Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

...cyclists do not harm people on footpaths

These people cannot see significance beyond physical injury. It's comical.

RoversCeltic

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths.

Under what law

The citizens advice website isn't clear

ewc78

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you're just kicking up a fuss about a non issue, cyclists do not harm people on footpaths, maybe the odd accident, but joggers are probably as dangerous. Going on about it because you don't like cyclists. Have you nothing better to be doing?

How exactly would a 'jogger' plodding along at around 8km/hr be as dangerous as a cyclist moving at 20km/hr or more on a footpath?

Oh no here comes Karen from the local couch to 5k club coming towards us, we better get out of her way before she knocks us all over...!

monument

1 sheep2 wrote: »

...badly written...

The last reply with quick and this one will be too.. I'll reserve finer writing for elsewhere... :cool:

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Whether you admit it or not, motorists rarely impinge on pedestrians within their sphere. It is highly unusual to see a motorist in a pedestrian zone or cutting across someone as they cross on a green light. Parking on footpaths, while annoying in the extreme (and widespread) is a different matter because a motorist will nearly always yield complete right of way to a pedestrian before doing so. So, it is very rare for a pedestrian to be affected by the rule-breaking of motorists anywhere but at crossings - i.e. in the place where the two spheres overlap.

It's stunning show of bias or a massively poor backtrack that you think driving and parking on footpaths is somehow "motorists rarely impinge on pedestrians within their sphere".

And, as for motorists running reds lights and cutting across pedestrian's green lights, where do you walk that you don't see this happening?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

The second is a pathetic attempt to see significance where none exists.

Sure, how people talk about things and the phrases they use have no significance.... except research shows the way things are talked about has significance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198219300727

1 sheep2 wrote: »

If I've interpreted your garbled writing properly, you're accusing me of lying about being a cyclist to disguise an anti-cyclist agenda. Given that I don't and have never driven, and that I've expressed in a post that you quote below how frequently I reprimand motorists, it seems unlikely that I would side with motorists against cyclists.

I didn't say anything about motorists there and nor did I say you were lying -- you're reading things which are not there. I said you were using phrases other people use.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

You're a terrible, terrible writer. What even to say in response?

Actually try to come up with something rather than cheap shots?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Cyclists have repeatedly asserted that it is a minority of cyclists that break rules, while simultaneously justifying why they themselves do it.

People have not merely explained why it happens; they have asserted their moral right to doing it.

I'll leave the third to rot where it is.

Research has shown law breaking with people who cycle isn't at abnormal levels and people tend to justify what they do when others criticise them.

As for leaving my point on your confusion to rot... Not at all -- in this thread you clearly misunderstood a reasonable clear joke as being a serous post. The other poster corrected you straight after your post.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

What does this even mean? Are you defending the motorists in the instances I describe, having earlier described their rampant misbehaviour?

People are focusing on how you post overall.

You posting one or two posts where you say you got angry at motorists does not really wash away the rest.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Again, I can barely discern a sense to this. Loosing an argument? Zealots like you have merely moved the goalposts. There has been no static argument to lose.

Boards.ie will be better off when you're gone.

Name calling is a clear sign if somebody looking an argument. But keep it up, it just shows us all where you are at.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again NOT a parked car, how many injuries or deaths do you have for parked cars. I'll give you one that happened to me, I was walking between vehicles in a multistory car park and hit my shin on a towball. I'm sure it probably happens on footpaths with cars parked as well BUT I'm not the one throwing in stats about deaths to try and secure points that are actually irrelevant to the topic of cyclists riding on the footpath and cars parked on the footpath.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still unlikely to find many cases of people being being killed or injured by cars parked on footpaths, I daresay that the anecdotal evidence suports the theory that cyclists injure more peple on footpaths than parked cars.

One second you're ok with anecdotal evidence and then the next you want stats... do you want your cake and eat it too?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

These people cannot see significance beyond physical injury. It's comical.

Agreed. Dreadful attitude from Spook_ie.

Tbh I've no idea why this is an issue at all. I rarely meet anyone who is beyond their teens on a footpath, in fact I couldn't tell you the last time I even noticed one.

