Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

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:

Um...

This thread has taken an unexpected turn...

Spook_ie wrote: »

How about I just ignore silliness and suggestions like yours. and wait for the reply from the person I quoted

1 Not all cars are LHD, therefore you would need two sets of buttons

2 Majority of cars are LHD therefore you would need to put a post with a button in the middle of the road.

I'm not sure if you've quite got the hang of this 'ignoring' thing.

Most cars are RHD in my experience in Ireland, but sure the LHD drivers can just stop and get out. What's the problem with that?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh? If you're there every day, then you're perfectly placed to see the amount of red-light breaking from cars and cyclists, and you'll also notice that cars do it for a couple of seconds, while cyclists go through at any stage.

How many video examples of motorists breaking very late reds will it take for you to realise that this is not true?

SeanW wrote: »

What use would motorist call buttons provide that would justify the enormous expense of installing them and the problems they would cause for every driver?

Your examples are all cherry picked. Most of us use the roads daily and see that most red light jumping by motorists is in the first few seconds of the red phase. No-one has denied that late stage RLJing by motorists occurs from time to time. It's just not the rule.

I dunno. Was out and about yesterday in the car. Every junction bar none the car on front of me jumped the red. Two were across green lights for pedestrians. Three cars streamed through on a red at one junction. So late that the traffic coming the other way had to slow to let the last car pass. Red light jumping by motorists is almost normalised now to the extent that if you don't speed up when the light goes red, you run a real chance of being rear ended. Saw a few cyclists breaking reds ad well. At this stage all groups of road users are doing it. I don't know why motorists get so wound up about cyclists breaking reds, because you'll rarely see motorists crib about other motorists breaking reds

Jesus Christ can you not even think about it for a second? They're not the same thing. When a cyclist runs a red light nothing happens and if it does its only to themselves, when a driver runs a red light innocent people get killed, over and over again:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/truck-driver-who-broke-red-light-and-killed-pedestrian-21-jailed-for-three-years-39295075.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-24-who-died-in-crash-was-disqualified-driver-1.4118640

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/two-year-sentence-for-driver-who-killed-cyclist-after-running-red-light-34827328.html

Its okay for me to point a water pistol at someone, its not okay to point a loaded shotgun at someone, they are not equivalent, is it that difficult to grasp?