Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I will at absolutely no point tell him to not use a footpath if he feels it is safer. .

The only lawful and moral thing you can tell him is that if he wishes to use the footpath that he gets off the the bike and walks. Anything else is encouraging loutery.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Can you point to a single post here that asserts the rights of cyclists to impinge on pedestrians please?

see above.

This thread is like all the others, replete with whataboutery with a variety of posters trying redirect into discussion of other road issues. These issues may warrant discussion but they should not be allowed derail this thread and in a properly moderated forum they would not be.

It is a bit like going into a thread on wife-beating, and arguing that it is a minor thing compared to murder. Of course, those who oppose wife beating are not in any way promoting murder but the the point is to derail the discussion.

Can I suggest that people argue the point and stop talking about extraneous matters. Yes, motorists are guilty of many things, but however many such things there are it does not entitle cyclists to threaten pedestrians. If someone bullies you that you not give you the right to bully someone else to make you feel better.

TaurenDruid

Pkiernan wrote: »

I struggle as to why you would accept a someone hitting you while you are walking.
Would you not shove them off the bike?

Once was on the footpath by the Dodder, along by the hotel in Ballsbridge as you cross from the RDS. (Can't remember the name - Herber Park Hotel, maybe?) Leinster match finished, there are literally hundreds of fans walking on this path towards Ballsbridge. Two cyclists are weaving in and out of the pedestrians, at maybe 15kmh, heading against the flow. I didn't move out of the way, guy hits my not insubstantial shoulder, guy and his bike ended up in a bush. I kept walking.

Second time was on the footpath between the LUAS track and road on Stephen's Green North. Guy can see me angling towards the road (because yes, I was going to jaywalk!) and speeds up, presumably to get past on the flat kerb rather than go around behind me on the cobbles? He hits my elbow and bounces onto the road. He shouts something at me over his shoulder about not getting out of his way, did I not see him - but keeps on cycling. Two other pedestrians tell him to go **** himself and stay off the path.

(Stand at the corner of Grafton Street and Stephen's Green any rush hour morning, post covid, to see hundreds of examples per hour of cyclists on footpaths, ignoring pedestrian lights, and cycling the wrong way down one-way streets. (Cue Andrew with his stat about number of drivers breaking red lights...))

Another incident (with no collision this time) was the footpath on Baggot St outside Toners, when it still had the scaffolding. Woman cycling through the scaffolding towards me takes offence at being told to get off the effing footpath, and starts shouting "Don't you swear at me!" Again, other pedestrians tell her to get of the effing footpath.

This isn't complex. Are you over 12 (or is it 15?) Don't cycle on the footpath.

Casey78 wrote: »

More whataboutery from Andrew lol.
I think he's a bot.

I think I'm not.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

(Stand at the corner of Grafton Street and Stephen's Green any rush hour morning, post covid, to see hundreds of examples per hour of cyclists on footpaths, ignoring pedestrian lights, and cycling the wrong way down one-way streets. (Cue Andrew with his stat about number of drivers breaking red lights...))

Sure - here you go. 88% of red light jumping at the Luas red light camera was by motorists, not cyclists.
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

Charles Babbage wrote: »

see above.

If you're referring to Seth's posts, you might want to review the conditions he set out for his child about using the footpath which militate against infringing on pedestrians.

Oh look another whataboutery post from Andrew.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

This isn't complex. Are you over 12 (or is it 15?) Don't cycle on the footpath.

there's no age mentioned in the law. i suppose by default it does not apply to kids because they're too young for the law to apply to them.

Casey78 wrote: »

Oh look another whataboutery post from Andrew.

Oh look another deflecting post from Casey.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh look another deflecting post from Casey.

Yes im the one deflecting not you ha ha.

You'd give the DUP up the north a run for their money with the amount of whataboutery you go on with.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure - here you go. 88% of red light jumping at the Luas red light camera was by motorists, not cyclists.
http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/

A) Your stats are wrong.

This post isn't about jumping red lights, by cyclists or by motorised vehicles, but when I'm posting in a thread that is actually about that, I'll point out what else is wrong with your stats apart from the misquoted number. This is not that thread, though.

Casey78 wrote: »

Yes im the one deflecting not you ha ha.

The whole thread is about deflecting.

Casey78 wrote: »

You'd give the DUP up the north a run for their money with the amount of whataboutery you go on with.

