Cyclist insurance?

Nuttzz

Yesterday a spandex clad gob****e ploughed his bike into my 3 year old nephew on one of these shared cycle lane / footpaths. The cyclist got up, brushed off his knees and said "ahh for f**ks sake" and cycled off, my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

I have felt for a long time that cyclists, as road users, should be registered and should have to have insurance too. What makes them so special as to be exempt?

rob1891

If you are still looking for someone to litigate against you could aim at county council for putting the cycle lane there.

jman0

Do you have insurance for, and are you registered as a pedestrian?

MrPudding

Given that a bike is considered to be a vehicle, where a pedestrian is not, it seems like it is not completely unreasonable to suggest the bike riders be registered / insured.

MrP

newgrange

I don't know about the insurance angle, but surely as a road user and a participant in an accident which resulted in injury, spandexman should have remained at the scene until the guards arrived?
Actually as a human being he should have stayed to see the little guy was ok, but that's another issue.

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

Yesterday a spandex clad gob****e ploughed his bike into my 3 year old nephew on one of these shared cycle lane / footpaths. The cyclist got up, brushed off his knees and said "ahh for f**ks sake" and cycled off, my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

I have felt for a long time that cyclists, as road users, should be registered and should have to have insurance too. What makes them so special as to be exempt?

Actually i hope it's been reported to the Gards because there should be statistics kept for cyclists/pedestrain collisions. Afterall it was the Council's descison to intentionally put them in such close proximity.

Stark

Nutzz wrote:

Yesterday a spandex clad gob****e ploughed his bike into my 3 year old nephew on one of these shared cycle lane / footpaths. The cyclist got up, brushed off his knees and said "ahh for f**ks sake" and cycled off, my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

Was your nephew walking on the footpath part or the cycle lane part? I don't think any cyclist in the country is happy with the shared cycle lane/footpath situation. Pedestrians tend to wander into and out of them all the time when they're walking and it's very hazardous for when you're cycling. Like rob1891 said, you should aim at the county council for the rediculous placement of a cycle lane.

Cian

As a die hard cyclist, i would welcome insurance for cyclists. I was hit by a metal clad gob****e (ie a motorist) while in one of our poxy cycle lanes. I broke my thumbs and wrists and she drove off. I was unable to work for over 7 months and have to resort to claiming off the motors insurers board, which at best is up to the whim of the insurance company nominated to defend the motors insurers board. 1 and a half years later, and I'm still waiting.

If I could have insurance, I would get it tomorrow.

A lot of those shared cycle paths are incredibly poorly placed. The county council should be sent to holland and belgium to see how to integrate a safe cycle path system that encourages people to use them as opposed to a poorly thought out mess that railroads cyclists onto the least safe routes.

Nuttzz

Stark wrote:

Was your nephew walking on the footpath part or the cycle lane part?

I would assume he was in the cycle part, its not very obvious, half the path is concerte half the part is tarmacadam. a 3 year old certainly wouldnt know the difference. It hasnt been reported to the gardai but I will ask my sis in law to do so, not that they can do much . I think its just the arrogance of the cyclist (the spandex clan ones have a real attitude problem imho) to get up and feck off, if I hit him with my car or hit a jogger and just drove off I could expect PJ and Seamus at the front door fairly quickly....

/edit this is what the sign on the path looks like

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

if I hit him with my car or hit a jogger and just drove off I could expect PJ and Seamus at the front door fairly quickly....

And yet it is by no means uncommon for the motorist to just leave the scene of the accident.
Happened to me once.
Gards did feck all about it too. It's every man for himself.

cyclopath2001

Nuttzz wrote:

I would assume he was in the cycle part, its not very obvious, half the path is concerte half the part is tarmacadam. a 3 year old certainly wouldnt know the difference.

At fault or not, SpandexMan should have stopped. Even if he was on the cycle track part of the footpath, he still has to take due care to avoid endangering others & could be liable if it was proven that he was negligent in forseeing the hazard. If he were to be found to be at fault, he could still be sued for damages & would have to pay up.

If the infant was not properly supervised in the vicinity of an obvious hazard, the guardians/parents may have to share some blame.

That said, the Councils are taking an irresponsible attitude to pedestrian safety by moving road traffic onto footpaths that were not designed for that use. They may also share culpability if the track/path is not of a legal design or if they ignored DTO guidelines in the construction/maintenance. The sign you've shown is not a sign mentioned in the Road Traffic Regulations or in the Rules of the Road, so there is a chance that the council may be liable for unlawfully directing cyclists to use the footpath.

