Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

No helmet or hi viz! Spot the cyclist.....

https://twitter.com/lwjharms/status/1268246221887541248?s=21

It really is the elephant in the room - not much social distancing going on around here, but sure as long as the builders don't get inconvenienced, that's the important thing.

Sandyford Road;

Taney Road x 3, including the Moran Builders van on the path outside of the driveway with more than adequate space;

They were probably forced to park there by arrogant cyclists with no hi-vis - all four of these building sites regularly have vehicles blocking paths and cycle lanes.

Beaumont Ave x 2

Ballinteer Ave

Rathgar Ave (again)

N11 at Montrose

I'm still looking for a photo of a cyclist(s) blocking a pavement... I'll post it when I find one.. this could take time so please bear with me. Thanks

magicbastarder

if you quintupled the number of cyclists cycling on paths at a 'cost' of preventing motorists from parking on them, we'd be so much better off.
i used to live in phibsboro and on several occasions saw old people on zimmer frames forced to walk on the road - with a ****ing zimmer frame - because people had parked on the footpath.
i have seen near where i live now, people being pushed up the bus lane in wheelchairs because the footpath is blocked by cars. and trust me, it's a wide road.

ewc78

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts.

I do too, but it's been fun watching him get absolutely schooled by Spook_ie

magicbastarder

i must have missed that. i didn't really follow, it's kinda an immovable object meeting an immovable object vibe usually.

Couldn't find any photos of a cyclist blocking the pavement, but I did come across this blog which explains why cyclists choose to cycle on the pavement...

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/how-to-stop-people-cycling-on-the-pavement/

beauf

beauf wrote: »

When the brain is overloaded it does tune out all sorts of things, including things that are moving.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28306/why-you-dont-see-motorcycles-on-the-road/

Spook_ie wrote: »

It doesn't really, how many times has something like a ball been thrown at you, you catch a glimpse of it and reactions kick in, hardly the same thing as someone starting off from stationary without looking.

A ball being thrown at you in isolation isn't overloading the brain...hopefully...

beauf

I had completely forgotten what this thread was about...

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.

...so what was the outcome of this "outrageous carry on"

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So a black or burgandy or navy car wouldn't be significantly more visible when parked if hi-vis stripes were fitted on all sides?

Just keep digging

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

07Lapierre wrote: »

Apparently there is a cyclist in this photo.. I guess without a hi viz jacket, the driver can be excused for not slowing down?

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/1268618214872776706?s=21

According to what comes up when I click the link it must be a cyclist wearing white clothing in a snowstorm but whatever floats your boat

07Lapierre wrote: »

No helmet or hi viz! Spot the cyclist.....

https://twitter.com/lwjharms/status/1268246221887541248?s=21

Spot two horses or maybe the same horse twice,

dark%20horse.jpg

SeanW

Drivers have no excuse for not knowing the likely consequences of their actions. We have ads all over TV and online showing them how speeding, mobile phone use and drink driving ends up.

Here's the thing. Driving tanked up after skulling 10 pints or yakking away on your mobile is MUCH more likely to cause an accident than sailing past a field of cows in the middle of nowhere at 65kph, or driving on a dual carriageway near a motorway junction at 40kph (like here). I actually agree with you about drink-driving, and mobile phone use. But hey, keep rabbiting on about speed, while your friends ride on footpaths and treat stoplights as suggestions.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When are drivers going to start taking responsibility for their actions? There are no accidents. We have crashes, or collisions and they are largely avoidable.

Motorists are regularly held to account for their actions. Insurance, courts, penalty points, licensing, all serve as a deterrent to most motorists from being total muppets. Obviously not all, but most.

So what? What’s the relevance of the international comparisons?

Two points:

It proves, absolutely, beyond doubt that your "we should aim for no-one to die on the roads" is totally unattainable. Absolutely, and without doubt, it's pie-in-the-sky nonsense, at best. I suggest the main reason is that roads are used by imperfect humans, who will always be prone to error.
Given that your zero standard is garbage, international comparisons show that - at the very least - Irish drivers are among the best of an imperfect lot. Note THE best perhaps, but not far off it.

Are our aspirations that low that we can’t see beyond international statistics?

You want to take a dump on Irish motorists? Then it's perfectly fair to compare them to those around Europe and the world. You keep repeating your claim that "Irish motorists kill 2 or 3 people every week" which means that by your own admission, Irish motorists are among the best in the world at not killing people - by every relative measure.

Every society tolerates it because most of society is made of drivers who don’t fancy the idea of being held accountable for their actions.

Bullcrap. Every society tolerates road deaths because people need to use motor vehicles to get around, deliver stuff to factories and shops and deliver tools to worksites. And some road deaths will always be unavoidable.

Or they don’t fancy the inconvenience of having to obey speed limits when they’ll probably get away with the oul speeding.

There you go again. Speed, speed, speed. Review the links I posted of what Irish transport planners consider to be "urban areas" and you'll understand why your 98% is so irrelevant.

But it’s interesting to see that you won’t volunteer one of your family for the risk/reward ratio.

YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE! That's how fate and misfortune work. If I knew that relative X was going to drive a certain route and die at a certain time, I'd call them up and say "hey, why don't we hang out tonight and you can defer that journey you're planning to another time."

But we don't get that choice.

It’s just plain old personal prejudice.

I must admit I don't like sanctimonious two-faced hypocrites.

