Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Impact of Luas Cross City

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Arcade_Tryer wrote: »
    Or you could slow down and turn your handlebars toward a right angle when crossing the tracks? You'll lose momentum and it will lead to an increased journey time, but you won't fall.

    Swerving out in to traffic is a very stupid idea. This is the issue when people who don't understand the problem think they have an easy solution.


  • Options
    #123
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    ED E wrote: »
    Try that in three columns of traffic with a Dublin Bus on your heel and let us know how you get on.


    Safe crossings are not possible due to the failure of a design.
    HivemindXX wrote: »
    Swerving out in to traffic is a very stupid idea. This is the issue when people who don't understand the problem think they have an easy solution.
    My bad. You're both right.


  • Options
    #124
    Doctor Bob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Doctor Bob


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    so is it just me who didn't really see a fault with the video?

    No. I thought some of the framing was a bit questionable - as noted, the fact that it was aimed at passengers rather than cyclists - but I don't have an issue with the video itself.

    I think some of the reactions have been a bit OTT too. There's some validity to the assertions of the various campaign groups, but they're dressed up in such alarmist rhetoric ('ghastly language', 'hate speech', 'incitement to hate', 'profit over people', etc.) that the message gets lost. This make it quite easy to dismiss their legitimate concerns as the ravings of a bunch of cranks.


  • Options
    #125
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    Doctor Bob wrote: »
    No. I thought some of the framing was a bit questionable - as noted, the fact that it was aimed at passengers rather than cyclists - but I don't have an issue with the video itself.

    I think some of the reactions have been a bit OTT too. There's some validity to the assertions of the various campaign groups, but they're dressed up in such alarmist rhetoric ('ghastly language', 'hate speech', 'incitement to hate', 'profit over people', etc.) that the message gets lost. This make it quite easy to dismiss their legitimate concerns as the ravings of a bunch of cranks.
    I think the reaction might stem from the systematic treatment of cyclists in society. For example, I had a situation recently where one or two vehicles genuinely put me in a near death situation, and a while later, with the shock still present from the previous incidents, I reacted quite strongly to a pretty close pass; nothing over the top, but I would not have reacted in the same way had it not been for the initial incidents.

    The reaction to the Luas video cannot be viewed in isolation. It needs to be understood within the context of cycling in this country. Whether Luas should also have shown more awareness in this regard is debatable. In my view, they could have delivered a similar message without singling out cyclists, who are a vulnerable and oft mistreated group on our roads.


  • Options
    #126
    bazermc
    Registered Users Posts: 3,116 ✭✭✭bazermc


    bazermc wrote: »
    Well lads. The advert, and its incorrect information has annoyed me so much I have made a complaint to the Advertising standards agency. I'll let ye know how I get on.

    Well here's what I got back


    RE: Safety Notice for the Luas
    [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT]Dear Mr. xx,
    I refer to your complaint received regarding the above matter a copy of which was acknowledged to you by post today.
    The function of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland is to ensure that advertisers comply with the requirements of the Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications in Ireland and to investigate complaints concerning advertisements that may be considered to be in breach of the Code.
    The Code applies to advertisements carried in the media (e.g. press, radio, television, cinema, brochures, direct mail, etc) and to promotions and promotional material. Having reviewed the poster referenced in your complaint, we consider it to be a ‘safety notice’ and a matter of public interest rather than a marketing communication and it is therefore not within the remit of the Code.
    We have, however, brought your complaint to the attention of Veolia Transport (the Luas) without disclosing your name and address so that they are aware of your concerns.
    While we are not in a position to pursue your complaint we are grateful that you took the time to let us know your concerns in the matter.
    Yours sincerely,
    xxxx
    CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER
    [/FONT]    [/FONT]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    I would agree that it is (and should be taken as ) a safety notice.

    Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.


  • Options
    #128
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    I would agree that it is (and should be taken as ) a safety notice.

    Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.

    Really?


  • Options
    #129
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Really?

    You disagree?

    Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.


  • Options
    #130
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The *basic* point in the "stopping distance" ad is reasonable (the Luas takes a lot longer to stop than you might think). That's all the ad had to say, instead of getting into the odd notion that bikes can stop on a dime, or are practically stationary in the first place, or whatever was in their heads.

    Their framing is weird in both campaigns, the "emergency stop" one and the "stopping distance" one. Especially the former.


  • Options
    #131
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

    Define "problem", I suppose. More likely to have a collision with another cyclist or with a pedestrian, maybe, but a trivial outcome way more likely.

    I have to say that I find tram tracks harder to deal with than pedestrians, but only at a few points where crossing at right angles isn't an option. I haven't tried the cross-city route yet, and I might just avoid it from now on, from what I've heard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,448 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    OleRodrigo wrote: »

    Your biggest problem as a cyclist in the city centre, is other cyclists and pedestrians. Not trams, tracks, cars or other vehicles.

    The death and injury statistics would suggest otherwise. Not too many cyclists get killed by other cyclists or pedestrians


  • Options
    #133
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Define "problem", I suppose. More likely to have a collision with another cyclist or with a pedestrian, maybe, but a trivial outcome way more likely.

    I have to say that I find tram tracks harder to deal with than pedestrians, but only at a few points where crossing at right angles isn't an option. I haven't tried the cross-city route yet, and I might just avoid it from now on, from what I've heard.