I know, it's terrible to have to be reminded of the CARnage caused by cars on the road and paths instead of the mild irritation caused by cyclists.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

A) Your stats are wrong.

You'd better take that up with the National Transport Authority because it was their camera that counted the red light jumpers.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

This post isn't about jumping red lights, by cyclists or by motorised vehicles, but when I'm posting in a thread that is actually about that, I'll point out what else is wrong with your stats apart from the misquoted number. This is not that thread, though.

You brought up the topic of jumping red lights. Don't open the door if you don't know what's behind it.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

A) Your stats are wrong.

This post isn't about jumping red lights, by cyclists or by motorised vehicles, but when I'm posting in a thread that is actually about that, I'll point out what else is wrong with your stats apart from the misquoted number. This is not that thread, though.

I'm not sure he is understanding that last line, its certainly not hitting home to him that this thread is about cyclists on footpaths and not about motorists killing thousands of people in Ireland every hour.
Maybe he's been knocked off his bike too many times by all these wannabe murderous motorists everywhere

Rogerrabit

Maybe those who cycle on footpaths just want to annoy ordinary folk because as we are all aware cycling interferes with your libido and as a result of sexual frustration they want to upset happy healthy walkers.

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Maybe those who cycle on footpaths just want to annoy ordinary folk because as we are all aware cycling interferes with your libido and as a result of sexual frustration they want to upset happy healthy walkers.

No, just the the motorists who park on the footpath or whatever they are only interested in themselves and don't give other people any consideration at all.

Seth Brundle

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Maybe those who cycle on footpaths just want to annoy ordinary folk because as we are all aware cycling interferes with your libido and as a result of sexual frustration they want to upset happy healthy walkers.

So the best "argument" that you can put forward was written by a child? :rolleyes:

Casey78 wrote: »

I'm not sure he is understanding that last line, its certainly not hitting home to him that this thread is about cyclists on footpaths and not about motorists killing thousands of people in Ireland every hour.
Maybe he's been knocked off his bike too many times by all these wannabe murderous motorists everywhere

Again, if you believe any of my posts are off-topic, feel free to use the report button. I haven't raised any new topics here, I've just responded to others.

Certainly, having multiple drivers passing me on each journey with a mobile phone in their hand does create a degree of frustration, I'll give you that.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

No, just the the motorists who park on the footpath or whatever they are only interested in themselves and don't give other people any consideration at all.

I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic or not, but you've pretty much hit the mail on the head here.

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Maybe those who cycle on footpaths just want to annoy ordinary folk because as we are all aware cycling interferes with your libido and as a result of sexual frustration they want to upset happy healthy walkers.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from;

https://edrxcare.com/how-does-cycling-affect-libido-and-sexual-health/

But if you want healthy....
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-39641122

Seth Brundle

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The only lawful and moral thing you can tell him is that if he wishes to use the footpath that he gets off the the bike and walks. Anything else is encouraging loutery.

Ok then, I'll bite.
Is it "encouraging loutery" to tell a 5 year old to cycle on the footpath using the advice re pedestrians that I previously gave?
What about an 8 year old? Or should they cycle on the road?
What about a twelve year old? Is it encouraging loutery for them to cycle on a path when traffic is dangerous?
What about a 13 year old?
15?
17?
At what age does it does it change from being ok to let's kids cycle on the path to become loutery?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, if you believe any of my posts are off-topic, feel free to use the report button. I haven't raised any new topics here, I've just responded to others.

I have no interest in reporting anyone on an internet forum, the mind boggles why anyone would want to be so childish to do such a ridiculous thing.

Anyway...have you anything to say about cyclists cycling on footpaths without posting gibberish whataboutery nonsense about motorists?

monument

1 sheep2 wrote: »

It's not the biggest thing in the world. I grant that cyclists are much more exposed to errant motorists than pedestrians are to cyclists on footpaths. But it's really quite unpleasant as a pedestrian to come upon a cyclist on the footpath - it feels both intimidating and rude. And it's endemic. It's not acceptable that pedestrians are confined to footpaths and cars to roads, yet cyclists can pick and choose, deciding on which laws to follow.

LOL... cars are confined to roads... yet, it doesn't take long traveling around urban areas in Ireland before you find cars on footpaths, cycle paths, cycle lanes, and even on top of grass verges etc.

It also says a lot that it's pedestrians, cyclists, but cars.... since when has Ireland had any driverless cars? It's easier to brush over wrong doing when you're not thinking about the humans involved.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Of course, cycling lobbyists on twitter are in complete denial about all this.

