The rise of the 'cyclivist'

Caliden · 17-08-2017 11:16AM

As a driver I think these 'protests' are great.

The one near Dame street several months ago highlighted just how selfish/oblivious some drivers are. The Nightline driver was more than happy to block all traffic behind him until he was allowed park illegally on double yellows/cycle track.

The laws are already there, it just comes down to enforcement by Gardai.

TGD · 17-08-2017 11:22AM

Caliden wrote: »

....The laws are already there, it just comes down to enforcement by Gardai.

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

magicbastarder · 17-08-2017 11:30AM

TGD wrote: »

but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

if what's not illegal? i strongly suspect letting the air out of someone's tyres is illegal. two wrongs, etc.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 11:31AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because it works for you, it works for everybody. We need to make cycling more attractive and accessible for kids cycling to school, for more female cyclists, for more older cyclists.

The IBD events are around making cycling a more realistic and safe option for everybody.

That's just the thing......anyone I know who cycles seems to share the view of "what's all the fuss about" - my own kid cycles to college (having previously cycled to school) and the only change I insisted on him making was getting an old beater to use. Likewise his brother and a couple of cousins.

.....and I don't consider myself anything special - just an oul fellah with a bad knee and tendency to compete out of class in commuter racing

I think the IBD events are highlighting a specific issue (that needs highlighting) but to me all they are doing is suggesting that even dedicated cycle tracks are not, and consequently they're dissuading people from cycling. In effect, its contributing to the 'dangerisation' (I prefer the non-US spelling) of cycling that the likes of the RSA, Luas and AGS seem to prefer to promulgate.

blackwhite · 17-08-2017 11:32AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if what's not illegal? i strongly suspect letting the air out of someone's tyres is illegal. two wrongs, etc.

And all you do is prolong the obstruction of the cycle lane for others

tomasrojo · 17-08-2017 11:56AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm content to go where the evidence leads. I don't doubt that a stretch of segregated track is safer if used properly, but does it follow that overall is cycling is safer because more of it is built?

For example, I'm loathe to bring the 'H' word in given the existence of a thread on the topic, but this study illustrates a point.....

Safety perceptions and reported behavior related to cycling in mixed traffic: A comparison between Brisbane and Copenhagen

.....segregation tends to generate over-confidence which tends to lead cyclists to cycle while distracted and/or forego head protection......one of the conclusions from that study was

"In fact, cyclists in Copenhagen tend to cycle more often while distracted and tend to use less helmets. Nevertheless, evidence shows that distracted cycling is unsafe and helmet wearing is associated with lower crash severity"

I should read the paper, but this does look like a classic bit of confirmation bias. Essentially, assume that the REALLY important thing is being very alert and head protection and then say that Copenhagen is worse than Brisbane because they're more distracted and more bare-headed. But
Copenhagen, as far as I'm aware, is a better place to cycle, and has lower incidences of head injury.

(It doesn't belong here, being a helmet megathread sort of point, but the association of helmets with lower crash severity doesn't hold at the population level; Australia has much worse rates of head injury than Denmark with much higher rates of wearing, and the disparity is even more striking between Australia and the Netherlands. There is an association if you restrict your investigation to hospitalisation/case-control studies.)

Caliden · 17-08-2017 11:59AM

TGD wrote: »

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

In the case of the St. Andrews street protest, the road has double yellows on it with a small loading bay on one side but delivery trucks just park on the double yellows/cycle lane/footpath.

The video in the OP also has double yellows.

tomasrojo · 17-08-2017 12:00PM

I'll come back to one of my favourite graphs.

Look at the fatality trend around the time they dropped the car-centric planning and building (circles, mid-70s). And look at how the cycling trend stops dropping like a stone at the same time (triangles).

To be fair, they did an awful lot more than build infrastructure, but whatever they did, it was very obviously successful in turning one trend around, and halting the other.

tomasrojo · 17-08-2017 12:30PM

I think segregation is really more favoured for 50+km/h streets and roads. But there are also engineering solutions required for keeping traffic below 50km/h on the other roads. More right-angled turns, rather than sweeping turns for example.

