Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

meeeeh wrote: »

I made a claim about road stats, you are nitpicking about use of word accident. You can supplement it by murder if you wish for what I care it still won't change the point about statistics. And yes I used accident because that would be the closest word for road incidents in my mother language translates to. Again you are just using that as an excuse to argue point I didn't make. So no I won't be bullied in some nonsense argument.

Frankly your dismissal of my explanation just points out to an ignorance about how certain things can be be lost or different in translation. My guess would be you do not speak any foreign languages.

Whether I speak another language is irrelevant.

In English the word accident implies that there is no blame.

In a thread about safety and one in which people are discussing who is to blame for a huge number of road deaths, it is of the utmost importance to use the correct terminology.

And nobody is trying to bully you. :rolleyes: If you feel I was bullying you, report my post.

I'll take it then you don't have any accidents to inform us about then.

Zebra3 wrote: »

I'll take it then you don't have any accidents to inform us about then.

I would consider the example I posted where a child crashed into a pensioner and killed her an accident. But you are right, the police there did find pensioner culpable for cycling on the sidewalk and child's mother culpable for not supervising child and for deficiencies on the bike (I don't know what courts will say). It will make feck all difference for dead pensioner but knock yourself out.

I'm also pretty sure some force of nature events would be considered an accident in every sense. Unless you are planning to fine the tree falling on the road or car/bike/pedestrian for being on the road to be hit by the tree.

And by the way according to the dictionary definition linked above 'accident' implies there is no intent not that there is no blame. So maybe educating yourself on the meaning of words wouldn't be amiss.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accident

accident
noun
UK /ˈæk.sɪ.dənt/ US /ˈæk.sə.dənt/

A2 [ C ]
something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone:
Josh had an accident and spilled water all over his work.
She was injured in a car/road accident (= when one car hit another).
Synonyms
collision (ACCIDENT)crash (ACCIDENT)smash (ACCIDENT) UKsmash-up UK

GT89 wrote: »

Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road.

In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.

100% agree, waste of money and inconsiderate to not use a cycle lane where people have gone to the expense and time to provide it.
With the same caveat that you used - if the cycle lane is safe. TBH I think where possible it's better to have the vehicles and traffic segregated completely. E.g. a wall or hedge between them, and in quite a few places it is possible. I would prefer to cycle away from traffic and fumes, can't see why there's not more push for it. Some of the South Dublin parks adjacent the N11 give a peaceful alternate to cycling beside noisy smelly traffic.
Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.

micar wrote: »

Stupid stuff by the cyclist or the van driver or both

Cyclist shouldn't have been oblivious to traffic but it's more the driver should have seen an issue emerging

Tea drinker wrote: »

100% agree, waste of money and inconsiderate to not use a cycle lane where people have gone to the expense and time to provide it.
With the same caveat that you used - if the cycle lane is safe. TBH I think where possible it's better to have the vehicles and traffic segregated completely. E.g. a wall or hedge between them, and in quite a few places it is possible. I would prefer to cycle away from traffic and fumes, can't see why there's not more push for it. Some of the South Dublin parks adjacent the N11 give a peaceful alternate to cycling beside noisy smelly traffic.

I must have a word with all the drivers on Grange Road and Ballyroad Road to let them know about the expense and time that went into building the M50 for them and how they won't use it - awfully inconsiderate of them.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.

If only the van driver had some kind of pedal or control that allowed him to slow or stop his vehicle when he finds he doesn't have room to overtake safely.:rolleyes:

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm also pretty sure some force of nature events would be considered an accident in every sense. Unless you are planning to fine the tree falling on the road or car/bike/pedestrian for being on the road to be hit by the tree.

If you go out driving in a red storm warning, and you crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

If you go out driving on the morning after a yellow or amber storm warning, and you fly around a blind bend and crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

SeanW wrote: »

But suffice it to say that some of those shouting the loudest about "road safety" are not really primarily concerned with that, but rather a broader agenda. And they've let the mask slip a few times.

Funnily enough, I fully agree with you there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

》snipped《 wish you'd answer one post in a post and not fvck off all over the thread, makes it much easier to follow

Spook_ie wrote: »

I dunno, but it just strikes me that if the Dutch think it's a good idea then it probably is, don't you think the Dutch have far more experience of cyclists and mobile devices than the Irish.

Well, if we're talking about changing laws and standards, the first thing we need is to know what problem we're trying to solve.

Spook_ie wrote: »

[

?

07Lapierre wrote: »

Making cycle lanes mandatory? The vast majority of our cycle lanes are not safe, not fit for purpose etc. That's why they are not mandatory.

Also, sometimes cyclists have to turn right...that's easier to do if your in the right hand lane.

If the cycle lane was mandatory I'd end up past ballymun and at the m50 flyover rather than being able to cross 2 over lanes of traffic onto collins ave.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you go out driving in a red storm warning, and you crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

If you go out driving on the morning after a yellow or amber storm warning, and you fly around a blind bend and crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.

Any event someone is not expecting is unexpected for them. Or is my understanding of word unexpected wrong? Let's look at dictonary:

If an event or someone's behaviour is unexpected, it surprises you because you did not think that it was likely to happen.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/unexpected

I can do word definitions all week. I find it quite entertaining.

meeeeh wrote: »

Any event someone is not expecting is unexpected for them. Or is my understanding of word unexpected wrong? