nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Rogerrabit

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also I think you're looking at a different study, as the study was based on people questioned on their experience when wearing/not wearing Hi Viz and is a direct comparison of accident rates of two cycling groups

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

The study talks about bias and non blinded testing. Hard to know exactly because so many of these reports are rolled up into other reports about reports and people quoting them out of context.

It's a bit like people thinking it's the lack of cars making parks so popular at the moment instead of people not being at work or school.

donvito99

I don't think I have ever not been able to 'see' (i.e. with plenty of time to react) a person on a bike cycling along, including those who had no lights or 'hi viz'. They were more than adequately illuminated/visible thanks to normal, functioning headlights.

[Deleted User]

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'.

If you want lanes for comfort jogging, maybe you should get out and lobby for about 50 years and get a few crumbs dropped from the big table. If you run against me in a bike lane,, you'll be moving out of my way, unless you are doing so to give room to a pedestrian.

SeanW wrote: »

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 a collision 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.

It’s always interesting to hear other opinions, but to be fair, I’d be more inclined to take on the opinions of just about every road safety authority in the world on the significance of speeding. It is generally listed as one of the top 3 or 4 causes of road deaths.
But it is fascinating to see your efforts to constantly downplay the significance of speeding drivers, relative to your efforts to big up the significance of cyclists on pavements or cyclists breaking red lights. The evidence is fairly clear as to which category of road users results in two or three deaths a week.
This is what leads me to conclude that this isn’t a safety issue at all for you. It is just your own personal bias, banging on for ten years here about the dangers of cyclists, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

SeanW wrote: »

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.

As are cyclists – you remember that article I shared with you a couple of pages back? It’s hard to accept your claim that most motorists aren’t muppets, given the evidence of widespread speeding, widespread mobile phone use, endemic red light jumping by motorists.

SeanW wrote: »

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.

The only thing it proves is that, just like the smoking ban nearly 20 years ago, no country has really taken this seriously to date.

SeanW wrote: »

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.

As previously explained, I’m dumping on Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion board. I’m not singling out Irish motorists as relatively good or bad internationally. The real issue is the 2 or 3 people killed each week by Irish motorists.

SeanW wrote: »

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.

It’s not an either/or choice. It is possible to drive to get around, deliver to factories and worksites without killing people, if drivers will start actually complying with the law.
Could you give any examples of recent road deaths that were unavoidable, ones that wouldn’t have been avoided by better driving standards, or better medical checks for drivers? Or even hypothetical scenarios of unavoidable road deaths? What percentage of our 150-ish road deaths each year are truly unavoidable, do you think?

SeanW wrote: »

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.

It’s not just the 98% in urban areas. The RSA Speed Surveys over the years show a clear trend of substantial proportions of drivers ignoring speed limits on all kinds of roads.

SeanW wrote: »

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

From the guy who is constantly downplaying the effects of speeding (recognised as one of the top causes of road deaths worldwide) while jumping up and down about cyclists cycling on the pavement (which doesn’t even get on the list of causes of road deaths), it’s hard to take accusations of hypocrisy too seriously.

SeanW wrote: »

Wasn't that loophole closed a while back?

No.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Guessing you don't drive yourself, Andrew. Etc etc. :rolleyes:

Mandatory lighting up has been proven to reduce collisions. Actual real scientific research, published in journals, rather than selectively quoted partisan blogs. Imagine that! AA best practice advice is to always light up. I'd love if it was the case that it was mandatory and automatic, for all road users. Dark car, no lights, heavy rain on the motorway - you're invisible.

Guessing doesn’t get you very far. I’ll take lectures on hi-vis seriously when those giving the lectures show that they really believe in the benefits of hi-vis themselves first.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps then it's time we brought in an obligation for bicycles to be fitted with lighting that is available to the user 24 hours a day, maybe even a lighting that is standardised for when the cyclists are caught out by deteriorating visibility in rain etc. during daylight hours or work a little later or take more time shopping than they intended?

I have no problem seeing cyclists AFAIK when they are lit up legally, with sufficient standard of lighting, however, who knows how many cyclists I haven't seen because they don't have lights on ( legal requirement ) or Hi Viz ( a good standby if caught out by reasons outlined above )

Or perhaps it is time to;
1) Focus on enforcing existing laws, including the requirement for cyclists to have lights at night, and the requirement for drivers to have lights on, even the drivers who don't know how their DRLs work, and
2) Focus on solving real problems when we choose areas for attention for new legislation, problems like the killing of 2-3 people each week on the road, instead of mythical problems about ninja cyclists.

