Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

SeanW wrote: »

So your claims about Irish drivers "playing zoom zoom" are irrelevant at best, mendacious at worst.

Ah jaysus. There's no way you can keeping denying that Irish drivers break speed limits on a regular basis. And if you're going to argue "well no harm done by it, Irish drivers cause comparatively few deaths", then the same argument can apply to the very low number of deaths/injuries caused by Irish cyclists.

Fact is, this is a curtain twitching debate, not a road safety debate. You're upset over cyclist breaking rules not because they're killing people but because they offend your sense of law and order.

Here's the RSA free speeds survey : https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/RRD_Res_20190204_FreeSpeedSurvey2018FINAL.pdf. . It backs up what AJR was saying. When you get to the 30km/hr roads, 98% of drivers break the speed limit there.

SeanW wrote: »

The difference is no-one defends drivers going out with lights they don't use or that are broken. Even with malfunctioning lights, cars are still highly visible.

But cyclists do defend their "right" to go out dressed like a ninja and blend into the background. And then to blame others if they get into an accident as a result.

No-one here is defending people who cycle without lights after dark.

work

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Was out driving earlier. Saw a guy on a bike on the path, coming up behind a pedestrian. My heart was in my mouth. My god how's this going to play out. The pedestrian could be horribly injured or killed. Nah. He just swerved around her and carried on. I breathed a sigh of relief and drove on.

Was cycling on Friday and all the traffic is back. A psycho car driver came up behind me in the cycle/bus lane and close passed me breaking the not driving in a bus lane law and not close pass a bike law.

My heart was in my mouth ...then it happened again....then again.

Not to take away form your really scary "the pedestrian could be killed" quote but that is so unlikely its a joke whereas all the illegal passes I deal with are genuinely scary and could result in death.

The law should deal with both but proportionally. Fine the cyclist €100 and the cars €10,000 each "on the spot". This will sort both groups out. Lose the car or bike until paid!

[Deleted User]

SeanW wrote: »

Now, I fail to see what Andy's questionable 98% claim or silly old drivers in Galway have to do with this.
What does it have to do with the OP?

It has everything to do with the question of enforcement levels raised earlier. But if you do think it is off-topic, you are of course welcome to report the post to moderators, rather than becoming a back seat moderator yourself.

SeanW wrote: »

Old people very often give up driving as they age. It would be foolish not to think that might happen here.

That’s a fairly big assumption that you’ve made, based on a very short news report, given that you don’t know anything about the people involved, or what caused the incident, or what age the people involved are, or how badly they were injured. But it’s fascination to see your enthusiasm to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that there is nothing to see here, though you really know nothing about the incident in question.

SeanW wrote: »

Intent matters. That's the reason why attempted murder can be treated more harshly than manslaughter.
This driver did something incredibly silly. Dangerous, yes, potentially, but entirely accidental. Cyclists menace pedestrians etc as a matter of routine on purpose. And then they come to boards/social media and accuse others.

Yes, intent does matter, indeed. So just to be clear, can you please confirm if you reckon that the average pavement cyclist that we all see regularly intends to menace pedestrians?

SeanW wrote: »

This driver did something incredibly silly. Dangerous, yes, potentially, but entirely accidental. Cyclists menace pedestrians etc as a matter of routine on purpose. And then they come to boards/social media and accuse others.

Again, it’s fascinating to see your rush to sweep it under the carpet as ‘accidental’ and avoid holding anyone in any way accountable. You’ve no idea what happened here. They could have been drunk. They could have been trying to kill a cyclist or pedestrian after a road rage incident.
Of course, they probably weren’t, but you don’t know and I don’t know. So maybe let’s hold off on the rush to judgement until or unless some facts emerge.

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, even countries where best practice is followed to a much greater degree than Ireland, such as the Netherlands - they do worse than Ireland by some metrics in terms of road fatality statistics. And you called for Irish drivers to be uniquely subject to routine re-testing despite the fact that the country with the heaviest regulated licensing system - which has the closest to what you want - having worse road safety outcomes than Ireland by ALL measures.
So your claims about Irish drivers "playing zoom zoom" are irrelevant at best, mendacious at worst.