They may also be liable if the signs and road markings were insufficient to alert the infant's guardians to the hazard caused by dual-use nature of the path/track.

There seem to be plenty of issues to keep the lawyers employed.

As regards insurance, members of the Cyclist Touring Club and members of Cycling Ireland can avail of 3rd party insurance as part of their membership packages. It's quite cheap due to the generally much lower level of accidents and damage where cyclists are at fault (compared to motorists).

I hope your nephew recovers quickly.

robfitz

Nuttzz wrote:

Yesterday a spandex clad gob****e ploughed his bike into my 3 year old nephew on one of these shared cycle lane / footpaths. The cyclist got up, brushed off his knees and said "ahh for f**ks sake" and cycled off, my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

Sorry to here about your Nephew Nuttzz, he was very lucky a cyclist could easliy kill a 3 year old child.

Get the parents to write down everything about the accident, exact location, time of day, was the child alone, etc. Take photos of any cuts or bruising and the location if you can, get a letter/report from the doctor. Talk with a solicitor.

The cyclist is unlikely to have very deep pockets but the council does if there is negligence on there part.

If possible I would like to get access to at least the non-person information (PM me). We need evidence like this so we can try and stop things like this happening again. This type of acceident could be happing all the time but we don't have any sort of statistics to be about to do anything about it.

Stark

Cian wrote:

As a die hard cyclist, i would welcome insurance for cyclists.

It would definitely have to be optional like home insurance or comprehensive car insurance though. That way the insurance companies wouldn't be able to completely rip us off like they do with compulsory car insurance.

murphaph

Not at all uncommon for germans who neither drive nor cycle to insure themselves against general mishaps that affect others, 3rd party for pedestrians/cyclists. It's optional of course.

Hope your nephew makes a speedy recovery, I'd have had to restrain myself if a child of mine was knocked down by someone who just said "ah for fcuk's sake" and went to leave.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.butterworthinsurance.co.uk/ - they've been doing the insurance for the CTC for yonks http://www.ctc.org.uk/

Victor

Nuttzz wrote:

my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

How is he?

I have felt for a long time that cyclists, as road users, should be registered and should have to have insurance too. What makes them so special as to be exempt?

What is the legal difference between a bicycle, rickshaw (pedestrian or cyclist), pram, buggy, roller skates / blades, granny's shopping trolley, hand truck ....

cyclopath2001

Nuttzz wrote:

I have felt for a long time that cyclists, as road users, should be registered and should have to have insurance too. What makes them so special as to be exempt?

The low volume of accidents, damage and injury caused by cyclists.

robfitz

Victor wrote:

What is the legal difference between a bicycle, rickshaw (pedestrian or cyclist), pram, buggy, roller skates / blades, granny's shopping trolley, hand truck ....

I think this covers it.

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
Interpretation
...
(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle.
(6) For the purpose of these Regulations, a pedestrian shall include a person in charge of a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled.
...

DublinWriter

Nuttzz wrote:

What makes them so special as to be exempt?

They should be required to do a test and acquire a license as the basic rules of the road are beyond them, such as stopping at a red light.

jman0

DublinWriter wrote:

They should be required to do a test and acquire a license as the basic rules of the road are beyond them, such as stopping at a red light.

O yeah right, not like cars aren't burning red lights on a consistant basis. Despite taking a drivers test. :rolleyes:

Kingsize

To The Op - The Guy Who Did That To Yr Nephew Is Just A C-unt Who Happened To Be On A Bike
To The Stereotyping Generalising Anti Cyclists Who Think That Liscences & Insurance Would Sort This Out How Exactly? Even In The Case Of The Op He wouldve Had To Chase Down The Cyclist -ever Hear The Phrase "hit & Run"
Also If We Agree Cyclists Are So Dangerous ( E.g So Dangerous That They Warrant Paying For Insurance & Licences )surely They Shouldn't Be Stuck Sharing The Footpath.
I'm a cyclist but i'd also like to be a driver, my insurance would be too expensive to justify owning & maintaining a car & as far as i can see the reason for that is that there are too many people behind the wheels of cars who cannot drive with due care & attention- many of them haven't even passed the test but still seem to use the roads & get away scott free (until of course they cause an accident)
If we cannot control this (which i dont think we can)how can we control pushbikes bearing in mind that nearly everybody from the age of 5 upwards has one & uses it at least once a year???

arrietty

Sorry to hear about your nephew, Nuttzz; that's horrible.