It's a funny thing that we keep building junctions that allow higher-speed manoeuvres: housing estates with smooth arcing turns at the junctions, for example. If you don't want people to drive above the speed limit, don't design a road that invites them to do it.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 12:33PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I should read the paper, but this does look like a classic bit of confirmation bias. Essentially, assume that the REALLY important thing is being very alert and head protection and then say that Copenhagen is worse than Brisbane because they're more distracted and more bare-headed. But
Copenhagen, as far as I'm aware, is a better place to cycle, and has lower incidences of head injury.

(It doesn't belong here, being a helmet megathread sort of point, but the association of helmets with lower crash severity doesn't hold at the population level; Australia has much worse rates of head injury than Denmark with much higher rates of wearing, and the disparity is even more striking between Australia and the Netherlands. There is an association if you restrict your investigation to hospitalisation/case-control studies.)

I read it that it was more about a 'volvo-effect' - segregation makes you think you are safer......which you are, but only from certain hazards......which leads to altered behaviour which leads to a different form of risk taking which means the overall quantum of safety you enjoy is not significantly varied.

In that case, the Danes are much more likely to whip out the ol' mobile while cycling and leave the helmet at home.....meaning that the safety offered by removing a cyclist from traffic is countered by them now cycling while distracted!

There's also another paper somewhere - I can't just put my hand on it - that discusses intoxication and cycling. It basically showed how people are more likely to cycle pi$$ed on a segregated track.......but that seemed to arise from people getting boozed up and thinking it was ok to do so because the way home on the bike was off-road!

Annie get your Run · 17-08-2017 12:35PM

I've just seen this on twitter (also on the Garda Siochana FB page). It's a chance to have your say in the policing plan and it includes roads policing. Might be something that would interest folks here.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 12:39PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Equally, if just because something is not up to somebody's apparently required utopian standard, does not mean it is not up to somebody else's standard and they can manage.

Changing behaviour is far more important as far as I'm concerned than going all out for segregation, albeit possibly politically a lot more difficult

FYP

I think you can look at various issues over the last number of decades and see that when the State puts its 'mind' to it, it can generate behavioural changes among the citizenry in fairly rapid fashion - the political will/leadership just needs to exist (and a bit of money).

I'd also say that as a country we don't respond terribly well to the education, touchy-feely approach to cultural change - it has, to a degree, to be rammed home by vigorous enforcement that puts things like driving licences in the firing line. I well constructed, solid programme of enforcement, in my opinion, will improve cyclist safety quicker than a 1000km of segregated track and for a fraction of the cost.

magicbastarder · 17-08-2017 12:48PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you can look at various issues over the last number of decades and see that when the State puts its 'mind' to it, it can generate behavioural changes among the citizenry in fairly rapid fashion - the political will/leadership just needs to exist (and a bit of money).

*cough*water*cough*

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 01:01PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

*cough*water*cough*

I surprised you still have that cough given the changes I alluded to included

....the ban on smoky coal (anyone remember what a winter night in Dublin was like during a temp inversion in the 1980s)

....the smoking ban in pubs (apparently we'd never put up with it and, iirc, it was given 3 months)

.....and yes, people overturned the water charges......but meekly accepted the much more vicious USC, and *cough*LPT*cough*

....anyway, I'm off shopping now

magicbastarder · 17-08-2017 01:02PM

ah yeah, that was intended as a joke.

tomasrojo · 17-08-2017 01:06PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I read it that it was more about a 'volvo-effect' - segregation makes you think you are safer......which you are, but only from certain hazards......which leads to altered behaviour which leads to a different form of risk taking which means the overall quantum of safety you enjoy is not significantly varied.

I think that's certainly true to an extent. The pro-infrastructure bloggers love photos of Dutch people being blasé on bikes, and it's often remarked on as a phenomenon. (Including, as you say, cycling drunk, which from what my Dutch friends tell me, is worse than here, but, then again, every activity in every combination with cycling would be more common than here, because they cycle an awful lot more.)

I'm not sure that the Dutch are running to stand still though. There's that graph showing fatality trends and participation I posted, but also you can see that fatality rates for Ireland and the Netherlands are pretty similar (deaths per 100 million km of about 10 or 12), but the Dutch have WAY more very young and very old cyclists. Part of our "success" is creating a built environment where very vulnerable people don't travel on bikes.