I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘best practice’ but it is clear from your initial reaction of horror to the prospect of regular testing that the skill levels of your beloved Irish drivers leaves a lot to be desired. Seriously, if most drivers are mostly competent, what you have got to fear from testing?
But regardless of all that, if retesting isn’t the solution, then what is your solution to reducing the death toll on the roads? [Hint: it’s not cyclists]

SeanW wrote: »

The difference is no-one defends drivers going out with lights they don't use or that are broken. Even with malfunctioning lights, cars are still highly visible.

But they would be MORE highly visible with hi-vis on all sides, right? That might give a few seconds extra notice to approaching cars at night, which might make all the difference. What’s the fundamental problem with hi-vis for all cars?

SeanW wrote: »

But cyclists do defend their "right" to go out dressed like a ninja and blend into the background. And then to blame others if they get into an accident as a result.

Could you point to any examples of particular posts on this thread where anyone defended their right to ‘dress like a ninja’ while cycling?
And it would be great to have some examples of those ‘unavoidable deaths that you mentioned earlier, or you could have the decency to withdraw that nonsense claim.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That’s a fairly big assumption that you’ve made, based on a very short news report, given that you don’t know anything about the people involved, or what caused the incident, or what age the people involved are, or how badly they were injured. But it’s fascination to see your enthusiasm to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that there is nothing to see here, though you really know nothing about the incident in question.

There's enough to surmise. Old person does something silly, their car rolls onto some rocks.

We can safely assume that the person responsible is not going to home thinking "gee I'm so great, I'm aging very well."

But hey, their misfortune gave you an opportunity to score cheap points, so that was always going to be the main thing. Which tells me all I need to know about you.

Yes, intent does matter, indeed. So just to be clear, can you please confirm if you reckon that the average pavement cyclist that we all see regularly intends to menace pedestrians?

I have to negotiate with two-wheeled lawbreakers all the time as a pedestrian and on more than one occasion, I've had to jump out of the way of a red light jumping scumbag.

Again, it’s fascinating to see your rush to sweep it under the carpet as ‘accidental’ and avoid holding anyone in any way accountable.

WTF are you even talking about? It was clearly accidental!

You’ve no idea what happened here. They could have been drunk. They could have been trying to kill a cyclist or pedestrian after a road rage incident.

And yet, you have no evidence of any of that. But there's good reason to believe it was as simple as "old person does something stupid, because they're old"

I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘best practice’

Most people - especially cyclists - would point to the Netherlands as an example of a country that is getting a lot of things right. And I'm inclined to agree. Yet per vehicle-kilometre, more people die on Dutch roads than Irish roads.

but it is clear from your initial reaction of horror to the prospect of regular testing that the skill levels of your beloved Irish drivers leaves a lot to be desired. Seriously, if most drivers are mostly competent, what you have got to fear from testing?

Two reasons:

All people have the right to fear overregulation that is unduly burdensome and desired only for the sake of causing hardship. And it seems to me that this is the only justifiable reason for your suggestion. You want to hurt people by bogging them down with stupid, excessive, over the top regulation, that would accomplish nothing.
International evidence shows that countries that do have multiple tests for motorists actually have more road fatalities, not less. Compare Ireland v. Canada.

But regardless of all that, if retesting isn’t the solution, then what is your solution to reducing the death toll on the roads? [Hint: it’s not cyclists]

Very simple:

Have laws that are fair and sensible.
Enforce them.

But they would be MORE highly visible with hi-vis on all sides, right? That might give a few seconds extra notice to approaching cars at night, which might make all the difference. What’s the fundamental problem with hi-vis for all cars?

Cars are lit up like Christmas trees. Not just at night, but increasingly during the day.

Could you point to any examples of particular posts on this thread where anyone defended their right to ‘dress like a ninja’ while cycling?

When Spook posted that picture of the jockey earlier that should have ended any debate about hi-vis. That it didn't, tells me all I need to know.

And it would be great to have some examples of those ‘unavoidable deaths that you mentioned earlier, or you could have the decency to withdraw that nonsense claim.