I guess it would be impossible now to even identify the cyclist. So maybe the only thing you can do is chase up the council. I wonder if a similar case has ever happened before here and been successful?

I'm a cyclist - those shared pedestrian/cycle lanes are bloody horrible. I feel like shouting: SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! but, em... I don't know if it ever will be. Cycling here is pretty scary sometimes.

Interesting to hear the 3rd party insurance info... thanks for sharing.

daymobrew

Nuttzz wrote:

Yesterday a spandex clad gob****e ploughed his bike into my 3 year old nephew on one of these shared cycle lane / footpaths. The cyclist got up, brushed off his knees and said "ahh for f**ks sake" and cycled off, my nephew has a fractured arms thanks to him.

Maybe your sister-in-law could revisit the location to see if the cyclist does the same and then confront him. Take photos. Maybe get suggestions from the Gardai about what can be done.

As a cyclist I hate when others behave in a way as to give those who obey traffic laws
a bad name. It only serves to hurt the cause to get respect.

Johnny Jukebox

My Cycling Ireland license covers me for 3rd party. However, I'm not sure if the scope of that is limited to racing, or 'official' club outings. Even Cycling Ireland, when pressed, seem unsure of whats covered when.

My sympathies to the OP, but this does sound like a geniune accident, with no specific negligence on anyones part. The behaviour of the cyclist was reprehensible as described.

I guess you could take a civil suit against the cyclist and/or the council but its hard to see how anything would stick.

Nuttzz

Its not about the claim tbh, they (the parents) arent going to bother taking action against the council etc, my bro's opinion is why should the tax payer suffer because of one errant cyclist.

He has a fractured arm (i said arms in my OP but its only the one) he is doing ok, he's enjoying the fuss!

while cyclists do account for only a small amount of claims/accidents/damage on the roads they still shouldnt be let off scot free. As far as I'm concerned this is akin to an assault on my nephew.

I dont see the need for a cyclist to travel at speed on a shared cycle lane, but tbh I find the spandex clad gits are always the one hurtling along with no respect or concern for any other road user be they other cyclists, motor vehicles, or pedestrians

MorningStar

Nuttzz wrote:

I would assume he was in the cycle part, its not very obvious, half the path is concerte half the part is tarmacadam. a 3 year old certainly wouldnt know the difference. It hasnt been reported to the gardai but I will ask my sis in law to do so, not that they can do much . I think its just the arrogance of the cyclist (the spandex clan ones have a real attitude problem imho) to get up and feck off, if I hit him with my car or hit a jogger and just drove off I could expect PJ and Seamus at the front door fairly quickly....

/edit this is what the sign on the path looks like

Where was this? The markings you have described don't match the sign.
The cyclist should have stayed around but probably wouldn't be liable if the child walked out onto the cycle path. The same way a motorist wouldn't be liable if a 3 year old walked out onto the road suddenly which sounds like what effectively happened. I am a little dubious about this story as I would suspect it would be in the newspapers and a big stink about it. The sign and description put in a little doubt too.
I don't mean any offense meant but the details don't sound right and Nutzz seems to be particularly pro-car.

maxheadroom

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont see the need for a cyclist to travel at speed on a shared cycle lane, but tbh I find the spandex clad gits are always the one hurtling along with no respect or concern for any other road user be they other cyclists, motor vehicles, or pedestrians

Why should they be forced to slow down just because the Council put the cycle lane in a stupid place, and then forced them by law to use it?

Macy

maxheadroom wrote:

Why should they be forced to slow down just because the Council put the cycle lane in a stupid place, and then forced them by law to use it?

How about the respect for more vunerable road users. You know, like cyclist (are right to) expect from motorists?

jman0

Macy wrote:

How about the respect for more vunerable road users. You know, like cyclist (are right to) expect from motorists?

Cyclists just want motorists to observe the speed limit.
The council hasn't created one for their silly cycle footpaths.

Capt'n Midnight

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont see the need for a cyclist to travel at speed on a shared cycle lane, but tbh I find the spandex clad gits are always the one hurtling along with no respect or concern for any other road user be they other cyclists, motor vehicles, or pedestrians

In at least one survey 98% of drivers broke the old 30mph speed limit. The law forces cyclists on to cycle lanes/paths so they should be allowed to travel at the same speed as they are allowed on the road OR the law should be changed. Option B please.