Was it 2018 that had 14 out of 16 cyclist deaths in daylight, confirming that lighting/nighttime really isn't the big issue?

Hurrache

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't think I have ever not been able to 'see' (i.e. with plenty of time to react) a person on a bike cycling along, including those who had no lights or 'hi viz'. They were more than adequately illuminated/visible thanks to normal, functioning headlights.

Yeah, those posts always start along the lines of "You'll never guess the amount of cyclists I've seen not wearing high-vis.". If you're going to make a similar comment, just stop and think about it for a moment.

liamog

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you want lanes for comfort jogging, maybe you should get out and lobby for about 50 years and get a few crumbs dropped from the big table. If you run against me in a bike lane,, you'll be moving out of my way, unless you are doing so to give room to a pedestrian

Expecting joggers to get out of your way in your lane, but won't move out of the way of a car in your lane. Smells a little bit of hypocrisy. You've quite literally taken the same position as motorists who threaten cyclists.

Hurrache

liamog wrote: »

Expecting joggers to get out of your way in your lane, but won't move out of the way of a car in your lane. Smells a little bit of hypocrisy. You've quite literally taken the same position as motorists who threaten cyclists.

It's a poor comparison, roads aren't explicitly for cars.

liamog

Hurrache wrote: »

It's a poor comparison, roads aren't explicitly for cars.

The way I see it, the hierarchy is children & disabled people, walkers, runners, cyclists, cars. As you go up the list, you give way to those in the lower bracket. Reality is, most runners are probably going to step out of the way of an oncoming bike.

[Deleted User]

liamog wrote: »

Expecting joggers to get out of your way in your lane, but won't move out of the way of a car in your lane. Smells a little bit of hypocrisy. You've quite literally taken the same position as motorists who threaten cyclists.

Except that cyclists are supposed to be on roads, while joggers are not supposed to be on cycle lanes.

[Deleted User]

liamog wrote: »

. Reality is, most runners are probably going to step out of the way of an oncoming bike.

That is my general experience too, though I've difficulties with joggers running in the direction of traffic flow who don't see the approaching cyclist. This has happened a few times along the Grand Canal cycle track, one of the very few dedicated sections of cycle infrastructure. There isn't always room to pull out and pass the jogger with oncoming cycle traffic.

1 sheep2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you run against me in a bike lane, you'll be moving out of my way, unless you are doing so to give room to a pedestrian.

This guy is the type of comically obnoxious person you only ever encounter online. He's spent the last few days justifying cyclists' incursions on footpaths but as soon as there's a jogger in the cycle path he threatens physical harm. The mind boggles.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

And what problem are you trying to solve by advocating cyclists wear it? I haven't seen the coroners reports and surveys highlighting the huge number of accidents caused by the lack of it.

Haven't seen the coroner's reports and surveys highlighting the huge number of accidents caused by it either. I haven't advocated for or against it, I'm just correcting the Renko and advocates statements that HI Viz isn't more visible.

How drivers react to such information being made available to them is another question altogether, kind of like how drivers react to signs warning to slow for roadworks, lane closures etc.

So if you want to ask do I personally believe that HI viz is a good thing, then yes I believe it is and if drivers and cyclists were better educated it can only be a good thing, do I believe that all the posters on here who diss high viz are wrong, then yes I believe that too.

Hurrache

I think the dissing is from the point of view that it should be mandatory. The majority, dare I say all, 'cyclists' (and again it's a phrase I don't like using because I have usage of 2 private cars, you're not either a motorist or a cyclist in many cases) do use sufficient lighting. And like I said, the winter clothing I have, and some summer, have plenty of flashings and probably illuminate more than the traditional high-vis RSA bag.

Pro-vis have some really great gear, a world apart from what's seen as high vis, and you see plenty of it around Dublin City.

magicbastarder

problem is too that reflective gear really only comes into its own when in range of car headlights - and i mean the difference between dipped and full beams.
i wear reflective bands around my ankles at night, the biomechanical movement is apparently much more eyecatching as well.

liamog

Hurrache wrote: »

Pro-vis have some really great gear, a world apart from what's seen as high vis, and you see plenty of it around Dublin City.

