Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You sound like great company to be with. Do you stereotype everyone who gets into a car with you?

...and yet some drivers still manage to hit them

Maybe double check what was included within that cost again!

Stereotyping- Yeah, pretty much into 2 groups, those that are likely to cause a problem, those that aren't

Parked Cars, Yeah and are these collisions mainly caused by not seeing the vehicle or by drink driving, using mobiles, not able to judge gaps, swerving to miss dogs, pedestrians, cyclists etc. or any other number of factors.

Costs I did it's for constructing a segregated cycleway as part of the S2S, something that would distance motorised traffic and cyclists from each other

Hurrache

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You sound like great company to be with. Do you stereotype everyone who gets into a car with you?

Nah, there's no way he'd do that would he? I mean look how upset when it gets flipped back in him.

He just makes some amount of stuff up. Can you imagine how sad you'd have to be to make such bets

Hurrache

ewc78 wrote: »

No they actually seemed like a decent bunch of fellas and not stressed out maniacs. They all went around me and carried on about their business.

Cyclists, all a great bunch of lads

It's only the imaginary ones that exist in people's minds who obsess about them in threads like this .

magicbastarder wrote: »

two things:
firstly, if i got into a taxi and the driver wanted to play this game, i'd simply refuse.
secondly, you seem obsessed with cycling and cyclists. you should give it a go, it can be great fun.

Firstly It's not an obligatory game or topic of conversation, and you would be quite within your rights not to partake, however as a cyclist I would think you should take more of an interest in how visible or not other cyclists are, but it's a free country.

Secondly I'm more obsessed with people throwing fake bits into threads like parked cars on pavements equating to 16 deaths, but sure if people want to drag topics and myself into different directions, then why not.

Cyclists seem obsessed with cars on footpaths which is somewhere the cyclist isn't normally supposed to be either, now I can understand the ire when directed to motors etc being parked in mandatory cyclelanes and the bemusement of cars parking on the S2S northside section shortly after it opened, but really!

Spook_ie wrote: »

Costs I did it's for constructing a segregated cycleway as part of the S2S, something that would distance motorised traffic and cyclists from each other

The costs you quoted include;

drainage works,
watermain upgrades,
footpath and carriageway renewal, including the wide road in Fairview.
reconfigurations of existing signalised junctions,
new walking and cycling crossings,
CCTV infrastructure,
public lighting,
granite paving and kerbing,
retaining walls,
utility diversions,
landscaping,
new street furniture.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Firstly It's not an obligatory game or topic of conversation, and you would be quite within your rights not to partake, however as a cyclist I would think you should take more of an interest in how visible or not other cyclists are, but it's a free country.

I would think that most cyclists take more of an interest in the real issues that cause death and injury on the roads, rather than imaginary issues.

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

Secondly I'm more obsessed with people throwing fake bits into threads

Self obsession so, explains a lot.

magicbastarder wrote: »

interesting that the budget just for R and L roads this year is double that.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e42b0e-minister-ross-announces-525-million-for-regional-and-local-roads/

I wouldn't be reading too much into any government forecast in January 2020 maybe if he put it out now it might be interesting. But 2019 was budgeted and I assume spent.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The motorway network alone has cost 12 - 16 billon to construct.

Mainly paid for by EU funding, but they did miss a trick when building them, they could probably ( no idea how much extra it would have cost for land etc. ) have put a 1 meter pathway on each side for cyclists, though I suspect there are some rules about how close a cycleway can be to a motorway to avoid you all inhaling fumes

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, no drugs at all - but what bit of 'black or navy environment' doesn't describe night time for you? It seems like a fairly obvious connection to me.

Why do you persist in removing the reference to burgandy backgrounds, you sure you're not on drugs?

It's fascinating to see the difference between efforts that you go to in order to downplay the need for hi-vis for cars, including now the 'angle of parking' now, compared to your mad rush to make all cyclists look like builders. It's almost as if you're not as committed to the benefits of hi-vis for anyone other than cyclists, for some strange reason?

Reflective surfaces work better when in front of the light source, cyclist at night time would likely be more into the light source than the side of a vehicle with HI Viz stripes, do you really not understand how reflectors etc actually work. Maybe you should do some reading
https://reflectivetape.info/how-does-retro-reflective-tape-work/

No, no predator eyes, but I do have headlights which are handy for seeing people on the road. Do you not have these?

