Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Today's drive home:

At the lights on the corner of Baggot Street/Ely Place/Merrion Street. Cyclist illegally cycles towards Stephen's Green, through a red light (in fairness he couldn't see the red light - but only because he was cycling the wrong way down a one-way street), crosses Ely Place, clearly heading for (really narrow) footpath. Pedestrian has to step on to road to let him onto it.

Westland Row. Cyclist zooms past and straight through the junction, despite lights having gone red in time for the car in front of me to have stopped.

Amiens Street. Cyclist heading towards town, having a facetime video conversation on his phone.

North Strand Road, just before the fire station. Deliveroo cyclist on the footpath, forces two women pushing prams wide so he can stay on footpath, before speeding up as he hits the corner of Leinster Avenue and heads down the side streets.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Today's drive home:

At the lights on the corner of Baggot Street/Ely Place/Merrion Street. Cyclist illegally cycles towards Stephen's Green, through a red light (in fairness he couldn't see the red light - but only because he was cycling the wrong way down a one-way street), crosses Ely Place, clearly heading for (really narrow) footpath. Pedestrian has to step on to road to let him onto it.

Westland Row. Cyclist zooms past and straight through the junction, despite lights having gone red in time for the car in front of me to have stopped.

Amiens Street. Cyclist heading towards town, having a facetime video conversation on his phone.

North Strand Road, just before the fire station. Deliveroo cyclist on the footpath, forces two women pushing prams wide so he can stay on footpath, before speeding up as he hits the corner of Leinster Avenue and heads down the side streets.

Shocking! See post #1743

Thread is kind of pointless at this stage. Some cyclists break red lights and cycle on footpaths, including me sometimes. It causes zero harm, all it seems to do is annoy a few people like those in this thread, and I'm not sure why, I mean don't sweat the small stuff.
It is never going to be an issue that requires hands on policing, at most we'll get some cyclists dismount signs like they have in certain places. The garda and especially garda traffic corps have far more important and dangerous things to worry about, and always will.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Shocking! See post #1743

So, what's your point? Some cyclists will continue to be assholes cos cops won't enforce the law?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It is case of the "broken window syndrome". Allowing small scale crime go unpunished creates an atmosphere of lawlessness which facilitates bigger crime. Consequently, it is not a case of the police having better things to do.

Would you be in favour of the law below, or do you just think it's silly?

The Republic of Ireland maintains a jaywalking law, which requires a pedestrian to use a pedestrian crossing if they are within 15.24 metres (50 feet) of one

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So, what's your point? Some cyclists will continue to be assholes cos cops won't enforce the law?

Why are you still obsessed with something that has been made clear from the outset of this thread?

07Lapierre wrote: »

Pretty much yes. Same for all roadusers and all ROTR.

Drove past Castleblaney Garda station on Sunday. Plenty of cars each side and opposite parked on the footpath.

If you go into Google street view, there are 14.

Twitter is full of photos of Garda cars parked on bike lanes ffs!

Westland row at the Dart station is a real hotspot!

SeanW wrote: »

You say that this happens to you every time you cycle ... but in general are dangerous overtakes the majority? Or is it just a few motorists who do this?

Close to 50/50 would be dangerous and illegal. Go cycle yourself down the Maynooth-Dunboyne and get the close call with criminal motorists.

And if it's just a few motorists risking my life, is that ok with you?

Your attitude of playing down those who risk other people's lives is utterly vile.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Close to 50/50 would be dangerous and illegal. Go cycle yourself down the Maynooth-Dunboyne and get the close call with criminal motorists.

And if it's just a few motorists risking my life, is that ok with you?

Your attitude of playing down those who risk other people's lives is utterly vile.

