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

07Lapierre

micar wrote: »

Nothing better than cycling home past all the cars stuck in traffic. ............so long suckers

I'll be at home in no time sitting on the couch with a cup of tea and a biscuit and you'll all still be stuck in traffic.

Joking aside, it will be interesting to see what traffic is like once the summer is over, schools are back open, dark evenings etc.

All these new cycle lanes combined with people working from home should mean less cars our roads. But, with reduced capacity on public transport and the need to transport Kids to/from school? only time will tell.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/garretbaldwin/status/1281207659660746757

07Lapierre

Interesting... cycle lanes may increase house prices?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/on-your-bike-good-value-areas-to-buy-a-home-a-short-cycle-from-central-dublin-1.4298375?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhomes-and-property%2Fon-your-bike-good-value-areas-to-buy-a-home-a-short-cycle-from-central-dublin-1.4298375

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Well, I know that if I break a red light in my car, there's an excellent chance it'll be on camera and my reg plate will be visible.

How are we on cyclists having reg plates?

Yeah, not so much. So how do they get caught, exactly?

Excellent chance? There are no red light cameras operating in the State. The Gardai gave up dealing with reports from the Luas red light camera because they were so many.

So no, your chances of being caught are negligible.

Gardai don't seem to have any difficulties catching cyclists.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141

On the broader issues, here's a video representation of the point I was making to Sean earlier about the acceptability of road deaths.

https://twitter.com/fietsprofessor/status/1281216319044624384?s=19

magicbastarder

i'd missed that claim. to be fair, if you're a motorist, the chances of you being caught on camera running a red are 'excellent'.
in fact, i'd go so far as to say that it's *perfect* for motorists who run reds.

dashcamdanny

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/garretbaldwin/status/1281207659660746757

So who is taking this sort of thing on?

See it everyday , multiple times.

Cars , vans and trucks in cycle lanes ,bus stops and footpaths.

You also see Garda drive right by it. Even cycle mounted Garda.

It seems that hazard lights seem to make it "not an offence"

magicbastarder

there was a bit of a false dawn a couple of years ago when charlie flanagan's daughter - who i believe was cycling to college - tackled her dad on the topic, and he announced there was going to be a clampdown, called the gardai in to discuss how to do this... and nothing happened.

devnull

ecoli3136 wrote: »

I just realised that the opening post in this thread (which appears to have become a toxic mix of echo chamber and circle jerk) was posted by a clear troll, and is a clear troll post.

/thread?

It is not your job to moderate this thread. Back seat moderation and discussion of moderation on the forum is against the charter which applies to this forum.

If you have a problem with a post then please report it and the moderators will review it as soon as they are able to do so and take action if we have found the charter has been breached.

- Moderator

Thargor

Look at all those footpath hogging cyclists:

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406

FinnC

Thargor wrote: »

Look at all those footpath hogging cyclists:

https://twitter.com/Pidge/status/1281621235865190406

What is the point of these types of ridiculous posts? I've seen it a few times on here.
No one on here has said cars don't park on footpaths, its annoying when they do, and those cars in the above picture are arseholes,but being all smug about it and posting ridiculous comments like look at all these cyclists on footpaths and then showing a picture of cars on footpaths what's the point of it?
I really don't get it.

07Lapierre

FinnC wrote: »

What is the point of these types of ridiculous posts? I've seen it a few times on here.
No one on here has said cars don't park on footpaths, its annoying when they do, and those cars in the above picture are arseholes,but being all smug about it and posting ridiculous comments like look at all these cyclists on footpaths and then showing a picture of cars on footpaths what's the point of it?
I really don't get it.

The point is to highlight just how ridiculous the "problem" of cyclists cycling on the pavement is! It's a minor irritation, nothing more.

Pavements being blocked by cars on the other hand is rampant and is a major problem.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

On the broader issues, here's a video representation of the point I was making to Sean earlier about the acceptability of road deaths.

That video was among the lamest, cheapest piece of propaganda I've ever seen. No country has zero road deaths, aside from the tiny micro-state of Monaco.

Casey78

07Lapierre wrote: »

The point is to highlight just how ridiculous the "problem" of cyclists cycling on the pavement is! It's a minor irritation, nothing more.