With that second one, you'll be accused of being too bright anyone driving towards you will veer into a tree!

Spook_ie

donvito99 wrote: »

I think it's clear who is introducing the danger to the circumstances you describe. For that reason, I think the onus should be on the driver, and not the pedestrian or cyclist, to make the effort.

It's not really the case of who's introducing the danger but more the case of what is reasonable person would do, if a jury decided that a reasonable person would try to make themselves more visible then that's what the jury decides

"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done." (Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex. 781)

It is said that the law "does not attempt to see men as God sees them" but, instead, expects all to act as a reasonably intelligent person "who makes prudence a guide to his conduct." The judge is not allowed to superimpose his or her standards upon a given situation, complete with the judge's weaknesses and biaises. Instead, the judge must superimpose the standard of the "reasonable man." That is why, in negligence cases which go before a jury, the judge cannot tell the jury to ask themselves if "they would have acted differently," but "how would the reasonable person have acted."

So if as a reasonable person I slowed down for visibility reasons I think it entirely conceivable that a jury might find someone who refused to make themselves more visible to be contributing to any incidents occurring.

That's my barracks room lawyer interpretation of it, maybe someone with a lawyer background might confirm or dismiss it.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

I think the dissing is from the point of view that it should be mandatory. The majority, dare I say all, 'cyclists' (and again it's a phrase I don't like using because I have usage of 2 private cars, you're not either a motorist or a cyclist in many cases) do use sufficient lighting. And like I said, the winter clothing I have, and some summer, have plenty of flashings and probably illuminate more than the traditional high-vis RSA bag.

Pro-vis have some really great gear, a world apart from what's seen as high vis, and you see plenty of it around Dublin City.

If it wasn't a dull monochrome grey in daylight I'd say it was grand, but it isn't and the only day glow part of HI Viz kit would be the stripes on the shorts

Hurrache

liamog wrote: »

With that second one, you'll be accused of being too bright anyone driving towards you will veer into a tree!

It's the same top! Second is a photo of it when light strikes it. I've seen them in reality at dusk and they really reflect any sort of light, I think there's a fine layer of glass beading built into them.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or perhaps it is time to;
1) Focus on enforcing existing laws, including the requirement for cyclists to have lights at night, and the requirement for drivers to have lights on, even the drivers who don't know how their DRLs work, and
2) Focus on solving real problems when we choose areas for attention for new legislation, problems like the killing of 2-3 people each week on the road, instead of mythical problems about ninja cyclists.

Was it 2018 that had 14 out of 16 cyclist deaths in daylight, confirming that lighting/nighttime really isn't the big issue?

But isn't that split a good enough reason to enquire WHY in daylight cyclists aren't being seen or if they are being seen why the wrong reaction is being taken or being taken too late?

magicbastarder

a lot of it is because many motorists simply don't look for cyclists or don't see. saccades can alos be a factor i would assume, though how big a factor, i don't know.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

If it wasn't a dull monochrome grey in daylight I'd say it was grand, but it isn't and the only day glow part of HI Viz kit would be the stripes on the shorts

There'a a wide range of colours available, knock yourself out.

But at least we've moved on from RSA style high vis to the complaint being now about dayglo and boring colours.

Don't worry, fashion is cyclical and we'll be all wearing it again anyway for normal casual wear. It'll be the fashion police twitching, not the road traffic ones.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

problem is too that reflective gear really only comes into its own when in range of car headlights - and i mean the difference between dipped and full beams.
i wear reflective bands around my ankles at night, the biomechanical movement is apparently much more eyecatching as well.

One of the reasons that pedals as originally supplied have built in reflectors, not sure if it's changed in recent years but the last time I researched clip in pedals etc. Only one of them had reflectors built in the others were reliant on people like yourself actually replacing the pedal reflectors with ankle reflectors etc.

Rubberchikken

I drive carefully and responsibly and below the speed limit always.
I take great care to watch out for pedestrians/cyclists etc. They are road users. They are vulnerable. You save a lot more time being a responsible safe driver than someone who drives with total disregard for others.

when the *hit hits the fan and an accident happens, and it will, the driver has to stop then. Too late to be full of regret at that stage.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

There'a a wide range of colours available, knock yourself out.