ED E · 17-08-2017 01:42PM

Weepsie wrote: »

Equally, if just because something is not up to somebody's apparently required utopian standard, does not mean it is not up to somebody else's standard and they can manage.

Changing behaviour is far more important as far as I'm concerned than going all out for segregation, albeit possibly a lot more difficult

84% holding phones while driving. We're failing at the behavior bit. Councils are slow, AGS are a joke.

Zynks · 17-08-2017 01:45PM

Weepsie wrote: »

If you're maneuvering, and the motorist isn't looking, then I would think that you on the bike have not done your due diligence and looked yourself before maneuvering.

Too many people just indicate and go be they on bike or car, and that's only those who indicate.

I'll just leave this quote from the UK police since ours is not very communicative and the rules are pretty much the same

Plasid · 17-08-2017 02:26PM

eagle eye wrote: »

A place on the road for cyclists only makes me scream for a bicycle tax. Why should I be paying motor tax to repair a part of the road I cannot use?

I think if there was a bicycle tax it would make people more aware of the fact that it's for cyclists only and we could spend more money putting these lanes on a lot more roads too and not just in towns and cities.

Of course as somebody who cycles myself I don't want to pay a bicycle tax.

You pay for the majority of road maintenance and building through general taxation, so you already pay while on your bike

Enforcement is the only issue here

Plasid · 17-08-2017 02:54PM

TGD wrote: »

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

A very French style of protest. Happened to the clampers in Paris with their clamps superglued by third parties and randomly for parking Infringement (real or perceived)

tomasrojo · 17-08-2017 03:03PM

It's illegal to drive a motorised vehicle on or park on a cycle track bordered by an unbroken white line.

AndrewJRenko · 17-08-2017 03:04PM

blackwhite wrote: »

And all you do is prolong the obstruction of the cycle lane for others

It's the same principle as clamping - short term pain for long term gain. You can be fairly sure he won't park there the next day.

Jawgap wrote: »

That's just the thing......anyone I know who cycles seems to share the view of "what's all the fuss about" - my own kid cycles to college (having previously cycled to school) and the only change I insisted on him making was getting an old beater to use. Likewise his brother and a couple of cousins.

.....and I don't consider myself anything special - just an oul fellah with a bad knee and tendency to compete out of class in commuter racing

It's not the people who ARE cycling that you need to be talking to, it's the people who are NOT cycling.

Corca Baiscinn · 17-08-2017 09:02PM

....anyway, I'm off shopping now

I'm all in favour of behaviour change but imo enforcing rules of the road and the plastic bag levy are not comparable. The latter involved the imposition of a charge and the obligation on the retailer to collect it. Even the smoke in pubs ban was easier than ROTR as while there are many pubs they are always to be found in their predictable location and it's a good guess that there are more non-smokers than smokers to complain if ban infringed. ROTR infringements on the other hand happen randomly everywhere and there's a good chance the majority of motorists aren't bothered by the risk and inconvenience of parking in cycle lanes,( though hopefully they feel differently re dangerous overtaking). Remember too that people who cycle are perceived as an out group and not "people like us". It seems to me that there's an awful lot more processing, money, manpower involved in enforcing this area of behaviour change. I agree it should be done but in the meantime more power to ibike Dublin for trying to protect the little bit of infrastructure that's designated for bike riders.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 09:21PM

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

....anyway, I'm off shopping now

I'm all in favour of behaviour change but imo enforcing rules of the road and the plastic bag levy are not comparable. The latter involved the imposition of a charge and the obligation on the retailer to collect it. Even the smoke in pubs ban was easier than ROTR as while there are many pubs they are always to be found in their predictable location and it's a good guess that there are more non-smokers than smokers to complain if ban infringed. ROTR infringements on the other hand happen randomly everywhere and there's a good chance the majority of motorists aren't bothered by the risk and inconvenience of parking in cycle lanes,( though hopefully they feel differently re dangerous overtaking). Remember too that people who cycle are perceived as an out group and not "people like us". It seems to me that there's an awful lot more processing, money, manpower involved in enforcing this area of behaviour change. I agree it should be done but in the meantime more power to ibike Dublin for trying to protect the little bit of infrastructure that's designated for bike riders.

Well, as far as missing a point goes that's a pretty long one.....