Pavements being blocked by cars on the other hand is rampant and is a major problem.

Nope, its whataboutery is what it is.

Cars parking on footpaths is a major problem alright but using it as an example so you can condone cycling on footpaths is just plain old whataboutery.
I don't particularly care about cyclist's on footpaths to be honest, once they go around me and don't expect me to move then meh I could care less but that doesn't mean they should be there or that someone else may find them more than a slight irritation.
I agree with the poster, those type of smug posts are ridiculous.
Those cars in the park today were a disagrace alright before anyone thinks I'm condoning it <insert rolling eyes emoji>

[Deleted User]

SeanW wrote: »

That video was among the lamest, cheapest piece of propaganda I've ever seen. No country has zero road deaths, aside from the tiny micro-state of Monaco.

I thought you'd like it all right.

tenor.gif?itemid=7356334

The fact that no country has zero road deaths, or indeed, any realistic hope of getting to zero road deaths any time soon does not change the level of what is acceptable.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The fact that no country has zero road deaths, or indeed, any realistic hope of getting to zero road deaths any time soon does not change the level of what is acceptable.

So, you concede that a zero-standard is impossible (at least in the near term) but still claim that any fatalities are "not acceptable?" It sounds like your problem is with reality.

Of course if you could just wave a magic wand and no-one would ever die on the roads ever again while there were no downsides, naturally that option would be taken. Since that's not going to happen, your view of no deaths being "acceptable" is of questionable relevance to say the least, even if your main concern is even road safety to begin with, which is also questionable in light of some of your earlier posts.

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, because that's exactly what is being proposed.
the netherlands is an example which has slid back to the middle ages with their promotion of cycling.

The Dutch also drive, a lot, and they have lots of roads for driving and trucking. The Dutch have plenty of fietsstrats, but they also have plenty of roads and motorways to accommodate motorists (link) including this beauty.
The Dutch also have more fatalities than Ireland both per 100,000 people (2.9 vs 3.8) and more fatalities per billion vehicle-kilometres (3.8 Ireland vs 4.7 Netherlands).

I actually agree that we should do a lot more things like the Dutch, they really have figured out some things. But it's not this utopia where everyone cycles everywhere and no-one ever dies on the roads.

Thargor wrote: »

Cant find any? Im shocked. Im sure AndrewJRenko will be along shortly with some 4 wheeled examples for you though :pac:

Would video evidence suffice or does Google need to have caught them in the act?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhWSVvI1t3s

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I thought you'd like it all right.

The fact that no country has zero road deaths, or indeed, any realistic hope of getting to zero road deaths any time soon does not change the level of what is acceptable.

So have we determined that what is not acceptable is anything above 0?

SeanW

Or how about cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge? This poster found something like 41 in 46 minutes, at peak times when I used it, I could find 4 in the 1 minute or so that it would take me to cross.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpY0IqM1Wg

And there's plenty of signage to tell cyclists that it's illegal to cycle on the bridge, but more signage is often required to replace that which gets defaced/vandalised, most likely by people who don't like the law restricting cyclists from the bridge.

You want to know why motorists aren't keen to take lectures on "obeying the law" from cyclists? It's because we have to put up with crap like this.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

The point is to highlight just how ridiculous the "problem" of cyclists cycling on the pavement is! It's a minor irritation, nothing more.

Pavements being blocked by cars on the other hand is rampant and is a major problem.

You don't regard cycling on the footpath as a problem.

As a pedestrian who has been hit twice in the last 18 months or so by cyclists on a footpath - I and others do regard it as a problem.

TaurenDruid

Nearly injured my first ever cyclist while driving a car, yesterday. Although... nah, he nearly damaged my car is a more accurate way of putting it.

In a housing estate, doing about 25, passing a t-junction (I have right of way, a car is stopped waiting to turn right when I pass). Cyclist comes barrelling from side road on the left, on the wrong side of the road, only sees me at the same time as I slam on. He loses control of his bike and he (not the bike) hits my car. If my car hadn't been there, the turning car would have proceeded onto the side road and he would have hit the car head on. No injury to him, and in fairness he's all apologies as he heads away.

Bloke in his 30s, well old enough to know better. Don't know what he was thinking, if he was thinking, But if that had gone another way, it'd be recorded as cyclist killed in a collision with car, with the implication it was the driver's fault.

[Deleted User]

SeanW wrote: »

Or how about cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge? This poster found something like 41 in 46 minutes, at peak times when I used it, I could find 4 in the 1 minute or so that it would take me to cross.

If you look closely, you can see the streams of blood dripping down the bridge from all the people that were maimed by those menacing cyclists.

SeanW wrote: »

You want to know why motorists aren't keen to take lectures on "obeying the law" from cyclists? It's because we have to put up with crap like this.

You seem a bit confused. The people on the bridge aren't motorists. They're pedestrians. Yes, I'd guess that some of them are motorists, but they're not motorists on the bridge.

Likewise, I'm not a cyclist now. I haven't mastered the art of cycling while posting on boards, so I'm not a cyclist now while I'm lecturing you. In my life in general, I'm a cyclist, I'm a motorist, I'm a pedestrian, I'm a Luas passenger, I'm a bus passenger, and I'm occasionally a train user.

So will you take lectures from any of those?

SeanW wrote: »

Would video evidence suffice or does Google need to have caught them in the act?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhWSVvI1t3s

Dreadful cycling. It also points to the crazy situation of having buses and bikes and taxis indeed sharing lanes like this.

SeanW wrote: »

So, you concede that a zero-standard is impossible (at least in the near term) but still claim that any fatalities are "not acceptable?" It sounds like your problem is with reality.

Of course if you could just wave a magic wand and no-one would ever die on the roads ever again while there were no downsides, naturally that option would be taken. Since that's not going to happen, your view of no deaths being "acceptable" is of questionable relevance to say the least, even if your main concern is even road safety to begin with, which is also questionable in light of some of your earlier posts.

My problem is indeed with the reality of two or three people being killed on the road each week. Do you seriously not have a problem with that?

And yes, there are many 'magic wand' options available to us, like the speed governors used on buses and trucks - why aren't they fitted on all cars, or at least all new cars? Would that be too much of a 'downside' for you? Why aren't we making better use of tech for dynamic speed limiting, seeing as the average driver clearly couldn't be arsed about speed limits?

Spook_ie wrote: »

So have we determined that what is not acceptable is anything above 0?

What is acceptable to you? How many members of your own family are you prepared to sacrifice of the altar fire of making sure motorists don't have to obey speed limits?

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

《snipped》

What is acceptable to you? How many members of your own family are you prepared to sacrifice of the altar fire of making sure motorists don't have to obey speed limits?

Personal level none, reality ALL activities incur some degree of risk.

Should we fence off or cover all areas of water, after all drowning claims 100+ lives per year, should we ban farmers from farming, after all 18 fatalities in 2019, you seem to be infering that a mythical figure of zero is attainable when it isn't.

meeeeh

I posted an article about the accident that happened between child cyclist and older woman. Two other cyclists died in preceeding weeks, one went cycling into mountains and was found dead presumably after a fall. Another a man in his 60ies I think was hit by a train at night on protected railway crossing. The last one could be suicide and it's likely alcohol was involved. (A child was also injured but not killed after woman hit him on a road crossing).

It's easy to make simplistic statements about road users and blame everything on the cars and car drivers. Because there are still relatively small numbers cycling it's easy to do that in Ireland but in reality you have to expect reasonably responsible behaviour from all road users.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem a bit confused. The people on the bridge aren't motorists. They're pedestrians. Yes, I'd guess that some of them are motorists, but they're not motorists on the bridge.

Likewise, I'm not a cyclist now. I haven't mastered the art of cycling while posting on boards, so I'm not a cyclist now while I'm lecturing you. In my life in general, I'm a cyclist, I'm a motorist, I'm a pedestrian, I'm a Luas passenger, I'm a bus passenger, and I'm occasionally a train user.

So will you take lectures from any of those?

The pedantry is strong in this one...

micar

SeanW wrote: »

Or how about cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge? This poster found something like 41 in 46 minutes, at peak times when I used it, I could find 4 in the 1 minute or so that it would take me to cross.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpY0IqM1Wg

And there's plenty of signage to tell cyclists that it's illegal to cycle on the bridge, but more signage is often required to replace that which gets defaced/vandalised, most likely by people who don't like the law restricting cyclists from the bridge.

You want to know why motorists aren't keen to take lectures on "obeying the law" from cyclists? It's because we have to put up with crap like this.

I suppose the number of signs now in place has worked in the 9 years since the video was done as there's not one cyclist on the bridge from Google maps

In those 9 years proper cycling infrastructure has been put in place and there's a wall between the cycle lane and the pedestrian area to the bridge.

Cyclists on the bridge is likely to be less of an issue.

If you scroll over to the right.....fairly play to the cyclist in high viz with a helmet who has stopped at the pedestrian crossing allowing a number of pedestrian to cross the cycle lane even though he's the one with the green light....quite responsible of him.

Also ...... the other clip you put up is 8 years old........must have taken you ages to find those buried deep in the bowels of YouTube

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

Would video evidence suffice or does Google need to have caught them in the act?

You need to go back 10 years on Youtube to find something that you claim is an epidemic that affects you every time you leave the house? Well done, is that why you didnt post for 2 days? Time well spent there :pac:

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

You don't regard cycling on the footpath as a problem.

As a pedestrian who has been hit twice in the last 18 months or so by cyclists on a footpath - I and others do regard it as a problem.

As someone who’s been hit by a car and had to spend time in hospital and still have the scars, Cars are a much bigger problem. Cycling on the Pavement is illegal and inconsiderate. But it rarely leads to serious injury or death.

meeeeh

micar wrote: »

If you scroll over to the right.....fairly play to the cyclist in high viz with a helmet who has stopped at the pedestrian crossing allowing a number of pedestrian to cross the cycle lane even though he's the one with the green light....quite responsible of him.

What was he supposed to do? Plough through them? I'm no fan of jaywalking but that's what you are supposed to do as a responsible road user.

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Personal level none, reality ALL activities incur some degree of risk.

Should we fence off or cover all areas of water, after all drowning claims 100+ lives per year, should we ban farmers from farming, after all 18 fatalities in 2019, you seem to be infering that a mythical figure of zero is attainable when it isn't.

The main difference would be that people who drown generally drown as a result of their own actions, and farmers who die farming normally die as a result of their own actions.

That's not normally the case with those who die on the roads.

meeeeh wrote: »

I posted an article about the accident that happened between child cyclist and older woman. Two other cyclists died in preceeding weeks, one went cycling into mountains and was found dead presumably after a fall. Another a man in his 60ies I think was hit by a train at night on protected railway crossing. The last one could be suicide and it's likely alcohol was involved. (A child was also injured but not killed after woman hit him on a road crossing).

It's easy to make simplistic statements about road users and blame everything on the cars and car drivers. Because there are still relatively small numbers cycling it's easy to do that in Ireland but in reality you have to expect reasonably responsible behaviour from all road users.

I don't recall hearing about the level crossing one. I'd be interested in hearing more details if anyone has any particular details.

I did hear of a case in Wicklow where a cyclist came off during a steep descent. There was also a case maybe ten years ago where a cyclist cycled drunk on the M1 and was killed by a driver.

So yes, there are cases where cyclists and pedestrians are responsible for their own deaths - but they are few and far between.

Most road deaths are motorists killing themselves, other motorists and passengers. So it's hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those.

meeeeh

Sorry I wasn't talking about accidents in Ireland. That's my mistake for being unclear and those accidents aren't exactly relevant for Ireland I mentioned them as what can happen even when cars are out of equation. How common self inflicted deaths are probably a bit depends about who cycles and why they cycle. When numbers increase you can get larger share of people cycling drunk or elderly/kid cyclists making a mistake.

Charles Babbage

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you look closely, you can see the streams of blood dripping down the bridge from all the people that were maimed by those menacing cyclists.

Your oft repeated proposition that anti social behaviour is acceptable so long as people don't die is morally bankrupt. A civilised society regulates behaviour short of death.