Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic

Yes, back on topic! Which is not "**** parking", cos there's already a separate thread for that.

No photos, cos I was driving.

Matched pace with a couple out cycling today, down the Malahide Road, all the way to the quays, and the turn up by the Brazen Head. They stopped at every light - even the pedestrian lights!

Did spot a couple of cyclists on the phone - Deliveroo and Just Eat - while we were moving. And one driver, while we were stopped. Several cyclists going straight through the pedestrian lights on red at the Ha'penny Bridge. Ten to 15 seconds after they'd turned, to be clear. No cars broke any reds. A couple of braver cyclists not arsed stopping for reds at a couple of the junctions, but no near misses, thankfully.

One Just Eat guy at a red, up on to the pavement and away off up the footpath on towards City Hall, but sure he saved a few seconds.

On the way back, one pedestrian, juggling, in the middle of the road, then walking through the stopped traffic, looking for change. Pedestrians, eh?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, back on topic! Which is not "**** parking", cos there's already a separate thread for that.

Wait, are we not talking about obstructions on pavements? Or should we only talking about the fairly small, generally fairly polite, generally agreeable to moving out of your way type of obstructions on pavements and ignoring the really big, really heavy, really dangerous ones?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

On the way back, one pedestrian, juggling, in the middle of the road, then walking through the stopped traffic, looking for change. Pedestrians, eh?

At least it wasn’t one of those bloody juggling cyclists – bloody menaces.
tenor.gif?itemid=14727402

FinnC wrote: »

That's why I cycle or run to clear the head and stress release. I find cycling and running great for that, would be lost without them.
To be honest though reading this thread I dunno what enjoyment some of you guys get out of cycling as some of you(not you to be fair) seem to be more frustrated by cycling than anything else.
One guy all he seems to do is cycle around getting annoyed by and taking pictures of cars on footpaths, maybe that's how he gets his kicks, me though when I go to cycle I go to get away from frustrations.

Maybe its different in Dublin, but I very rarely get shouted at by motorists or have near misses or any of that sort of that thing when I'm cycling.
Then again I'm not going out of my way to annoy or be annoyed by other road users.

Assuming that most of this is directed at me, let me clarify a few points;
• I use a helmet camera, so I don’t need to stop to take pictures
• Yes, I cycle to get away from frustrations too, and it is generally a great way to clear the head – but when the frustration parks on the path/cycle lane/inner section of the road, it is indeed a bit frustrating.
• I rarely get shouted at, though there are occasional motorists who shout or point, as they seem to be under the misguided impression that their journey is somehow more important than my journey.

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually it was stab in the dark it just seemed to me that the same smug back slapping was going on here. It's always the same type, a 30 but more likely 40+ man in some middle management job, possibly public sector where they can feel self important. Of course they have an SUV because it portraits active lifestyle and active lifestyle really doesn't count unless everyone knows you have it. You can't drive to Kerry in a saloon or Ford Focus. I would be pretty sure I described almost all cycling warriors here except one who is a woman.
Anyway I'm sure you will persuade all the people who are just like you.

I wouldn’t be applying for that job in the BAU at the FBI just yet. Your profile is about 30% accurate for me anyway.
But you do raise a good point about the low numbers of female cyclists, of young cyclists, particularly schoolkids and schoolgirls (we have more secondary school students who drive themselves to school than cycle to school) and older cyclists. The hostile, car-dominated environment that we’ve allowed to build up is a big part of the problem here.
My aim is not really about making my cycle easier. It is about making cycling a viable options for more people, for kids, and parents with new-borns (as I saw in Amsterdam last year), for older people and people with disabilities, particularly as eBikes can be used to give some more oomph as required.
But anyway, back on topic – don’t you just love how the drivers at Dundrum View apartments, including Pollard property maintenance took as much of the path and as little of the road as possible, because it’s just so hard to steer around parked cars apparently.

And just a few more of the commercial van drivers of south Dublin who couldn't give a toss for pedestrians and social distancing.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah let's at least stop using mobile phones while driving cycling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvjPE39BFxg

Of course if we had put hi viz stripes on it as per AJR he would have seen it

To be fair that guy is a muppet! Thank god he was on a bike and not in a car!

Here's another muppet on a bike....

https://twitter.com/BasTietema/status/1270023257069101057?s=20

Zebra3

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it just me, or has this selfish motorist decided to block the footpath at the end of an actual cul-de-sac? :

Thargor

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually it was stab in the dark it just seemed to me that the same smug back slapping was going on here. It's always the same type, a 30 but more likely 40+ man in some middle management job, possibly public sector where they can feel self important. Of course they have an SUV because it portraits active lifestyle and active lifestyle really doesn't count unless everyone knows you have it. You can't drive to Kerry in a saloon or Ford Focus. I would be pretty sure I described almost all cycling warriors here except one who is a woman.