Hmm... "cycling lobbyists on twitter" and "I'm a cyclist too" is the type of phrases used by anti-cycle path people in the UK and Cork council people who don't campaigners calling for action on cars parking in cycle lanes and inaction by the council.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

This thread is insane. Mixture of some cyclists denying that cyclists break the rules and others blithely justifying why they break the rules.

It's insane... that (a) much of anything on this thread can be seen as "some cyclists denying that cyclists break the rules", (b) that you expect in a thread about something that you won't get people explaining why that something happens, or (c) you misunderstanding the words being posted by others due to your perspectives on these type of issues.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

You will find few more hostile to errant motorists than I am. In the last three days, I have banged on the back of a car that cut across me while I was crossing on a green light, confronted two people who were stopped on a pedestrian crossing, and reprimanded someone who had stopped in a cycle lane causing a cyclist to have to go around them. Your preconception of me is wrong.

You'll find that people's perceptions of you is based on what you have said and your focus and way of talking about things.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Such whataboutery is enraging. It is near impossible to criticise cyclists without having it said that motorists are worse. The end result of that logic is absurd. 'But what about truck drivers...'

That's really poor coming from the person who thinks "that pedestrians are confined to footpaths and cars to roads, yet cyclists can pick and choose, deciding on which laws to follow". Engaging with an issue and then calling it "whataboutery" when you're clearly loosing the argument is a bad look.

Also: Truck drivers are a type of motorists. And truck drivers are expected by law to follow higher standards due to the extra danger of what they drive.

ewc78

So then, cyclists on footpaths eh...anyone got an opinion on that?
Lol....

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic or not, but you've pretty much hit the mail on the head here.

Well then, the thread can conclude with the conclusion that cycling on paths is an ignorant and inconsiderate act which is not in anyway justified by other inconsiderate acts and which should be subject to effective legal sanction where at all possible.

monument

MarkY91 wrote: »

Obviously aimed at teenagers and adults flying past at 20mph but ok..let's focus on 5 year olds with their training wheels...

The more I hear apparent adults give out about cycling on footpaths, the clearer and clearer it is that a significant amount of what they are talking about is (1) children / families / older people, or (2) gurriers.

When walking around Dublin with a pram was my main form of transport for about 6 months or more, I interacted with the latter a good bit but never had much of an issue with them because they and I, 99% of the time, slowed down and stopped where there was a need to.

From listening to people who have poor experiences with the latter it's usually people who for different reasons won't leave well enough alone (which is understandable). But that's the thing about challenging people, a lot of people don't like to be told what to do. You'll get similar reaction telling anybody what to do even if you are in the right. I've gotten abuse and even false claims spread after I challenged motorists, that's just an example.

monument

micar wrote: »

This is crutical

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I don't feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

More likely it was originally 1 inbound and 1 outbound lane. The addition of a bus lane reduced the lane widths.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA

If you're going north of Griffith Avenue, I'd highly recommend going via Glasnevin Hill and the lower half of Ballymun Road (ie past the Botanic Gardens and then pass the Met office).

It's not a perfect way or anything and there's still tricky bits at times depending on the time of day and parking etc, but I found it far better than your way, especially north of the Tolka.

Pinch Flat

My 13 year old son and his mates have taken to the bikes during the current restrictions. Great to see them getting some exercise and fresh air. I've no problem with him cycling the 3km or so from our house to the Phoenix park, on the condition he stays on the paths. The roads are full of impatient and irresponsible drivers who will quite easily put him needlessly at risk to get ahead or to a red light a few seconds earlier.

Once this behaviour changes, I might consider letting him out on the road

Seth Brundle

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Well then, the thread can conclude with the conclusion that cycling on paths is an ignorant and inconsiderate act which is not in anyway justified by other inconsiderate acts and which should be subject to effective legal sanction where at all possible.

What legal sanction would you suggest for "an ignorant and inconsiderate" five year old?

skallywag

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Nice post from your shiny new account OP.

Grow up.

average_runner

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Probably a little bit over the top and the gardai have more important things to do.

Kids on footpaths is ok, some parents need to cycle with them on footpaths is ok, they arent going fast.

If everyone plays ball we can work it out like it does in most cases.

OP you are more likely to get the virus when u stop to chat on the footpath and block it for everyone else.