Any fatal accident that was caused solely by human error or unexpected road conditions. Also, all vehicular suicides. You can't stop someone from deciding that crashing into a tree at 100MPH is going to solve all their problems.

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm glad you and your relatives and friends live in the best possible houses. You can continue your rural vs city game by yourself. It usually ends by you telling everyone how nobody could possibly have better lifestyle than you eating some delicious noodles somewhere in the city centre for 7 Euro. So we'll skip to that and say nobody lives better than you.

Lol.. ok, glad you pay attention to my posts! And I'm glad you've discovered less car reliant ways of getting around during lockdown. You're edging towards the way I live! You should try and keep the cycling up going forward now. Much healthier for you and the kids.

Hopefully the noodle bar will be open and safe to visit soon, pm me if you want any good places to visit. x

SeanW wrote: »

All people have the right to fear overregulation that is unduly burdensome and desired only for the sake of causing hardship. And it seems to me that this is the only justifiable reason for your suggestion. You want to hurt people by bogging them down with stupid, excessive, over the top regulation, that would accomplish nothing.

International evidence shows that countries that do have multiple tests for motorists actually have more road fatalities, not less. Compare Ireland v. Canada.

.

Like mandatory hi-viz and helmet laws you keep advocating for despite there being zero evidence that hi-viz reduces accidents or that mandatory helmet laws only serve as a barrier to cycling thus reducing numbers overall and thus safety overall?

Or is over the top regulation that accomplishes nothing only an issue when it affects you personally?

SeanW wrote:

When Spook posted that picture of the jockey earlier that should have ended any debate about hi-vis. That it didn't, tells me all I need to know.

Reminds me of Shane Ross's attempt: https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/25/minister-ross-promotes-high-vis-with-deceptive-image-of-child-crossing-road-blacked-out/

SeanW

Stark wrote: »

Like mandatory hi-viz and helmet laws you keep advocating for despite there being zero evidence that hi-viz reduces accidents or that mandatory helmet laws only serve as a barrier to cycling thus reducing numbers overall and thus safety overall?

Where did I say cyclists must be required by law to wear hi-vis and helmets? I think I only suggested that they were very good ideas.

Give you an example, my car predates the DRL directives that came in about 2011 or so, as such, I am not subject to any particular rules regarding daytime vehicular illumination. Nevertheless, given that I am now starting to see more vehicles lit up during the day, and can perceive a clear difference in visibility between lit vehicles and unlit ones, I've taken to driving with my low-beams on during the daytime so that my car can be as visible as those with with daytime illumination systems.

The law doesn't require me to do this, but I do it because it's a good idea. Indeed, I would make the same recommendation to anyone else driving a pre-2011 vehicle. But when anyone suggests that cyclists do the same (i.e. be visible, protect yourself in case of a collision) cyclists jump down their throat. Why?

To be clear, I don't think that people driving pre-'11 vehicles should be required to drive with low beams during the day any more than I think cyclists should be legally required to wear hi-vis or helmets. Nevertheless, I regard the failure to do any of this as being something that should be called into question.

Or is over the top regulation that accomplishes nothing only an issue when it affects you personally?

So you agree that AJRs demand for driver-retesting is over the top?

SeanW wrote: »

Where did I say cyclists must be required by law to wear hi-vis and helmets? I think I only suggested that they were very good ideas.

Give you an example, my car predates the DRL directives that came in about 2011 or so, as such, I am not subject to any particular rules regarding daytime vehicular illumination. Nevertheless, given that I am now starting to see more vehicles lit up during the day, and can perceive a clear difference in visibility between lit vehicles and unlit ones, I've taken to driving with my low-beams on during the daytime so that my car can be as visible as those with with daytime illumination systems.

The law doesn't require me to do this, but I do it because it's a good idea. Indeed, I would make the same recommendation to anyone else driving a pre-2011 vehicle. But when anyone suggests that cyclists do the same (i.e. be visible, protect yourself in case of a collision) cyclists jump down their throat. Why?