Yes Im pretty sure you've nailed it and dont sound like a bitter deluded lunatic in any way whatsoever...

Zebra3 wrote: »

Is it just me, or has this selfish motorist decided to block the footpath at the end of an actual cul-de-sac? :

Yes, you're right, a cul-de-sac with a walking route through to the next estate, and loads of room on the road.

What's your point?

cnoc

Last week my wife and I were walking on a walk/cycle pathway by a river, which is partially wooded. We moved to one side of the path to allow a fellow walker to pass by us. The 2 of us were just about to walk side by side again when this cyclist on a mountain bike zoomed past from the rear. There was no indication from him that he was passing us and if one of us had moved sideways, we would/could have been seriously injured. What do you cyclists normally do to warn a walker when approaching from the rear?

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair that guy is a muppet! Thank god he was on a bike and not in a car!

Here's another muppet on a bike....

First one is fake. Andrew told us, he never sees cyclists with phones! Wait, sorry, let me rephrase... never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling, because if you have a phone in an armband or attached to your handlebars you have a phone but you're not using it and this distinction is really important to pedants.

cnoc wrote: »

Last week my wife and I were walking on a walk/cycle pathway by a river, which is partially wooded. We moved to one side of the path to allow a fellow walker to pass by us. The 2 of us were just about to walk side by side again when this cyclist on a mountain bike zoomed past from the rear. There was no indication from him that he was passing us and if one of us had moved sideways, we would/could have been seriously injured. What do you cyclists normally do to warn a walker when approaching from the rear?

I've had bells rung at me, apparently to indicate I should get off the pedestrian footpath and start walking on the soggy grass/mud, in order to allow the entitled BMW drivers, sorry, cyclists, to continue on their way, unimpeded, on the footpath.

That didn't really work out for them.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

First one is fake. Andrew told us, he never sees cyclists with phones! Wait, sorry, let me rephrase... never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling, because if you have a phone in an armband or attached to your handlebars you have a phone but you're not using it and this distinction is really important to pedants.

Ok .. whatever!

TaurenDruid wrote: »

First one is fake. Andrew told us, he never sees cyclists with phones! Wait, sorry, let me rephrase... never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling, because if you have a phone in an armband or attached to your handlebars you have a phone but you're not using it and this distinction is really important to pedants.

Where exactly did Andrew say this please?

magicbastarder

cnoc wrote: »

What do you cyclists normally do to warn a walker when approaching from the rear?

i'd usually call out a hello from maybe 50m back. can quite often startle people alas.
more usually relevant for me on narrow back country lanes.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd usually call out a hello from maybe 50m back. can quite often startle people alas.
more usually relevant for me on narrow back country lanes.

I've never worked out the best strategy for situations where a pedestrian drifts out onto the cycle lane part of the path. If you shout, they think you're aggressive. If you use an electronic bell like the Hornit, they don't link it to a bike and don't look around. If you wait until you're close enough for them to hear a traditional bicycle bell, they'll jump and panic and go any direction. If you don't give them any warning, steer your own path and go past them, you'll be told you terrorised them and scared the life out of them.

micar

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've never worked out the best strategy for situations where a pedestrian drifts out onto the cycle lane part of the path.

Cycling to work one morning, the cycle lane is off the road and runs along side the footpath......N11 past cabinetry .......pedestrians on the left and cyclists on the right.

So I'm approaching traffic lights for a pedestrian crossing a guy comes out through from a park (opening with pillars either side) and walks across the cycle lane heading to the traffic lights in order to cross the road. Never bothered looking to his left.

Anyway, I go on the brakes slow down and move to the left side I in order to cycle past and behind him.

As I passing, I say that he should look before stepping into the cycle lane.......he roars at me that I shouldn't be cycling in the footpath (the pedestrian side)......Anyway I just kept going....which I later regret cos he reacted like a pr!ck

I should have stopped, gone over to him to explain that I was in the cycle lane which he walked into without looking and had to weigh the risk and it was me who took evasive action to prevent a collision by allowing him to keep walking to the lights by moving to left and going past him from behind.

thenightman

I just call out 'You're in the cycle lane" when I'm still a decent distance away from them as bell tends to be ignored. Feck it, if people are that dozy it's not my fault if they get a startle. If they did similar in London or Amsterdam they wouldn't be getting a warning, but a bang of a bike instead.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did Andrew say this please?

Andrew doesn't explicitly pander to lawbreaking by cyclists. Andrew just engages in whataboutery, which is the same thing.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Did the motorist survive?

