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

TaurenDruid

Hurrache wrote: »

It's good that you're toning your exaggerations down too, you've gone from avoiding maniacs to just seeing them now.

"Avoiding maniacs"? What?

I think you have me confused with someone else...

Hurrache

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Then you're wearing dark glasses and carrying a white cane, mate.

Seriously, accept the challenge. Corner of Stephen's Green, post covid, any given weekday.

For what, to avoid them or just to see them? You claim you constantly have to avoid them.

Dig up, or continue to exaggerate and make up tales, the choice is yours.

LeinsterDub

meeeeh wrote: »

However I am also absolutely certain that carry on like in this thread will achieve nothing except more opposition to what you want.

Carry on like what? Pointing out high vis and helmets are bs? Pointing out that there are far worse things that go ignored on the roads every minute of every day?

boardise

Well this thread has certainly educated me. Cycling on footpaths is either a piece of harmless eccentricity or an essential ploy for cyclists to avoid being slaughtered in vast numbers by maniacal motorists. Any ensuing danger or inconvenience to pedestrians can be blithely ignored or dismissed with flippancy because let's face it -

Bike Lives Matter.

Pinch Flat

Hurrache wrote: »

For what, to avoid them or just to see them? You claim you constantly have to avoid them.

Dig up, or continue to exaggerate and make up tails, the choice is yours.

Hyperbole seems to be strong when describing cycling. I dunno is it to deflect focus from what's really going on our roads.

LeinsterDub

Spook_ie wrote: »

Funny you should mention that

That doesn't support your claim in the slightest

Spook_ie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That doesn't support your claim in the slightest

Which claim, the one where I dispute all the cyclists that say they cause zero harm in collisions with pedestrians?

Spook_ie

Interesting article, wonder if any of the Twitter abusers are also Boards.ie members. Anyone want to fess up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opinion-cyclists-need-to-learn-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which claim, the one where I dispute all the cyclists that say they cause zero harm in collisions with pedestrians?

Can you please point to the specific posts where cyclists said "they cause zero harm in collisions with pedestrians"?

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Seriously, accept the challenge. Corner of Stephen's Green, post covid, any given weekday.

Here's a challenge - you count the cyclists on the footpath and I'll count the drivers with a phone illegally in their hand or on their lap.

Who do you think is going to top the poll?

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tii.ie/tii-library/road-safety/Road%2520Safety%2520Research/Collision-Data-and-International-Benchmarking.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikxpC0_ZPqAhXSThUIHcvxDcEQFjABegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw28EQcrUR-Qk9Faj0Cs3u9-

Chapter 4 is the one you're interested in, especially where they use the word "supposed", by the way of the 3 instances of the word "supposed" 2 of them are in chapter 4 which is specific to Ireland, so yeah I do suspect that not all road (except fatal) incidents are recorded correctly ( if at all )

As regards HIPE it would appear that it doesn't get into RSA hands see recommendation 12

One would hope that things have improved in the last 8 years but I wouldn't be betting much on it

Interesting report, thanks for digging it out. I'll have a good read later on.

But so what? What's your conclusion?

Are you suggesting that incidents involving pedestrians requiring medical treatment following incidents with cyclists go unreported while incidents with people requiring medical treatment after incidents with motorists are fully reported?

[Deleted User]

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm actually generalising. Three out of four people cycling are men as reported by Cycling Ireland...

http://www.cyclingireland.ie/cycling-news-item/cycling-gender-gap-men-more-likely-to-cycle-daily-in-ireland/5555

You might get insulted but my point stands. There is even an acronym for it and used often (not by me, I think it's stupid). Cycling is a fashionable (I mean that in a good way) activity but not the one represented by people who attract much sympathy. You might think Andrew's repetitive novels, jokes about hi viz or dismissive attitude towards anyone who dares to criticise something work but the truth is they don't make one tiny bit of difference. If they did cycling infrastructure would be better here.

It's awful to see how many women have been scared off the road, isn't it?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

There's never a guard around when you need one. I have seen them nab a guy once for cycling through the pedestrian lights there, but that's about it.

Pears St Garda St is only down the road. Why not drop in and telL them their are “rogue” cyclist cycling recklessly at the top of Grafton st and ask them to do something about it? Nah I wouldn’t either, couldn’t be bothered TBH. Now if a car drove down Grafton St at speed? That I would report... and I suspect a lot of other people would also and I suspect the Gardai would respond.

Thargor

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That doesn't support your claim in the slightest

Spook_ie wrote: »

Funny you should mention that

Sorry are you actually sticking by your claim that cyclists are killing people in this country and its going unreported and unrecorded?

TaurenDruid

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting article, wonder if any of the Twitter abusers are also Boards.ie members. Anyone want to fess up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opinion-cyclists-need-to-learn-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

Hey Andy and Thelonius - what are your Twitter handles?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you please point to the specific posts where cyclists said "they cause zero harm in collisions with pedestrians"?

I wonder what your acceptable level of harm is?

Cos we've already established one cyclist or pedestrian death caused by motorists is too many (we all agree on that), but nobody getting killed means "it's grand" according to you and Thelonius. So what level of injury is acceptable to you?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's awful to see how many women have been scared off the road, isn't it?

Yes it is. And you carry on here certainly won't attract many.

It's Dominic Cummings position. His actions were fairly harmless but it showed the plebs he above them and above the rules. That's the impression you are creating here. As someone who does cycle this is the attitude I don't want to be associated with. Many women, men, elderly, children will cycle more but don't expect their support because many of us don't like to be associated with people who consider themselves as above us and telling us about the rules we have to obey and they (you) don't.

Spook_ie

Thargor wrote: »

Sorry are you actually sticking by your claim that cyclists are killing people in this country and its going unreported and unrecorded?