OT. is there an enforceable law to force pedestrians out of cycle only lanes, because if not then other incidents may occur. ( no suggestion that MrSpandex was in the right or even in the lane )

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont see the need for a cyclist to travel at speed on a shared cycle lane, but tbh I find the spandex clad gits are always the one hurtling along with no respect or concern for any other road user be they other cyclists, motor vehicles, or pedestrians

Maybe you spandex clad cyclist was training and that's way he was hurtling along. It's not the cyclist's fault the council saw fit to force him to use a silly footpath.

Nuttzz

MorningStar wrote:

Where was this? The markings you have described don't match the sign.
The cyclist should have stayed around but probably wouldn't be liable if the child walked out onto the cycle path. The same way a motorist wouldn't be liable if a 3 year old walked out onto the road suddenly which sounds like what effectively happened. I am a little dubious about this story as I would suspect it would be in the newspapers and a big stink about it. The sign and description put in a little doubt too.
I don't mean any offense meant but the details don't sound right and Nutzz seems to be particularly pro-car.

The sign is as described to me, I pulled that actually picture from a UK site, I dont have the actual sign to hand (hence my use of looks like). I might be in the area later today, if I am I'll take a camera phone picture....

Why would it have to be in the newspapers, not everyone runs to the papers when something happens to them.... he was taken to the hospital after a few hours because he kept saying "arm is sore".

I'm so pro-car that I'd come here and make up some sad story, please :rolleyes: I like my car, but I also have to get on my mountain bike for 30 minutes a day to keep the belly away.

DublinWriter

jman0 wrote:

O yeah right, not like cars aren't burning red lights on a consistant basis. Despite taking a drivers test. :rolleyes:

Nothing compared the amount of times cyclists do it, and you know it.

But then again, cyclists have a special waiver that excludes them from obeying the rules of the road, they are allowed to do things like break red lights, cycle up the wrong side of the road, cycle on footpaths, not have adaquate lighting in the dark, etc.

Trojan

DublinWriter wrote:

Nothing compared the amount of times cyclists do it, and you know it.

But then again, cyclists have a special waiver that excludes them from obeying the rules of the road, they are allowed to do things like break red lights, cycle up the wrong side of the road, cycle on footpaths, not have adaquate lighting in the dark, etc.

Broken record. Read some of the posts from cyclists on this board (the threads on the first page of the forum will do), then take a deep breath, and come back on here.

Don't play the stereotyping game, it doesn't help anyone.

DublinWriter

Trojan wrote:

Broken record. Read some of the posts from cyclists on this board (the threads on the first page of the forum will do), then take a deep breath, and come back on here.

Don't play the stereotyping game, it doesn't help anyone.

I've been driving for the past 15 years. In that time I drive on average for 2 hours in and out of the City Centre per day.

During that time I think I can remember one cyclist ever stopping at a red light. Ever. I only noticed it because it was so unusual.

I speak out of personal experience. During the dark winter months I lost count of the number of cyclists going around during rush hour without any lights or even reflective clothing.

I am not sterotyping. Drive about Dublin City Centre and any suberb for an hour and you'll see many cyclists breaking the law as I originally described.

...and to my original list of sin, I'd also take into consideration the OP's point - failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

jman0

Just a wee bit OOT are we DublinWriter?
Perhaps you are forgetting to notice that legally when a traffic light goes amber->red, you have to stop. Current driver behavior suggests that drivers think it means 3 more cars are allowed thru. :rolleyes:

DublinWriter

jman0 wrote:

Just a wee bit OOT are we DublinWriter?
Perhaps you are forgetting to notice that legally when a traffic light goes amber->red, you have to stop. Current driver behavior suggests that drivers think it means 3 more cars are allowed thru. :rolleyes:

Any cyclists do what exactly? Go through it after it's been red for some considerable time.

Cyclists will always try and defend their blantant disregard for the Rules of the Road by pointing and other road users and going 'them too! them too!'.

If I, in my car, drove on a footpath, drove at night without being aqeduately lit-up, drove down the wrong side of the road and as the OP mentioned, ran into a three year old, broke his arm, and just drove off, I'd be losing my driving licence double-quick.

MorningStar

Nuttzz wrote:

The sign is as described to me, I pulled that actually picture from a UK site, I dont have the actual sign to hand (hence my use of looks like). I might be in the area later today, if I am I'll take a camera phone picture....

Why would it have to be in the newspapers, not everyone runs to the papers when something happens to them.... he was taken to the hospital after a few hours because he kept saying "arm is sore".