Yes but they (a) Don't work as well as daylight and (b) work better when a pedestrian is wearing something light or preferably reflective.

Yes, it is fascinating to see the difference in degree and nature of analysis of the needs of hi-vis, depending on the type of road user involved.

A side remark to someone else, no need for me to comment

The collection of five or six buses at the 16 terminus at Kingston in Ballinteer anytime I've passed would be pretty good evidence of this. I've seen buses waiting back as far as Lidl Rathfarnham. Before the lockdown, I never saw more than two buses waiting.

Interesting if true, perhaps they should check the timetables over to prevent it, I trust they aren't parked on the footpath?

You really shouldn't believe everything you read in the paper unquestioningly. It's easy to bump up the budget when you roll in a load of other works, including drainage works in particular in that particular case.
https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/28/irish-times-criticised-for-e20m-cycle-path-article/

To build segregated cycleways as most cyclists would like costs money, if you want Orcas and red tarmac only then fine, save the money for the HSE

magicbastarder wrote: »

in hindsight it's kinda funny, but i was recently ridden at in a deliberately intimidating manner by a cyclist, for standing in a cycle lane. the strange thing about it was, i'd crossed the road to see if another cyclist was OK (turns out the reason he had his bike upside down on the path because he'd crashed, not because of a puncture as i'd first guessed, and was bleeding from several places).
what made things even weirder again was that the cyclist who'd crashed knew the cyclist who had tried to intimidate me, and was now F'ing and blinding at me, and crashed cyclist was now trying to get him to calm down because i'd come over to help. so i left.

You sure it wasn't Andrew?

Can we got back to focusing on the important issue of obstructions on footpaths please?

Kingston - seems to be there every morning.

Beaumont Avenue x 2 - area with lots of elderly residents;

Barton Road East

Ballinteer Ave - usual white van replaced by a car

Spook_ie wrote:

You sure it wasn't Andrew?

That was my first thought also!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I would think that most cyclists take more of an interest in the real issues that cause death and injury on the roads, rather than imaginary issues.

Err wouldn't drivers seeing/not seeing them have a massive effect on this?

How else was the skip lorry supposed to collect or deliver the skip...this thread is ridiculous

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why do you persist in removing the reference to burgandy backgrounds, you sure you're not on drugs?

I omitted burgandy because it is an 'or' relationship - black or navy or burgandy - so removing any one doesn't change the validity of the other two. Now back to the issue - isn't nightime a black or blue environment?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reflective surfaces work better when in front of the light source, cyclist at night time would likely be more into the light source than the side of a vehicle with HI Viz stripes, do you really not understand how reflectors etc actually work. Maybe you should do some reading
https://reflectivetape.info/how-does-retro-reflective-tape-work/

Who mentioned side? The reflective stripes would be on the boot as well. That would definitely improve the visibility of parked cars at night (that blue or black environment you mentioned earlier), right?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes but they (a) Don't work as well as daylight and (b) work better when a pedestrian is wearing something light or preferably reflective.

Are you saying that you have difficulty seeing pedestrians crossing the road in daylight?

Spook_ie wrote: »

A side remark to someone else, no need for me to comment

And yet, you did.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting if true, perhaps they should check the timetables over to prevent it, I trust they aren't parked on the footpath?

It doesn't really make sense to change timetables for a temporary scenario. Yes, I did seem the parked on the footpath and bike lane outside Lidl Rathfarnham a couple of times, reducing the space available for social distancing.

Weepsie wrote: »

This is because cars on footpaths is an absolute real issue, everyday and nearly everywhere yet there is rarely any disdain or disgust shown for it, yet every so often there some in nonsense thread like this started

really

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057761511

motorists just don't all jump in on the thread defending them for any reason at all

ewc78 wrote: »

How else was the skip lorry supposed to collect or deliver the skip...this thread is ridiculous

If you need to take public space to do work, such as a pavement or part of the road, there is a legal requirement to request a road closure order, which would include details of the alternative arrangements to be made. In this case, they should have coned off a section of the road to be used as a footpath, with temporary ramps for wheelchair users, and possibly put in place a stop/go control, given that it is a fairly narrow road at the best of times.