To be clear, I don't think that people driving pre-'11 vehicles should be required to drive with low beams during the day any more than I think cyclists should be legally required to wear hi-vis or helmets. Nevertheless, I regard the failure to do any of this as being something that should be called into question.

No-one goes around bullying people for not having DLRs.

Issue I have with hi-viz is it started as something that was a "good idea" for cycling at night or in ****ty weather but now it's used as something to bully people for in all conditions. And you know, as soon as the majority of people are dressed head to toe in hi-viz in the middle of the day, people will find something else to bully people for. Or they'll move on to pedestrians as we're already starting to see.

It's also a distraction from doing things that make a real impact on cycling safety. Have a look at countries that are the safest for cycling and you'll see **** all people wearing hi-viz. If people can't walk/cycle around cities in the middle of the day without being dressed as builders then we've failed when it comes to road safety.

SeanW wrote: »

So you agree that AJRs demand for driver-retesting is over the top?

I think it's a good idea, no more evidence needed than that. Well I don't actually think that but it's as good as you're willing to provide for your hi-viz argument. The reason why you're not getting much love for opinion is that most people here have tried wearing hi-viz to protect themselves and all have had the same experience: it just does not work. People end up having the same accidents/near misses regardless. And yet you have bodies like the RSA who have the remit to make actual improvements to road safety fobbing people off with ****ty builders vests that they paid their buddies in Portwest a handsome contract for.

i bought my father a dayglo top from decathlon for father's day (i think my mother was happier with it than he was).

i did explain to him that the main purpose of a dayglo top was not to reduce the chances of him being knocked down, but to remove the excuse the driver would proffer that my father was somehow to blame for *not* having worn one.

I've had a few motorosts ask me where my hi vis is when they nearly run me over on my morning commutes. Apparently hi quality and rather expensive front and rear lashing lights are not enough anymore.

SeanW

My view is clear, there are things that are/should be required by law, and there are things that are a good idea. And it's like a Venn diagram. Some things are one or the other, or both. I can clearly see cars much easier - even in the daytime - when they have lights on, which is why DRLs were introduced. So I drive with low beams even during the day because I regard it as a good idea.

As to helmets, like I said in Post 1064:

I actually don't care. If you'd rather split your skull in an accident than a piece of plastic, that's entirely your business - as long as you don't cry about the injury you could have avoided or lessened when it happens.

As to hi-vis, if a motorist does things that put you in danger when you're wearing hi-vis, that's on them. To be clear, a motorist should be doing their best to observe things going on around them at all times, but if you've put in the effort to make sure that you do not blend in to the background, then you should expect motorists to give you a wide berth.

as is probably mentioned several times, most cyclists who are taking part in this debate do wear helmets but balk at the thought of a mandatory law.
and lights are an article of religious faith on the cycling forum.

FWIW, i bought a new helmet today and only copped afterwards that much of it is reflective, a happy accident.

meeeeh

John_Rambo wrote: »

Lol.. ok, glad you pay attention to my posts! And I'm glad you've discovered less car reliant ways of getting around during lockdown. You're edging towards the way I live! You should try and keep the cycling up going forward now. Much healthier for you and the kids.

You are so used of your own bragging that you think people who don't mention it constantly don't do it.

I'll leave it at that because anything more is just beneath me.

Stark wrote: »

Like mandatory hi-viz and helmet laws you keep advocating for despite there being zero evidence that hi-viz reduces accidents or that mandatory helmet laws only serve as a barrier to cycling thus reducing numbers overall and thus safety overall?

Or is over the top regulation that accomplishes nothing only an issue when it affects you personally?

Reminds me of Shane Ross's attempt: https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/25/minister-ross-promotes-high-vis-with-deceptive-image-of-child-crossing-road-blacked-out/

Except I don't think there's any photoshopping been done of the horse, it's still visible, also you can still see the reflective highlights of the hooves, stirrups, riders boots etc. And crucially the riders face in both images, just that the day glow used in Hi Viz makes it much easier to see and recognise a horse.

dark%20horse.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0

message i'd take from that is decent lights first, clothing second.