Probably, but if that video was taken in Ireland, there's a good chance the motorist is now off the road. Cyclists in Ireland normally demand "Strict liability" which means that in the event of any collision between a motorist and a cyclist, the motorist would be held at fault for insurance purposes. Ireland doesn't have Strict Liability of that sort written into law, but it is there by judicial precedent. Our judges largely regard themselves as Santa Claus in a black robe when it comes to personal injury claims, hence the cyclist was probably able to get a fat settlement from the motorists insurance. If the cars' owner had any problems getting insurance before hand (e.g. young, new driver, car more than 10 years old etc) there's a very good chance they'll not get insurance anymore.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So hi-vis for those two cars would definitely have improved their visibility, right?

No - working lights would have definitely improved their visibility. But in the end I was able to avoid an accident with the schmucks because I was observant and aware of the danger.

Except when they’re parked, with lights off, and no reflectors facing the oncoming traffic.

The majority of cars are parked in accordance with generally accepted parking conventions:
1) In a driveway.
2) In a car park.
OR
3) On a residential side street where on-street parking is expected.

Are you sure that hi-vis on the parked cars wouldn’t have helped to improve visibility for the very dodgy drivers? Surely it’s worth a shot?

I'd say that calling them "very dodgy drivers" is being generous. They shouldn't have been on the road.

Actually, most journeys drivers on Irish roads are doing very short distances. About 70% of journeys under 4km, a distance easily walked or cycled are done by car.

Most of my journeys by car are well over that and often involve rural R-roads. It may be different for others.

But regardless of all that, surely you can help reduce the risk from bad drivers by keeping them off the road erring on the side of having your car more visible (using hi-vis stripes on all sides) and not less, and parking your car only on public roads in driveways, car parks or residential side streets with lights off and no reflectors on three out of four sides? hazard lights being used if the car must be temporarily stopped somewhere that it is not expected.

Correct.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oooh, oooh, the guilt by association game. Can I play too?

Godwin's law is undefeated.

Would you like someone to explain the difference to you between 'a road tax' and 'Road Tax'?

I'll bite. Go for it.

There is no Road Tax in ireland.

"Motor tax" is Ireland's implementation of road tax.

You're entitled to question. You're not entitled (as 98% of motorists seem to think) to break the law for your own convenience or because you're a crap driver or because you get a little hard-on whenever you do the zoom zoom thing. You're not entitled to break the law, regardless of your questions.

You keep quoting your 98% figure. Yet the fact remains Ireland has among the lowest road deaths of any country in the world by any relative measure.

You cannot explain how all of this "speeding" is going on yet Irish road fatality stats are so low. I suggest the reason is simple. Lots of "urban" speed limits in the middle of nowhere = lots of "urban speeding" but because so many places with "urban" speed limits are in fact in the middle of nowhere, there is no road safety downside in many cases.

Do you have an alternative theory?

You're not getting a lecture from 'cyclists'. You're getting a lecture from me, one cyclist. I don't break every law in the book as a matter of routine.

You've never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control? Right? ... right ... uhh ... umm ... err ...

Yeah, I thought so.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did Andrew say this please?

Earlier in the thread. There's a search function.

micar

TaurenDruid wrote: »

FAndrew told us. never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling .

I rarely see a cyclist on the phone. Actually can't remember the last time.

I see many motorists on phones.....last time was yesterday.

micar

SeanW wrote: »

You've never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control?/QUOTE]

1) Mounted a kerb?

Yes every day coming home from work going up Mobhi.

2) Sailed through a red light?

Now.......no .... but perhaps when I cycled to school in the 1990s but that was 20+ years ago.

3) Disregarded a one-way directional control?

No.....Never had the need to.

Do you find the 2) and 3) hard to believe ?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Earlier in the thread.

That's a lie.

magicbastarder

it's funny how cyclists never cycle through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.

Seth Brundle

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

The triumph classic car owners club just passed me ( I was on my bike) about 20cars in convoy..TR6’s, TR7’s and a Triumph Stag! Lovely cars but blocking the whole road. Awful behaviour and not one hi viz jacket to be seen!

Zebra3

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, you're right, a cul-de-sac with a walking route through to the next estate, and loads of room on the road.

What's your point?

I would've thought it was obvious.

Parking on the footpath instead of the road in the end of a cul-de-sac.

A special type of selfishness in play there.

SeanW wrote: »

Andrew doesn't explicitly pander to lawbreaking by cyclists. Andrew just engages in whataboutery, which is the same thing.

Except that it’s a different thing, which is not the same thing at all.
But thanks for confirming that Tauren was way off target anyway.