That tells you more about those looking to seek offence, driven by the likes of Pat Kenny and others overtly shouty in the media (and hypocritical taxi drivers, bikes are a dog whistle to them) than the perceived problem.

I've been walked into by people more often than any other form of transport, probably because parked cars left less space for us. And I moved on with my life.

Untwist yer knickers.

monument wrote: »

It's stunning show of bias or a massively poor backtrack that you think driving and parking on footpaths is somehow "motorists rarely impinge on pedestrians within their sphere".

And, as for motorists running reds lights and cutting across pedestrian's green lights, where do you walk that you don't see this happening?

It's not in the slightest. There is a clear difference between encountering a parked car and a moving cyclist whose motives are unclear.

Motorists run red lights (something that frustrates me endlessly) only at the very beginning of their phases. Given the number of cars on the road, it is exceedingly rare to see a car break a light outside of that. Cyclists, on the other hand, frequently cut across pedestrians long after the pedestrian light has gone green.

There's nothing else in your post worthy of response.

monument wrote: »

The number of people majorly injured by cyclists on footpaths seem to be low in Ireland... unless you have figures to show otherwise? There seems to be more notable cases of motorists mounting footpaths and killing pedestrians.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said, try to stay on topic and maybe look at the figures for deaths by parked cars.

monument wrote: »

Even when you're replying to me, back seat moderating won't be tolerated

-- moderator

Not back seat moderating, just pointing out that you are posting something that has nothing to do with my posts. Sorry and all that if you think it's back seat moderating rather than taking your posts and pointing out the ridicule that they deserve.

07Lapierre wrote: »

They are not killed by the car once it’s parked... it’s while mounting the pavement the the damage is done.

Which, considering the basis of the topic is cars parked on footpaths and cyclists on footpaths I think Thelonius is just a tad incongruous in pointing out deaths so far this year.

Pinch Flat

Charles Babbage wrote: »

So the message is that you can break the law and intimidate other people because the alternative isn't appealing? Anyhow you said the park was 3km away not 20? Cycling on a footpath for 20Km would be a gross act of loutery.

13 year olds we are talking about here. The roads are actually more intimidating for cyclists - people with the motoring centric view won't see that though. And I guess you have to offset the illegality of cycling on paths with having youngsters return safely, as it's people in cars driving illegally - speeding, on phones, close passing - they will likely put them in more danger. All about proportionality.

Anyway today's cycle was 17.5km all in. Mixture of footpaths (I'd say about 5-6km) and the new cycle lanes in the park - he did remark that a motorist overtook them and pulled into the newly formed cycle lane at chesterfield avenue to do a three point turn - seemingly oblivious of the cyclists using the cycle lanes on both sides of the avenue.

I'll ask him to make sure he walks it next time because someone on the internet is offended.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you're just kicking up a fuss about a non issue, cyclists do not harm people on footpaths, maybe the odd accident, but joggers are probably as dangerous. Going on about it because you don't like cyclists. Have you nothing better to be doing?

No nothing better to be doing other than pulling you up over fake news, as I recall, it was you're sudden claim of the 18 deaths being posted in the middle of the thread that led me to interject in the first place. Now if you have something that substantiates the 18 deaths were caused by motorists being parked then feel free to lead me to the articles, I'm sure they would have been reported somewhere.

07Lapierre wrote: »

They are not killed by the car once it’s parked... it’s while mounting the pavement the the damage is done.

Let me set out my stall: the conduct of drivers causes me more irritation than almost anything else in my daily life. I hate that they ignore that the amber light means stop unless it is unsafe to do so, instead speeding up. And that their tendency to run the red light means traffic light phasing has to be adjusted to accommodate it. I hate that they don't realise that pedestrians have effectively the same rights as at a zebra crossing when crossing at a junction between a primary and secondary road. And I hate that they park on footpaths. I am forever pushing wing-mirrors forward in the hope that they will return and be left wondering how hard might the smack have been which adjusted it, discouraging them from doing it in future. But...

Motorists cause next to no danger when mounting a footpath. They are almost universally cautious of pedestrians and yield fully in almost all instances. The idea that motorists mounting curbs is markedly dangerous is nonsense. What it is is irritating and rude, which are exactly the same gripes pedestrians have with cyclists.

micar

Both of those accidents didn't occur on a footpath.