    Anything from getting on your nerves, forcing you to brake/ swerve... to a collision, I'd say.


  • Options
    #134
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    You disagree?

    Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

    Yes I disagree... Other cyclists or pedestrians won't cause serious injury or death. other cyclists/pedestrians don't tend to pass by and shout abuse at me!


  • Options
    #135
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The death and injury statistics would suggest otherwise. Not too many cyclists get killed by other cyclists or pedestrians

    My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.


  • Options
    #136
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

    That's a pretty uncivil response to a perfectly civil post.


  • Options
    #137
    Mr. Grieves
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Mr. Grieves


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.

    Does your mam's cat think it can stop a bike at 25 km/hr in 1m? Or does it know something about cycling?


  • Options
    #138
    Arcade_Tryer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭Arcade_Tryer


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    My mid summers resolution is not to engage with militant, half baked, SJW posts from people who know as much about cycling as my mams cat.
    Not only do you attack the poster and not the post, but you do so in an attempt to defend against having your argument defeated by the data. Please disappear.


  • Options
    #139
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    Arcade_Tryer wrote: »
    Please disappear.

    Is that you, Harry Potter? :D


  • Options
    #140
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: Handbags down, if you cannot accept, debate, or counter the point made, then it is time to leave the discussion until you can


  • Options
    #141
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    bazermc wrote: »
    Well here's what I got back


    RE: Safety Notice for the Luas
    [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PSMT]Dear Mr. xx,
    Blah blah blah...

    ...we consider it to be a ‘safety notice’ and a matter of public interest rather than a marketing communication and it is therefore not within the remit of the Code.

    Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb.

    Yours sincerely,
    xxxx
    CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER
    [/FONT]    [/FONT]

    Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
    "Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
    It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Mr. Grieves
    Registered Users Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Mr. Grieves


    I saw another one, "unlike your bike, a tram can't swerve", or similar wording.

    That's reasonable, and actually when you think about how predictably the Luas moves, any collision with another road user (mainly cars according to the stats) probably involves serious misjudgement on the part of that user, and not the Luas driver.


  • Options
    #143
    mcgratheoin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭mcgratheoin


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    Obviously, bigger objects are potentially a bigger problem but its peds and cyclists that are more likely to cause you a problem.

    That more or less explains cycling risk while glossing over how we measure "potentially", "likely" and "problem" from the point of risk assessment. While the probablility of adverse interaction with peds & cyclists may be higher, the potential severity of the outcome is much lower. A risk assessment takes both into account.


  • Options
    #144
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    mcgratheoin wrote: »
    That more or less explains cycling risk while glossing over how we measure "potentially", "likely" and "problem" from the point of risk assessment. While the probablility of adverse interaction with peds & cyclists may be higher, the potential severity of the outcome is much lower. A risk assessment takes both into account.

    That's true, but for practical purposes we shouldn't need such a watertight definition.

    In any case, motor traffic between the canals moves slower (overall) which has weight on how much of a problem it should be considered as.

    With a higher concentration of peds and cyclists between the canals, and slower moving vehicles, there is a higher risk of a ' problem ' but a lower risk of it being serious.


  • Options
    #145
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    That's a pretty uncivil response to a perfectly civil post.

    Its a reasonable response to anyone who would rather whinge on the internet rather then get out and do something about a problem in the real world.

    Not that there is a problem with the Cross City Luas extension, which makes the whining posts about it weaker still.

    Furiously thanking posts doesn't count !


  • Options
    #146
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    Its a reasonable response to anyone who would rather whinge on the internet rather then get out and do something about a problem in the real world.

    !

    What do you suggest we do?


  • Options
    #147
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    What do you suggest we do?

    Get the Luas instead. Then we can have a thread complaining about junkies :D

    I don't think threes anything that needs be done - the project already has an awareness campaign. That should be enough.


  • Options
    #148
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    Get the Luas instead. Then we can have a thread complaining about junkies :D

    I don't think threes anything that needs be done - the project already has an awareness campaign. That should be enough.

    Ah ok... I thought you wanted us to do something about cyclists and pedestrians!


  • Options
    #149
    DanDublin1982
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭DanDublin1982


    check_six wrote: »
    Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
    "Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
    It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.

    Actually I read the response as saying he basically agreed with the complaint but dealing with it really wasn't in his remit.


  • Options
    #150
    papu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭papu


    check_six wrote: »
    Well done for sending in a formal complaint. I find it intriguing that a poster that targets one class of transport with a load of nonsense antifacts can be classed as a 'safety notice' and that makes it okay. I would be interested to see where we could go with this.
    "Unlike bicycles, Luas Trams eat babies."
    It's a 'safety notice' so it gets a pass, yes? If someone is handy with the ol' photoshoppe they might whip up a poster and we could have it on rotation with the 'official' ones by the end of the week.

    423991.jpg
    voila


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    DanDublin1982 wrote: »
    Actually I read the response as saying he basically agreed with the complaint but dealing with it really wasn't in his remit.

    Well, yes, that is what they said, but I still feel that you shouldn't be allowed to throw up any old rubbish on signs all over Dublin and get away with it because somehow you can write anything on a 'safety notice'.


Advertisement