Yes, I’m acutely aware of the negligible effect of penalty points on the licences of dangerous drivers.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/over-80-of-banned-drivers-fail-to-surrender-licence-1.3446037

Wasn't that loophole closed a while back?

07Lapierre wrote: »

I'm still looking for a photo of a cyclist(s) blocking a pavement... I'll post it when I find one.. this could take time so please bear with me. Thanks

Didn't take that long to find some

?width=630&version=3452349

Seth Brundle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Didn't take that long to find some

Just to be pedantic, they are bicycles and not cyclists

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just to be pedantic, they are bicycles and not cyclists

Pedantry allowed, but the same would apply to pictures previous, they are cars, vans etc not drivers, builders etc.

liamog

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I do have a problem with joggers taking the bike lane by default, to save them the bother of avoiding pedestrians.

Personally I run in the bike lane because its usually asphalt instead of concrete. I find it much less fatiguing over a long distance. I can also pay slightly less attention to the surface as it tends to be more even than the concrete section of the path which often has 'lips'.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just keep digging

It's unlikely, unless it were parked in a black or burgundy or navy environment, maybe if it was speeding perhaps or killing 4 or 5 people a week it would benefit from hi viz stripes

This might come as a surprise to you, but we have a lot of black and navy environments at night. Good to know that you see the benefits of mandatory hi-vis stripes for all cars.

And isn't it interesting to note the extensive efforts made to avoid any requirement for drivers compared to the zero effort made to justify the usual placing of obligations on cyclists?

Roger the cabin boy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Didn't take that long to find some

Ya, come on lol.

The bus stop bike is perhaps an obvious one, buts its blocking access to the road rather than the path.

They are great examples of just how poor cycling infrastructure really is with cycleways, and lock stations mere afterthoughts.

Interesting last but one picture.
Shows just how little respect society has for footpaths in general. Most if those footpaths are taken up for buisnesses.

Roger the cabin boy

07Lapierre wrote: »

No helmet or hi viz! Spot the cyclist.....

https://twitter.com/lwjharms/status/1268246221887541248?s=21

You don't know what hivis really is, do you?

Roger the cabin boy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They were probably forced to park there by arrogant cyclists with no hi-vis - all four of these building sites regularly have vehicles blocking paths and cycle lanes.

Beaumont Ave x 2

This drives me genuinely insane

Spook_ie wrote: »

Didn't take that long to find some

This kind of bike parking bugs the hell out of me too. It causes real problems for lots of people, especially people with sight loss who end up getting shins scraped by pedals.

Here's a slight variation on the inconsiderate parking theme.

https://twitter.com/FireWicklow/status/1268519093998694408?s=19

Spook_ie wrote: »

Didn't take that long to find some

Well done! Bravo!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/study-high-visibility-jackets-do-little-to-protect-cyclists-469368.html

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

You don't know what hivis really is, do you?

Not really... but don’t tell anyone...don’t think anyone has noticed. Besides I think I’ve got away with it so far!

. Happy Friday!

FinnC

liamog wrote: »

Personally I run in the bike lane because its usually asphalt instead of concrete. I find it much less fatiguing over a long distance. I can also pay slightly less attention to the surface as it tends to be more even than the concrete section of the path which often has 'lips'.

I'd run a lot in the cycle lanes also. Never had any problems off anyone for doing it either. It's pretty easy go around me, and I obviously then don't mind anyone running in them when I'm out cycling either.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

Spot two horses or maybe the same horse twice,

Switch your headlights on. And glue reflectors onto the stirrups and horses legs, similar set up to most bikes.

beauf

In Italy, a nationwide law was introduced in October 2010 that requires cyclists to wear high-visibility clothing when riding after dusk and before dawn.

However the Journal of Transport & Health has published a long-term study of Italian road statistics from before and after the introduction of this law that has cast doubt on its effectiveness.

Gabriele Prati of the Department of Psychology at the University of Bologna looked at both the number of bicycles involved in crashes and the proportion of accidents involving bicycles on a monthly basis between the years 2001 and 2015.

“The data showed that the implementation of legislation imposing high-visibility clothing for cyclist did not have either immediate or long-term effects on the number of bicycles involved in road crashes as well as on its proportion in the total vehicles involved in road crashes,” the study concluded.

“Therefore, the findings of the study provide reason for caution about mandating the use of high-visibility clothing for cyclists,” it said.

a 2013 Danish study finding that riders using flashing lights during the daytime were 47 per cent less likely to be involved in collisions with vehicles.

magicbastarder

yep, if you visit the cycling forum you'll find the unofficial mantra is 'lights, lights, lights'.

the reason cyclists roll their eyes when hi vis is mentioned, is that any time cyclist safety comes up, almost always the first thing mentioned is hi vis and lights. which is actually at the bottom of the list of what needs to change for safety, by any measure.
the standard hierarchy of safety protocols always puts PPE at the bottom, because otherwise it's a tacit admission that all other measures are inadequate.

what will make me safer on my commute is not wearing hi-vis. i always commute(d) with two front and two back lights on in the dark, and one back light on in the daylight, and it did not seem to reduce close passes and SMIDSYs or SMIDGAFs, but one thing that would reduce that exposure is decent road design and sustained enforcement. but listening to some of the usual talking heads on this, the main issue with cycle safety is people not donning a light plastic hat to protect against one and a half tons of steel travelling at 30km/h, or 50km/h or whatever.