.....my point was that the State, when it deems it politically expedient, can act decisively to quickly alter citizen behaviour and cultural norms.

A poster highlighted the water charges campaign as an example of how people resisted such action successfully.

I rebutted with those examples.

I could also have used examples linked to Road Traffic legislation such as seatbelt usage, drink driving, speeding, the NCT, driver training/education etc but I thought the others were better examples as they had a much wider societal impact.

Corca Baiscinn · 17-08-2017 10:00PM

No, I get your point and I said I was in favour of behaviour change initiatives.Some of those you mention have been a lot more successful than others, seatbelts yes but the cars of my youth didn't have them whereas now they're a standard item. Dont think out speed culture has altered much though except when we fear getting caught and that's my point, there wont be a garda/warden on every street corner so my view is that people on bikes need to help themselves.

Chuchote · 18-08-2017 01:01AM

Esroh wrote: »

Having worked as a Driver doing 'Home Deliveries' .It was something we were told in our training from Day1.Put your hazards on and park. You could do so for 15 minutes without reprecussion if parking bays were not provided for commercial use. Or if it outside stated times of Commercial Deliveries on Loading Bays and they were full of private cars.

I know it doesn't make it legal but it seems to be an unwritten allowence for deliveries.

And if your action causes someone on a bike to be killed, your company will be sued for everything up to and including your false teeth and knickers, and you'll be out of a job.

beauf wrote: »

I think that is going to be difficult in a country which doesn't have mindset of following rules in general.

Again, I'd have to agree with the many who have pointed out that most rules in Ireland are kept, usually with a relaxed, jokey mode, and that major changes such as for instance seatbelt wearing and having cars tested for safety have been accepted and become part of normal behaviour with no problem.

Dublin isn't a nice city to cycle in; nor are Cork, Galway, Limerick or any other Irish city. If they were, the census would not show virtually no children riding their bikes to school. It would be far more convenient for parents and far healthier and more fun for children if the kids could get on a bike. But parents just don't feel safe enough.

The iBikeDublin manifs, of which I'm a part, are very deliberately good-humoured and non-confrontational. They started in Andrew's Street, where a contraflow bicycle lane is commonly parked on by tour coaches - really, really dangerous for someone who has to cycle out into oncoming traffic. They have continued in some of the places where it is customary for vans and coaches especially to ignore cycle lanes in an unsafe way.

(By the way, wouldn't it be possible for the car park at Heuston Station to be reorganised and coaches to disgorge their passengers there and drive on? And for the coach tickets - and train tickets - to include a Luas fare to the city centre or further? Or indeed for the intercity buses to stop at the Luas depot at the Red Cow and the passengers to have tickets to go into the city?)

With the number of cyclists growing so fast, it's time to have protected and separated bike tracks - to give up the nonsense of Finnegan's Wake style dotted bike lanes that are sometimes in and sometimes out again; to have all bike tracks wide enough for purpose and protected from cars by bollards or planters. Then maybe we'll have kids riding bikes to school, and then in turn I would predict a softening of the current fashion for arrogance by some drivers.

dermabrasion · 18-08-2017 08:09AM

Chuchote wrote: »

With the number of cyclists growing so fast, it's time to have protected and separated bike tracks - to give up the nonsense of Finnegan's Wake style dotted bike lanes that are sometimes in and sometimes out again; to have all bike tracks wide enough for purpose and protected from cars by bollards or planters. Then maybe we'll have kids riding bikes to school, and then in turn I would predict a softening of the current fashion for arrogance by some drivers.

All Lord Winston Churchtown seems to be thinking about is the judicial appointments farce. He is the most useless minister for transport I can remember.

MrMorooka · 18-08-2017 11:06AM

The cycle lane on SSG East is completely full of (double-)parked cars today, like every Friday, for the people selling art on the railings there. Also blocking some stands of the DB station. Why is this allowed?

Chuchote · 18-08-2017 11:19AM

MrMorooka wrote: »

The cycle lane on SSG East is completely full of (double-)parked cars today, like every Friday, for the people selling art on the railings there. Also blocking some stands of the DB station. Why is this allowed?

SSG?

DanDublin1982 · 18-08-2017 11:25AM

Chuchote wrote: »

SSG?

St Stephens Green

The rise of the 'cyclivist'

Comments