The guy involved in the UK accident which happened 4 years ago was using a track bike with 1 brake which was illegal to use on the roads. This type of cyclist is an extreme exception.

The ranalagh accident occurred in March 2018 and occurred in the bike lane. The pedestrian stepped out in front of the cyclist.

****The post with the links was removed by the person who posted it***

Here they are
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

https://www.thejournal.ie/woman-critical-collision-cyclist-3920019-Mar2018/?amp=1

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So you're just kicking up a fuss about a non issue, cyclists do not harm people on footpaths, maybe the odd accident, but joggers are probably as dangerous. Going on about it because you don't like cyclists. Have you nothing better to be doing?

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/07/collision-between-pedestrian-and-cyclist-leaves-70-year-old-in-critical-condition/

fatal result of the above

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/10/man-dies-after-collision-between-cyclist-and-pedestrian-on-n24-in/

One odd accident is probably one too many, but yet again the cycle forums brush it under the carpet and bang on about the number of deaths caused by cars in a thread about cyclists on footpaths, odd in itself really.

ewc78

Pinch Flat wrote: »

13 year olds we are talking about here. The roads are actually more intimidating for cyclists - people with the motoring centric view won't see that though. And I guess you have to offset the illegality of cycling on paths with having youngsters return safely, as it's people in cars driving illegally - speeding, on phones, close passing - they will likely put them in more danger. All about proportionality.

I'll ask him to make sure he walks it next time because someone on the internet is offended.

Ah here you can't blame everything on motorists. Teenagers on bikes are a menace on the roads where I live, not everyone who drives are a car is out to get a cyclist.
There is a group near me who are constantly flying up and down a busy road on bikes doing wheelies and ignoring any cars that are on the road, or cycling while looking at their phones, or cycling in large groups in the centre of the road.

Yes, I understand cyclists in general must feel unsafe on the roads as there are brutal drivers out there, but cyclists have to take responsibility for their own actions also, it can't always be the motorists fault.

micar wrote: »

Both of those accidents didn't occur on a footpath.

The guy involved in the UK accident which happened 4 years ago was using a track bike with 1 brake which was illegal to use on the roads. This type of cyclist is an extreme exception.

The ranalagh accident occurred in March 2018 and occurred in the bike lane. The pedestrian stepped out in front of the cyclist.

****The post with the links was removed by the person who posted it***

That's all right you can go to the one in Jan 2020

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/07/collision-between-pedestrian-and-cyclist-leaves-70-year-old-in-critical-condition/

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/10/man-dies-after-collision-between-cyclist-and-pedestrian-on-n24-in/

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's all right you can go to the one in Jan 2020

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/07/collision-between-pedestrian-and-cyclist-leaves-70-year-old-in-critical-condition/

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/10/man-dies-after-collision-between-cyclist-and-pedestrian-on-n24-in/

I was fully aware of this. Both are in relation to the same accident. This didn't occur on a footpath.

Hardly brushed under the carpet as the link you gave is from a cycling website.

That is the first pedestrian death in 15+ years.

Prior to this year, the last fatality was the cyclist 4 years ago. The collision with the pedestrian occurred in the cycle lane.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/cyclist-killed-in-phoenix-park-collision-was-loving-family-man-36386300.html

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

Because if you're going to call Irish motorists in some way bad, there has to be some kind of standard. What are you comparing Irish motorists to? World experience? European norms? Some nonsensical zero-standard that world experience shows is next to impossible?

So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Let me set out my stall: the conduct of drivers causes me more irritation than almost anything else in my daily life. I hate that they ignore that the amber light means stop unless it is unsafe to do so, instead speeding up. And that their tendency to run the red light means traffic light phasing has to be adjusted to accommodate it. I hate that they don't realise that pedestrians have effectively the same rights as at a zebra crossing when crossing at a junction between a primary and secondary road. And I hate that they park on footpaths. I am forever pushing wing-mirrors forward in the hope that they will return and be left wondering how hard might the smack have been which adjusted it, discouraging them from doing it in future. But...