SeanW wrote: »

Probably, but if that video was taken in Ireland, there's a good chance the motorist is now off the road. Cyclists in Ireland normally demand "Strict liability" which means that in the event of any collision between a motorist and a cyclist, the motorist would be held at fault for insurance purposes. Ireland doesn't have Strict Liability of that sort written into law, but it is there by judicial precedent. Our judges largely regard themselves as Santa Claus in a black robe when it comes to personal injury claims, hence the cyclist was probably able to get a fat settlement from the motorists insurance. If the cars' owner had any problems getting insurance before hand (e.g. young, new driver, car more than 10 years old etc) there's a very good chance they'll not get insurance anymore.

Could you point to any examples of cyclists getting a fat settlement from the motorists insurance after riding into the back of the unattended car?
Yeah, I thought so.

I'm still waiting for those examples of the mostly unavoidable road deaths you mentioned during the week too. Given your certainty that most road deaths are unavoidable, surely it can't be that difficult to put a few examples on the record.

SeanW wrote: »

No - working lights would have definitely improved their visibility. But in the end I was able to avoid an accident with the schmucks because I was observant and aware of the danger.

Though in the absence of working lights, hi-vis stripes on all sides would definitely have improved visibility for you and any other approaching traffic, right? You know most drivers aren’t as good as you, so surely you can see the value of hi-vis for all cars, right?

SeanW wrote: »

The majority of cars are parked in accordance with generally accepted parking conventions:
1) In a driveway.
2) In a car park.
OR
3) On a residential side street where on-street parking is expected.

Yes, that’s generally accurate, though I’m not sure of your point? Hi-vis stripes all round would still improve visibility of vehicles in all those situations, especially for those parked on public roads, often against the flow of traffic, so with no reflectors facing oncoming traffic. What’s not to like?

SeanW wrote: »

I'd say that calling them "very dodgy drivers" is being generous. They shouldn't have been on the road.

Yes, that’s generally true – and yet they are on the road, and similar drivers are on the road today and tonight. So surely hi-vis stripes all round would improve visibility for these very dodgy drivers?

SeanW wrote: »

Most of my journeys by car are well over that and often involve rural R-roads. It may be different for others.

It IS different for most others, as the Census confirms.

SeanW wrote: »

Correct.

So are you saying that hi-vis stripes on all sides doesn’t improve visibility of parked cars?

SeanW wrote: »

I'll bite. Go for it.

Well, one is generic and one is specific. Your earlier claims were specific, which were incorrect.

SeanW wrote: »

"Motor tax" is Ireland's implementation of road tax.

Now you’re getting places. Keep it coming...

SeanW wrote: »

You keep quoting your 98% figure. Yet the fact remains Ireland has among the lowest road deaths of any country in the world by any relative measure.

You cannot explain how all of this "speeding" is going on yet Irish road fatality stats are so low. I suggest the reason is simple. Lots of "urban" speed limits in the middle of nowhere = lots of "urban speeding" but because so many places with "urban" speed limits are in fact in the middle of nowhere, there is no road safety downside in many cases.
Do you have an alternative theory?

It’s not my 98% figure. It is the Road Safety Authority’s 98% figure, arising from a professional survey carried out by professional contractors. It is part of a trend of speed surveys carried out over the preceding decade, all showing endemic levels of speeding on Irish roads. They’ve also dones specific investigations into road death trends showing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths on Irish roads.

SeanW wrote: »

You've never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control? Right? ... right ... uhh ... umm ... err ...
Yeah, I thought so.

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting wildly that I hear? I thought the relevant standard was “break every law in the book as a matter of routine” so now it has shifted everso slightly to “never mounted a kerb, sailed through a red light, or disregarded a one-way directional control”. Can we take it that the author of this standard has never and does never break a speed limit himself, never pulls up on the path or on a cycle lane, never has a phone in his hand while driving?
Yeah, I thought so.

07Lapierre wrote: »

The triumph classic car owners club just passed me ( I was on my bike) about 20cars in convoy..TR6’s, TR7’s and a Triumph Stag! Lovely cars but blocking the whole road. Awful behaviour and not one hi viz jacket to be seen!

What colour were the cars? Any blue, black or burgandy ones?

Zebra3 wrote: »

I would've thought it was obvious.

Parking on the footpath instead of the road in the end of a cul-de-sac.

A special type of selfishness in play there.

Fully agree.

meeeeh

Thargor wrote: »

Yes Im pretty sure you've nailed it and dont sound like a bitter deluded lunatic in any way whatsoever...

Thanks.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What colour were the cars? Any blue, black or burgandy ones?

Fully agree.

The Stag was Brown. The TR7 was Red (ruby), and the TR6’s were blue/red/green etc. All were pretty dull couloirs TBH. Nice cars ... and great to see them being driven by their enthusiastic owners. Even if they are inconsiderate non tax paying belligerent gob****es!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a lie.

It is not.