I'm so pro-car that I'd come here and make up some sad story, please :rolleyes: I like my car, but I also have to get on my mountain bike for 30 minutes a day to keep the belly away.

I really meant no offense there are definitley people who post up inaccurate stories.
I am not completely up on all things cycling so people can correct me if I am wrong.
THe sign you posted looks to me like the combined cycle/foot path as opposed to a foot path and cycle path off the road beside each other. I only ever saw one of them and understand they are pretty unusual throughout the world. Dublin cycle campaginers have said they are extremely dangerous to all concerned and don't want them. If a 3 year old ended up injured as a result of a hazzard warned about that is why I was surpprised there was no fuss made. The accident should be reported just on the grounds it might happen again due to the design rather than an idiot cyclist. Pedestrian are a real danger in cycle paths in genral because they pay no attention to them so cyclist should slow down it's common sense.
Where is the cycle path, could probably find more info on it?

Trojan wrote:

Broken record.

Indeed, well said

jman0

DublinWriter wrote:

If I, in my car, drove on a footpath, drove at night without being aqeduately lit-up, drove down the wrong side of the road and as the OP mentioned, ran into a three year old, broke his arm, and just drove off, I'd be losing my driving licence double-quick.

Perhaps this is just more exaggeration on your part?
It's shared-use path, the cyclist is legally obligated to use it, no mention of what direction the cyclist was headed.
And no, you wouldn't be loosing your driving licence because it is so common for the motorist to just drive off, leaving the scene of the accident and the gards do pretty much nothing about it.
Besides, there's just a little difference between a 20-30 pound self-propelled bicycle and a hulking metal box weighing over a ton that is motor-propelled.

Johnny Jukebox

Nuttzz - can you tell us exactly where the accident occurred ?

Trojan

dublinwriter wrote:

I speak out of personal experience. During the dark winter months I lost count of the number of cyclists going around during rush hour without any lights or even reflective clothing.

I am not sterotyping. Drive about Dublin City Centre and any suberb for an hour and you'll see many cyclists breaking the law as I originally described.

Anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are stereotyping.

stereotype
# A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
# One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

some google result wrote:

A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. We develop stereotypes when we are unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments about people or situations. In the absence of the "total picture," stereotypes in many cases allow us to "fill in the blanks." Our society often innocently creates and perpetuates stereotypes, but these stereotypes often lead to unfair discrimination and persecution when the stereotype is unfavorable.

For example, if we are walking through a park late at night and encounter three senior citizens wearing fur coats and walking with canes, we may not feel as threatened as if we were met by three high school-aged boys wearing leather jackets. Why is this so? We have made a generalization in each case. These generalizations have their roots in experiences we have had ourselves, read about in books and magazines, seen in movies or television, or have had related to us by friends and family. In many cases, these stereotypical generalizations are reasonably accurate. Yet, in virtually every case, we are resorting to prejudice by ascribing characteristics about a person based on a stereotype, without knowledge of the total facts. By stereotyping, we assume that a person or group has certain characteristics. Quite often, we have stereotypes about persons who are members of groups with which we have not had firsthand contact.

dublinwriter - it would become you to avoid stereotyping and generalisations.

DublinWriter

Trojan wrote:

Anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are stereotyping.

Nope, it's what I see *every day* on the streets of Dublin with my own two eyes. I'm sure you can look up the definition of the word 'anecdotal' too.

Not only would I call for cyclists to be insured, but I would also call for cyclists to be licenced and bicycles to be registered and display a clearly visible registration plate.

This would prevent the type of 'cycle-off' incident originally discussed by the OP where a cyclist can quickly leave the scene of an accident after fracturing the arm of a 3 year old.

Stark

It's rediculous that you say you've never seen a cyclist with a light on his bike because the gardaí do tend to be strict about cyclists with lights on their bikes. I tried cycling without lights once after my lights got stolen (the scum in this city would steal the shirt from your back if it wasn't buttoned on). I was stopped immediately by a guard. I know people who've said the only fine they've ever gotten in their lifetime was a fine for a bicycle light.

jman0

DublinWriter wrote:

Not only would I call for cyclists to be insured, but I would also call for cyclists to be licenced and bicycles to be registered and display a clearly visible registration plate.

This would prevent the type of 'cycle-off' incident originally discussed by the OP where a cyclist can quickly leave the scene of an accident after fracturing the arm of a 3 year old.

