simultaneously.

I'm not disputing that and I hate cars parked on cycling lanes. However don't complain then how dangerous the roads are for cyclists. There is a safer option, some just don't want to use it. Btw no infrastructure is perfect, there are plenty of bad roads too and that we meet obstacles on the road in all forms of transport.

FarmerBob

engleburt wrote: »

I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.

Those new cycle lanes are generally empty.

Cycling volumes have only slightly increased since the full lockdown whereas vehicular traffic has substantially increased.
I wonder is it the case that those who cycle to work generally work in jobs where they can work from home?

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

But here's the issue what you consider to be a well designed cycle lane isn't up to scratch. To say you've been ignored all the responses that go into great detail about why a cycle lane might not be suitable. The people who decide if a cycle lane is adequate are the people who use it. If they don't use it, it tells all you need to know about its quality.

And if you say you have no problems with cyclists using the road why complain about cyclists on the road ? If you agree that cyclists are entitled to use the road what's the problem? It shouldn't matter if they are on a cycle lane or the road because according to you, you consider them entitled to use the road. Therefore a cyclist on the road beside a segregated cycle lane is perfectly entitled to be on the road if I understand you correctly.

Leaves covering the road are a massive problem for all forms of wheeled transport. They can stop trains from running, make road dangerous to drive if enough leaves cover a road(in an urban environment this will never be an issue due to the lack of trees and number of vehicles) they can hide pot holes or other obstacles. Again all this has been explained to you. Even if you walk down a path covered in leaves you'll have to walk slower. There is a reason leaves are swept off paths and roads. They interfere with the contact between a wheel/foot and road/footpath/rail. It isn't rocket science.

I understand the issue with cyclists on footpaths and in most cases agree with it. But if want these cyclists to use the road you need to take the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Ignoring people give a multitude of explanations for certain decisions is not taking the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Which is important because if you can't listen and understand issues with defective cycle lanes you won't be able to sort out your core problem. Getting people off paths and onto roads means addressing driver behaviour and enforcing road traffic laws ie actually enforcing the 30km/hr zone in Dublin City centre etc. This is far broader issue than the causes of bad cycle lanes.

Stopped reading when you put words in my mouth.

Stark

engleburt wrote: »

I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.

I use them all the time though I happen to be going straight ahead. How many of those "pillocks" happen to be turning left at the next junction?