Motorists cause next to no danger when mounting a footpath. They are almost universally cautious of pedestrians and yield fully in almost all instances. The idea that motorists mounting curbs is markedly dangerous is nonsense. What it is is irritating and rude, which are exactly the same gripes pedestrians have with cyclists.

Well that's telling me!

ah sure that's grand so, just mount the kerb at a reasonable speed and with due consideration for others. Sure what harm eh?

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/07/collision-between-pedestrian-and-cyclist-leaves-70-year-old-in-critical-condition/

fatal result of the above

https://irishcycle.com/2020/01/10/man-dies-after-collision-between-cyclist-and-pedestrian-on-n24-in/

One odd accident is probably one too many, but yet again the cycle forums brush it under the carpet and bang on about the number of deaths caused by cars in a thread about cyclists on footpaths, odd in itself really.

This is not the Cycling forum, and you're not going to start about the mysterious lobby are you?

ewc78 wrote: »

Ah here you can't blame everything on motorists. Teenagers on bikes are a menace on the roads where I live, not everyone who drives are a car is out to get a cyclist.
There is a group near me who are constantly flying up and down a busy road on bikes doing wheelies and ignoring any cars that are on the road, or cycling while looking at their phones, or cycling in large groups in the centre of the road.

Yes, I understand cyclists in general must feel unsafe on the roads as there are brutal drivers out there, but cyclists have to take responsibility for their own actions also, it can't always be the motorists fault.

But everything you just complained about, by your own admission, is about kids.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well that's telling me! ah sure that's grand so, just mount the kerb at a reasonable speed and with due consideration for others. Sure what harm eh?

I can't imagine ever being that dim. I explicitly tell him that I hate that cars park on footpaths, but not because I'm endangered by it but because it's irritating and rude. From that he infers that I am condoning parking on footpaths. Good god...

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

But everything you just complained about, by your own admission, is about kids.

And?
What point are you trying to make?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

I can't imagine ever being that dim.

Geez lighted up will ya!

ewc78 wrote: »

And?
What point are you trying to make?

Sorry, you're for real?

You're saying kids out on bikes need to take responsibility for themselves when out on the roads, the adults in cars around them shouldn't be worrying or hindered by them?

I think the line between who's the kids on the roads has just become somewhat blurred in your poor take of reality.

Ah sure those ****ers in prams and buggies, who do those pricks think they are when they expect us to be aware of them when they're nearby.

micar wrote: »

I was fully aware of this. Both are in relation to the same accident. This didn't occur on a footpath.

Hardly brushed under the carpet as the link you gave is from a cycling website.

That is the first pedestrian death in 15+ years.

Prior to this year, the last fatality was the cyclist 4 years ago. The collision with the pedestrian occurred in the cycle lane.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/cyclist-killed-in-phoenix-park-collision-was-loving-family-man-36386300.html

Yes I know they both relate to the same accident, that's why the words "Fatal result of the above" are typed in between them, anyways perhaps you could contact the author of the article and ask if the pedestrian was on the shared cycle path or not, I see nothing in the article to indicate either way.

In the context of the thread maybe the cyclist was stopped or the pedestrian was standing still?

RoversCeltic wrote: »

Under what law

The citizens advice website isn't clear

See post #116

[Deleted User]

Imagine if cars didn't park in the footpath and on the cycle Lane, pedestrians walked in the path and stayed off the road and cycle lanes and then cyclists actually used cycle lanes, didn't go side by side blocking the road and using paths as shortcuts.

But sure that's not possible in the real world

Hurrache wrote: »

Sorry, you're for real?

You're saying kids out on bikes need to take responsibility for themselves when out on the roads, the adults in cars around them shouldn't be worrying or hindered by them?

I think the line between who's the kids on the roads has just become somewhat blurred in your poor take of reality.

Ah sure those ****ers in prams and buggies, who do those pricks think they are when they expect us to be aware of them when they're nearby.

An interesting question that, at what age should people be taking their own responsabilities as road users? As a minor under 18 would seem to be too high an age, should we put them at an age of responsibility such as 16? The legal age to obtain an actual license for an A1 class moped/bike.