Laughable, the Gards are already incapable of keeping uninsured and untaxed motorists off the road, by what miracle are they to manage cyclists too?
Tell DublinWriter, how many "cycle-off" incidents occur per year?
Is it one, maybe 2?

rubadub

DublinWriter wrote:

They should be required to do a test and acquire a license as the basic rules of the road are beyond them, such as stopping at a red light.

Should pedestrians have to do a test too? What if the 3 year old was on the bike on a cycle lane and the spandex man ran out on it, knocked him over and caused the same injuries?
Spandex man was wrong to go off in either case. I would not let a child walk on a path with a cycle lane without holding his hand. A jogger could seriously injure a 3 year old if they walked out of a driveway in front of them.

BTW if there is a cycle lane in place are you legally obliged to use it? My mate was pulled over on a racer and told he was, to which he replied he was not risking his €60 tyres on all the "glass lane".
I always use cycle lanes but if there is a car or people walking, I take off onto the road, and do not return to the cycle lane until I can do so safely. I am waiting for the next garda to stop me, about 50% of the time it is a garda car parked on it so I can say "is that really a cycle lane, I thought it was a garda parking area, I am only on the road because one was parked in my way".
Are there any laws at all regarding cycle lanes? Could people be fined for jaywalking on them? What would happen if you jumped up on a bonnet to get past a car?
People do ignore them, on the stillorgan dual carriageway after whitescross going towards foxrock church people just walk up and see you a good 100-200m away and still stay walking on it oblivious. People stand at bus stops on cycle lanes in a dream land too. Then they snap out of it and can jump in front of you even thought you would have dodged them if they stayed put.

The only near accidents I have had on a bike have been due people using indicators wrongly on roundabouts (is incorrect indicator use illegal?), and due to people walking out on cycle lanes, with me dodging them or having to skip onto the road in front of a car.

There should be a line of those pole thingys along combined lanes, like they have one some roads to prevent people turning.

Trojan

DublinWriter wrote:

Nope, it's what I see *every day* on the streets of Dublin with my own two eyes. I'm sure you can look up the definition of the word 'anecdotal' too.

I sure can.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.

Enough said.

DoraDelite

Nuttzz wrote:

/edit this is what the sign on the path looks like

There's one of those signs on the footpath in Drumcondra going from Quinns to the Upper Drumcondra Rd. The footpath itself is just one big tarmac footpath. From a pedestrian point of view it's fine if a cyclist is coming towards you but you can't hear them when they are coming from behind. This, I think is dangerous because you might step to one side to pass another pedestrian and you have no idea if a bike is coming up behind you.

Nuttzz

It was finglas just up from the clearway centre

see the photos

Image 54 is the cycle path on the road joining the path
Image 55 is the join and notice the sign
Image 56 is the half concrete half tar foothpath, which half is for who?

/edit:I will encourage the bro to report it, probably best to do this when he has calmed down though...

Trojan

Wow, that's a bad, bad cyclepath. I haven't been on there, but I suspect that's one I'd probably ignore - it's lethal.

By convention, the outter half is probably where they intended the cyclepath to be, but it is impossible to be certain.

Hope the little guy is alright

jman0

Wow that is a ****ty design.
I concur, as a cyclist i would avoid using it. Although i imagine in doing so i'd be putting myself in danger from motorists that become agitated and aggressive because they feel inconvenienced by a cyclist using "their" road.
Picture number 2 looks like there's a couple pedestrians walking side-by-side, aptly demonstrating the inappropriateness of such a design of "shared-use" facility.
This looks like a fairly straight stretch of road, i can imagine a cyclist would have good momentum going before facing this hazard.
What was the Council thinking?
Clearly not about pedestrain or cyclist safety.
Looks like it was a handly place to push cyclists out of motorists way.
Brilliant eh?

MorningStar

Nuttzz wrote:

It was finglas just up from the clearway centre

see the photos

Image 54 is the cycle path on the road joining the path
Image 55 is the join and notice the sign
Image 56 is the half concrete half tar foothpath, which half is for who?

/edit:I will encourage the bro to report it, probably best to do this when he has calmed down though...

The cyclist was really an idiot then unless he was shouting and screaming to look out. These cycle/foot paths are apparently not covered in the rules of the road so God know how they are meant to work. I have yet to cycle on one but I would always assume the pedestrian has right of way. There is the cynical view that the gov only put cycle lanes in becuase of EU funding and don't really care if they are safe or work. Cyclopath 2001 has a good website on it.