No that was a typo including the word killed instead of just injured. I do stand by people being injured and unreported, probably uncatalogued as being more than zero, something which you said

Originally Posted by Thargor View Post
Your claim that the only reason pedestrians in Ireland arent being killed and injured by cyclists (zero) at the same rate as they are by motorists (1-2 per week) is because they've adapted and all learned to leap out of the way of impending death at the last second is probably the stupidest answer to a post Ive ever seen in 12 years of posting on Boards.ie or the internet in general, congratulations.

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Hey Andy and Thelonius - what are your Twitter handles?

Try
https://twitter.com/monktheolonius?s=09 and https://twitter.com/feather_s_?s=09

Poor oul Brian - his head exploded when he found that all the evidence was against him.

Thargor

Spook_ie wrote: »

No that was a typo including the word killed instead of just injured. I do stand by people being injured and unreported, probably uncatalogued as being more than zero, something which you said

Well if its happening it must be on the same level as people being injured by washing machines because you just don't hear about it or see it anywhere outside of a few hysterical anti-cycling posters on here even in Ireland's litigation obsessed culture so Ill change that to effectively zero/statistically insignificant and stand by my original post you quoted that Seans claim about pedestrians only avoiding death by cyclists because they're "watching us" and leaping out of the way just in time being a completely idiotic statement.

ewc78

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting article, wonder if any of the Twitter abusers are also Boards.ie members. Anyone want to fess up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opinion-cyclists-need-to-learn-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

Pretty much sums up the attitude and the arrogance of some of the cycling cult on here.

Stark

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes it is. And you carry on here certainly won't attract many.

It's Dominic Cummings position. His actions were fairly harmless but it showed the plebs he above them and above the rules. That's the impression you are creating here. As someone who does cycle this is the attitude I don't want to be associated with. Many women, men, elderly, children will cycle more but don't expect their support because many of us don't like to be associated with people who consider themselves as above us and telling us about the rules we have to obey and they (you) don't.

This is getting ridiculous. "Women don't want to cycle because they don't want to be associated with people from the internet". Yeah right. They don't cycle because they feel unsafe on the roads and in many cases get harassed frequently when they're out on bikes. Issues that should be fixed.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Interesting article, wonder if any of the Twitter abusers are also Boards.ie members. Anyone want to fess up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/opinion-cyclists-need-to-learn-to-take-criticism-to-win-friends-1.3986314

Abusers? Does your definition of 'abuser' include 'people who present facts and evidence that challenge my own personal prejudice?

[Deleted User]

ewc78 wrote: »

Pretty much sums up the attitude and the arrogance of some of the cycling cult on here.

Yes indeed - they're all out of step except you and Sean.

meeeeh

Stark wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. "Women don't want to cycle because they don't want to be associated with people from the internet". Yeah right. They don't cycle because they feel unsafe on the roads and in many cases get harassed frequently when they're out on bikes. Issues that should be fixed.

I was never harassed on a bike in my life (I grew up somewhere else but I don't think attitude towards women is worse in Ireland.) I'm also not particularly frightened where I cycle however I did see some teenage girls cycling the other day and their skills were worse than my seven year olds. That can't be blamed on harassment but on lack of initiative to actually learn cycle properly. However I said they don't want to be associated with certain cycling groups not that they don't want to cycle.

Just to add I'm not excusing harassment which I find despicable and I was a victim of some serious stuff im my teens and twenties but I never thought that was good enough excuse not try or do something.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Abusers? Does your definition of 'abuser' include 'people who present facts and evidence that challenge my own personal prejudice?

If this were facebook or whatsapp, this would be where I'd insert the gif of the guy seated on a plane, doing the massive eyeroll and facepalm.

While Spook_ie is perfectly capable of answering for themselves, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Spook_ie is probably talking about the Twitter users who called the I.T. article author a ****?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's a challenge - you count the cyclists on the footpath and I'll count the drivers with a phone illegally in their hand or on their lap.

Who do you think is going to top the poll?

Neither drivers and cyclists should use a phone while driving or cycling. This thread, however, is about cycling on footpaths, not whataboutery.

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To help me to get to that conclusion, can you please tell me how often you see cyclists cycling dangerously on the footpath, with dangerously being the key word here?

Because for me, that is a very rare scenario.

Whether you think cyclists shouldn't cycle dangerously on footpaths has nothing to do with how often I see this happen. The lengths you will go to avoid answering my question are extraordinary. There's no trick or threat in it. Cyclists. Should. Not. Cycle. Dangerously. On Footpaths.

Strictly, they shouldn't be cycling on footpaths at all, but

I'm not addressing what is merely obnoxious behaviour.

That said, I have no problem answering your question.

I walk to and from work every day Mon - Fri (rain or shine). It's about 40 minutes, from the Dublin 9 area to the North Side of the Quays.

Between this and walking around the area in which I live, I'd say I experience or see an incident of a cyclist cycling at a speed on a footpath that risks injury to a pedestrian (and themselves probably) in the event of a collision about 2 or 3 times a week on average. Generally not in the city centre itself. Along the route.

I'm not counting cyclists who go through pedestrian lights that are against them when pedestrians are trying to cross with the lights in their favour.

I'm not counting young kids on bikes, and I'm not counting cyclists who cycle relatively slowly on footpaths, but if you don't get out their way they'll cycle into you.

magicbastarder

any particular hotspots for it?
(i'm curious if mobhi road features because the cycle lanes there are a mess. or phibsboro.)

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Neither drivers and cyclists should use a phone while driving or cycling. This thread, however, is about cycling on footpaths, not whataboutery.

If you reckon that a post is off topic, you should report it to the moderators and let them decide.