That's how a skip lorry is supposed to collect or deliver a skip without endangering or inconveniencing other people.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Err wouldn't drivers seeing/not seeing them have a massive effect on this?

Err, yes, it would. That's why it's really important for the majority of drivers that use their phones while driving to put them away. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'the real issues'.

Weepsie wrote:

I'd love to have used the new dedicated cycle lane in the park today but some dumbass jogger and another rollerblader decided they'd take that too along with the 2 footpaths for them.

What!!!...1 runner and 1 rollerblader took over the whole cycle lane the full length of Chesterfield Avenue on both sides!!??

Pretty sure if you wanted to use it you could have. Less of the dramatics ffs.

SeanW

Weepsie wrote: »

I'd love to have used the new dedicated cycle lane in the park today but some dumbass jogger and another rollerblader decided they'd take that too along with the 2 footpaths for them.

You should have taken your cue from Andrew J. Gotti here and just cycled straight towards them. Pedestrians in Dublin are well used to jumping out of the way of aggressive cyclists.

Then you could come home to hijack a thread on boards to take a dump on motorists.

Weepsie wrote: »

Vast majority of them are related to car parks and how they inconvenience drivers parking.

The photos ran the gamut of people parking badly on roads/streets and in parking areas and there was little commentary in accordance with the thread rules.

But yes, it is the motoring forum, so if motorists travel to car parks and see idiots having abandoned their cars in bad/illegal ways, then many of them are going to look at that from the perspective of a motorist ... shocking and awful, I know. :rolleyes:

LeinsterDub

ewc78 wrote: »

How else was the skip lorry supposed to collect or deliver the skip...this thread is ridiculous

This is very easily fixed by erecting a temporary footpath. Something that could be done in a matter of seconds or having a stop go system in place

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

But yes, it is the motoring forum

it's the 'commuting and transport' subforum of the 'motoring and transport' forum, so calling it 'the motoring forum' is a little shy of the truth.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's the 'commuting and transport' subforum of the 'motoring and transport' forum, so calling it 'the motoring forum' is a little shy of the truth.

The thread referenced was in the Motors forum.

magicbastarder

cheers, didn't spot that.

The point of the post was that they're not supposed to be there. Mandatory cycle lane, meaning it is not for them to be in. And that's the point. Any time so etching is point in place, something else comes along to use it it in a manner it's not intended for. Sometimes this has unintended benefits, but with cycle lanes it's generally the opposite

Do you know what, I'm actually going to agree with you about the Phoenix Park. I was up there during the week and there is absolutely no need for anyone to run in the new cycle lane.
There are plenty of paths to run on in that Park.
Still don't think it should have stopped you using them though.

SeanW wrote: »

You should have taken your cue from Andrew J. Gotti here and just cycled straight towards them. Pedestrians in Dublin are well used to jumping out of the way of aggressive cyclists.

There's that reassuring clear open water again between what I actually said and what you try and twist it into, combined with your personal vendetta against cyclists, all in two short sentences.

SeanW

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.

What was there here to miscronstrue? You were very clear!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No-one said it is possible to have zero fatal incidents

Except ...

Zebra3 wrote: »

What should be the target of road deaths is zero.

How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?

Clearly looking for a mythical zero standard. And guess who thanked that post? So clearly you agree with a standard of zero road fatalities. Which you haven't proven is even possible, let alone reasonable or feasible. And which I've shown is not.

Is there anything else that you said that you say you didn't say, even though it's all there in black and white?

SeanW wrote: »

What was there here to miscronstrue? You were very clear!

I know, right? What was there to misconstrue? And yet, you've done just that - twice! So let's recap;

What I said was; "you'll be moving out of my way". What you said was; "just cycled straight towards them" - which is a different thing all together.

SeanW wrote: »

Except ...
Clearly looking for a mythical zero standard. And guess who thanked that post? So clearly you agree with a standard of zero road fatalities. Which you haven't proven is even possible, let alone reasonable or feasible. And which I've shown is not.

Is there anything else that you said that you say you didn't say, even though it's all there in black and white?

Again, you don't seem to be very good at details. There is a difference between setting a target and saying something is possible. There is also a difference between me writing a post and me thanking a post.

But more importantly, if you put half the energy that you put into nitpicking into actually thinking about this issues, we'd all be in a much better place.