But at least we've moved on from RSA style high vis to the complaint being now about dayglo and boring colours.

Don't worry, fashion is cyclical and we'll be all wearing it again anyway for normal casual wear. It'll be the fashion police twitching, not the road traffic ones.

I did, from profiz web site

Unless you regularly cycle home in the middle of the night after shift work or you enjoy a pre-dawn zoom around your local roads, it is safe to say that your grey, fully reflective cycling gear can be packed away until the autumn. Jackets such as our best-selling REFLECT360 Cycling Jacket are great for lighting you up like a beacon in the path of on-coming headlights after dark, but we are the first to admit that they are not the right choice for daytime rides.

[Deleted User]

1 sheep2 wrote: »

This guy is the type of comically obnoxious person you only ever encounter online. He's spent the last few days justifying cyclists' incursions on footpaths but as soon as there's a jogger in the cycle path he threatens physical harm. The mind boggles.

Where specifically did I justify cyclists incursions on footpaths please?

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

One of the reasons that pedals as originally supplied have built in reflectors, not sure if it's changed in recent years but the last time I researched clip in pedals etc. Only one of them had reflectors built in the others were reliant on people like yourself actually replacing the pedal reflectors with ankle reflectors etc.

a lot of cycling shoes designed for use with clip in pedals have reflective flashing on them; i have two main pairs of shoes. the summer ones are dayglo yellow without reflective flashing, the winter ones are dark coloured but do have reflective flashing. my overshoes also have reflective flashing.

FWIW, i was surprised by aldi and lidl regularly selling winter tops which were black. i don't have any black tops (bar two which are *definitely* sunny day only tops, and show off my pasty irish arms). it's partly because i don't want to give whatever ****er it is who takes me off the bike - because he wasn't looking - an excuse to load the blame back on to me when the colour of my top was immaterial.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

But isn't that split a good enough reason to enquire WHY in daylight cyclists aren't being seen or if they are being seen why the wrong reaction is being taken or being taken too late?

We know why.

However most people (especially anti cyclists) don't want to hear why, they want to re-enforce their preconceived bias. One of which is the dogma about Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz has its place but its entirely over stated.
This thread a good example. The thread is about social distancing and cycling, face masks. Even about cycling on footpaths. But its another thread completely over run and derailed with Hi-Viz.
That every cycling thread is derailed with Hi-Viz (or helmet) spam, usually by the same handful of people clearly indicates its abnormal posting behavior.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

But isn't that split a good enough reason to enquire WHY in daylight cyclists aren't being seen or if they are being seen why the wrong reaction is being taken or being taken too late?

Do you need to enquire? The answer is because the driver is driving too fast or playing with their phone, same reason as the 100 odd motorists deaths that year.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Haven't seen the coroner's reports and surveys highlighting the huge number of accidents caused by it either. I haven't advocated for or against it, I'm just correcting the Renko and advocates statements that HI Viz isn't more visible.

I never said that hi-vis doesn't make you more visible. I simply pointed out that if you reckon it does make you more visible, surely you would slap a load of it on your car.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

We know why.

However most people (especially anti cyclists) don't want to hear why, they want to re-enforce their preconceived bias. One of which is the dogma about Hi-Viz. Hi-Viz has its place but its entirely over stated.

This thread a good example. The thread is about social distancing and cycling, face masks. Even about cycling on footpaths. But its another thread completely over run and derailed with Hi-Viz.

That every cycling thread is derailed with Hi-Viz (or helmet) spam, usually by the same handful of people clearly indicates its abnormal posting behavior.

It was over run when the title was changed. It was over run when the whataboutery started .

You may say not but I wasn't even bothered about the thread about cycling on footpaths other than a cursory read of if now and again, until someone decided that it was more about the people killed so far this year than cyclists on footpaths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why is there so much hype about this lately? Is it not a great thing that people are out on bikes in any capacity? Has anyone been injured by cyclists on footpaths?
Why don't people go nuts ringing radio shows about illegally parked cars absolutely everywhere? There are 7 outside my house right now illegally parked, just strewn around the place.
There have been 18 pedestrians KILLED, yes KILLED, by people driving cars this year - but this doesn't seem to bother anyone?
Why isn't Pat Kenny going nuts about this?
Seriously, get your priorities right, bikes are not a danger to anyone.