Oh and just in case you think they should use a grey horse instead of chestnut or reflective rather than just day glow

Laura-Birley-wearing-smart-professional-looking-hi-viz-clothing.jpg

Laura-Birley-wearing-smart-professional-looking-hi-viz-clothing.jpg

New-reflective-material-available-on-hi-viz-clothing-stands-out-when-a-light-is-shining-on-it.jpg

where did all the horses come from?
any horserider i know who hacks out on the roads would not go out in subdued light, they've even more stories about motorists than cyclists would.

We're back to the horse and the hi vis. Thank God.

https://www.facebook.com/105940904353125/videos/222636592222379/?vh=e

I still think it's crazy that our expectations for drivers have gotten so low that even a horse has to be dolled up in hi-viz. If someone can't see a large animal on the road, what business do they have having a license?

07Lapierre

What? Hi viz is supposed to prevent accidents right?

meeeeh wrote: »

You are so used of your own bragging that you think people who don't mention it constantly don't do it.

I'll leave it at that because anything more is just beneath me.

Calm down, it's just a bit of bants, I didn't mean to cause you offence with my love of suburban & urban community living! Keep the bike beneath you, that's all you need! Stay safe in your perfectly insulated, safe and soundproof house while I suffer in my dangerous cardboard box! :pac:

07Lapierre wrote: »

What? Hi viz is supposed to prevent accidents right?

https://www.facebook.com/105940904353125/videos/222636592222379/?vh=e

From what I can gather the Gardai don't operate checkpoints in fog. Ever. I can see now it's for good reason.

something akin to that nearly happened me once soon after the arklow bypass was built - a garda stepped out into the fast/overtaking/whatever you want to call it lane, and stood in the middle of the lane with his arm raised like jesus trying to stop traffic. i was doing over 60mph at the time and it was kinda sketchy getting to stop in time. he opened his gambit with 'you were going a bit fast to be able to stop in time there' which i was a little too bamboozled by to have any sort of comeback.

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZRXlrJ3Mi0

message i'd take from that is decent lights first, clothing second.

I already suggested that cyclists if they want to be seen should invest in Daylight Cycling Lights or if they don't want to go HI Tech then consider hi viz as a poormans alternative that will still have an effect on their visibilty.

Spook_ie wrote: »

This is what you said

<snipped>

Now as regards pedestrians and cyclists wearing Hi Viz, yes I said that I prefer them to, because it does (and it's a scientific fact) that Hi Viz renders pedestrians and cyclists more visible, now if you want to go the whole hog and go for the visible extras like present day cars feel free to stick a DRL system on you bicycle like these, but if you don't want to go high tech then go Hi Viz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMfQTgrPknI

<snipped>

magicbastarder wrote: »

where did all the horses come from?
any horserider i know who hacks out on the roads would not go out in subdued light, they've even more stories about motorists than cyclists would.

Did you not see the horses approaching the thread, even with all the day glow and reflective clothing, you mustn't have been looking in the right direction.

Stark wrote: »

I still think it's crazy that our expectations for drivers have gotten so low that even a horse has to be dolled up in hi-viz. If someone can't see a large animal on the road, what business do they have having a license?

All this time on thread and you've learnt ****all about visibilty as an actual thing Vs a percieved thing

I think there's a cohort of 'modern, important and busy' people that genuinely feel that there's no place for anyone on the road other than cars. A militant grouping or motorists that think roads were built just for them.

They believe pedestrians, kids, cyclists, horse riders, mobility vehicles etc.. should either adhere to their stringent clothing, safety & lighting etiquette or simply give up the ghost and all revert to cars.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think there's a cohort of 'modern, important and busy' people that genuinely feel that there's no place for anyone on the road other than cars. A militant grouping or motorists that think roads were built just for them.

They believe pedestrians, kids, cyclists, horse riders, mobility vehicles etc.. should either adhere to their stringent clothing, safety & lighting etiquette or simply give up the ghost and all revert to cars.

The preaching though is quite admirable.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The preaching though is quite admirable.

Monstrously long boring, non sensical, desperate, nit-picking, straw grasping, barrel scraping & blame shifting posts.

The games up.