Jesus, slow down - where did I defend dangerous overtaking? I asked you how common it was, because I genuinely am not familiar with your commute! And to be clear, I am NOT defending dangerous overtaking.

magicbastarder wrote: »

this keeps coming up.
*primary* school kids in the netherlands are nearly ten times as likely to cycle to school as *secondary* school pupils are in ireland.

a distinct reason road deaths are as low as they are is because more vulnerable road users have been, in effect, bullied off the road.

I have to call this at least partly into question, as a country does not get into the bottom 20 globally for road deaths by every relative measure unless its people are making at least some decisions correctly.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that your view is, at least in part, correct. What happens if we build lots of cycle lanes and all the bad motorists collectively decide to raise their game, so to speak, but the end result is slightly higher casualties? Would that be a good thing?

And what do you think all the motorist bashing windbags would have to say then? I think we both know that the shrieking from certain quarters would go from over the top to pathologically insane. I think we can predict that certain types would very soon change their trademark shriek to "MOTORISTS ARE KILLING 3 OR 4 PEOPLE EVERY WEEK! WE NEED REMOTE CONTROL OF EVERYONE'S CAR!!" It does seem like a no-win situation.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Today's drive home:

At the lights on the corner of Baggot Street/Ely Place/Merrion Street. Cyclist illegally cycles towards Stephen's Green, through a red light (in fairness he couldn't see the red light - but only because he was cycling the wrong way down a one-way street), crosses Ely Place, clearly heading for (really narrow) footpath. Pedestrian has to step on to road to let him onto it.

Westland Row. Cyclist zooms past and straight through the junction, despite lights having gone red in time for the car in front of me to have stopped.

Amiens Street. Cyclist heading towards town, having a facetime video conversation on his phone.

North Strand Road, just before the fire station. Deliveroo cyclist on the footpath, forces two women pushing prams wide so he can stay on footpath, before speeding up as he hits the corner of Leinster Avenue and heads down the side streets.

12 minutes for Andy to deflect. He's slipping. But I mean, after all, it would have been worse if they'd killed some of the pedestrians. Or even if a cyclist in Cork or Limerick had killed someone, then we could blame the Deliveroo cyclist for menacing the women with prams. But like virtually all journeys involving motor vehicles, nobody died. So let's focus on the motorists.

Am I doing this right?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it goes like this - drivers kill about 3 people on the roads each week.

Who killed them, individuals, or all motorists collectively? Or is collective guilt only OK when talking about one group?

But if you want to start with small scale crime, should we start with the 98% of drivers that break urban speed limits?

Or how about the scumbags menacing women with prams off the footpath? If I'm a pedestrian on Sean O'Casey bridge, do I have to worry about speeding motorists?

It's not so much 'us against them' as it is 'evidence against emotion'.

The evidence that Irish drivers compare well with not only Irish history, but also drivers across both Europe and the world? Or is it OK to ignore evidence when it doesn't suit your argument?

And don't forget the playing down the risk of motoring is combined with attacking cyclists as 'lawbreaking scum' and 'menacing with intent'.

So the cyclist who menaced the two women with prams on the footpath so they could play zoom-zoom ... did it by accident? Did the cyclist not see the footpath? Or that there were women with prams in their way?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Would you be in favour of the law below, or do you just think it's silly?

I would very much be in favour of that. As I would be in favour of fines for jaywalking. It might be a Central European thing. There is a joke British make about Germans that they will stand at read light waiting to cross even when there is no one around. Like that's a bad thing.

You won't get orderly behaviour on roads if it's ok to obey rules selectively. It's as simple as that.

meeeeh wrote: »

I would very much be in favour of that. As I would be in favour of fines for jaywalking. It might be a Central European thing. There is a joke British make about Germans that they will stand at read light waiting to cross even when there is no one around. Like that's a bad thing.

You won't get orderly behaviour on roads if it's ok to obey rules selectively. It's as simple as that.

Its a Joke...the real question is why a pedestrian light is red if there is no traffic?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

And of course it's a bad thing, that someone has to wait at the side of the road in case someone decides to drive past. Why should there be a hierarchy?

We should do as the Danes do:

https://www.sciencealert.com/copenhagen-just-installed-environmentally-friendly-traffic-lights-that-give-priority-to-buses-and-bikes#:~:text=Denmark%20Just%20Installed%20Environmentally%20Friendly%20Traffic%20Lights,Priority%20to%20Bikes%20And%20Buses&text=Bus%20passengers%20should%20see%20a,10%20percent%20quicker%2C%20on%20average.

07Lapierre wrote: »

We should do as the Danes do:

https://www.sciencealert.com/copenhagen-just-installed-environmentally-friendly-traffic-lights-that-give-priority-to-buses-and-bikes#:~:text=Denmark%20Just%20Installed%20Environmentally%20Friendly%20Traffic%20Lights,Priority%20to%20Bikes%20And%20Buses&text=Bus%20passengers%20should%20see%20a,10%20percent%20quicker%2C%20on%20average.

So between pedestrian and a bus who wins out?

You can be all indignant but if you have morons constantly jumping in front of public transport or cyclists, do you think that will improve things?

Anyway those who claim pedestrians should not be limited where to cross the road I invite you to test that theory on motorways.

meeeeh wrote: »

So between pedestrian and a bus who wins out?

You can be all indignant but if you have morons constantly jumping in front of public transport or cyclists, do you think that will improve things?

Anyway those who claim pedestrians should not be limited where to cross the road I invite you to test that theory on motorways.

I never suggested peds should be unlimited in wher to cross the road? i linked to an article which points out that the Danes have introduced lights that prioritise public transport and bicycles over cars. Peds would still have to wait to cross the road.

So the answer is the bus wins.

meeeeh wrote: »

Well your friend above flipped out about it and I think you liked some of his posts.

So i'm guilty by association?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How about beg buttons for drivers?
Lean out the window and press the button when you want to get through the junction.

And squeeze out any pedestrians or cyclists at the side of the road. You would actually want cars to endanger you more just so we would use dumb technology instead of sensors. Would the ambulances need to press the button twice just to make it a bit harder for them? Since you're on mission to endanger as many people as possible to help your stats anyway.

meeeeh wrote: »

And squeeze out any pedestrians or cyclists at the side of the road. You would actually want cars to endanger you more just so we would use dumb technology instead of sensors. Would the ambulances need to press the button twice just to make it a bit harder for them? Since you're on mission to endanger as many people as possible to help your stats anyway.

Not quite sure why pedestrians would be between cars at a junction? Cyclists maybe, but they're more likely to be on the passenger side than the driver side.

We could certainly give automatic overrides to emergency services and maybe buses. Isn't there something already in place to give buses priority at certain traffic lights.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not necessary for cars anyway. most junctions have the induction loops to detect them.

No, not necessary - but it would send a helpful message, wouldn't it?

SeanW wrote: »

But let's assume for the sake of argument that your view is, at least in part, correct. What happens if we build lots of cycle lanes and all the bad motorists collectively decide to raise their game, so to speak, but the end result is slightly higher casualties? Would that be a good thing?

And what do you think all the motorist bashing windbags would have to say then? I think we both know that the shrieking from certain quarters would go from over the top to pathologically insane. I think we can predict that certain types would very soon change their trademark shriek to "MOTORISTS ARE KILLING 3 OR 4 PEOPLE EVERY WEEK! WE NEED REMOTE CONTROL OF EVERYONE'S CAR!!" It does seem like a no-win situation.

You remind me a bit of this guy;



But if it did happen that we provided more cycling infrastructure and motorists are still killing people (which is very likely, given that most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists or passengers) or even more people, I guess we'd say something like; "Well shucks, maybe we should have listened to Andy when he kept banging on about driver behaviour?".

SeanW wrote: »

12 minutes for Andy to deflect. He's slipping. But I mean, after all, it would have been worse if they'd killed some of the pedestrians. Or even if a cyclist in Cork or Limerick had killed someone, then we could blame the Deliveroo cyclist for menacing the women with prams. But like virtually all journeys involving motor vehicles, nobody died. So let's focus on the motorists.

Am I doing this right?

You're nearly there. How about 'let's focus on the motorists because they're the ones who keep killing people on the road'?

SeanW wrote: »

Who killed them, individuals, or all motorists collectively? Or is collective guilt only OK when talking about one group?

Who mentioned anything about collective guilt?

Mind you, coming from the guy who started out this discussion with 'lawbreaking scum', I'm not sure you're in a strong position to challenge collective labelling.

SeanW wrote: »

Or how about the scumbags menacing women with prams off the footpath? If I'm a pedestrian on Sean O'Casey bridge, do I have to worry about speeding motorists?

Do you mean the scumbags who park on footpaths leaving no room for parents with buggies?

https://twitter.com/dublinblockers/status/1207952546360418305

No, you're right, SOC Bridge is one of the very few places in the city that you don't have to worry about speeding motorists or illegally parked motorists.

SeanW wrote: »

The evidence that Irish drivers compare well with not only Irish history, but also drivers across both Europe and the world? Or is it OK to ignore evidence when it doesn't suit your argument?

It's OK to ignore evidence when it's not particularly relevant. We're not trying to climb some European table to score brownie points here. We're trying to stop killing people, or at least kill less people each day.

That evidence hasn't changed. Neither has the evidence that cyclists very, very rarely kill people here - about one per decade since the turn of the century.

SeanW wrote: »

So the cyclist who menaced the two women with prams on the footpath so they could play zoom-zoom ... did it by accident? Did the cyclist not see the footpath? Or that there were women with prams in their way?

In fairness to Tauren, he didn't quite say 'menacing', that's your sole preserve there. And again, it's still not actually clear what you mean by that. Are you saying that cyclists on the footpath are menacing with intent to menace, or they are menacing with intent to continue their journey on the footpath? I'd be interested in your take on this.

And I'm not sure that you really get the 'zoom zoom' thing. An essential part of the 'zoom zoom' thing is having an engine that response with a zoom when you put the foot down or twist the throttle. It's a bit harder to play zoom zoom when you're dependent solely on your own power for zooming, so it doesn't really work for cyclists.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think traffic lights are there to stop drivers from killing each other. I recall seeing some clips from European cities during lockdown showing large numbers of cyclists getting through junctions with no traffic light controls and no real difficulties at all. Cyclists and pedestrians generally move slowly enough to find their own ways around without killing each other.

"“In the end, traffic light infrastructure is an infrastructure for cars, not an infrastructure for people on bikes and people walking,” says Glaser. “In locations with high levels of people on bikes and people walking, traffic lights maybe aren’t appropriate.”

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/amsterdam-traffic-lights-removed#

liamog wrote: »

I've noticed that on the continent, pedestrian crossings go green at the same time as traffic is allowed to turn. Whilst you'd think it would cause driver pedestrian conflict, instead it seems to work well. I think it trains drivers to look out for pedestrians at every junction instead of assuming the road will be clear.

I think New York would beg to differ, from here: https://www.smileylaw.com/articles/walking-the-citys-streets-nycs-pedestrians-face-real-risks.shtml

"Crosswalks are Dangerous, Whether or Not the Walk Signal is Illuminated

The NYDOT's traffic safety study notes that drivers who failed to yield to a pedestrian crossing with a traffic signal caused about 27 percent of pedestrian accidents. Another twenty percent of pedestrians were struck while crossing against a traffic signal (New York law requires drivers to yield to pedestrians regardless of signals). The study determined that left-turn pedestrian accidents are three times more likely than right-turn pedestrian accidents because of the greater risk of driver error during left turns."

In fact from the above, you are more likely to get run over by a driver when you have a signal :eek: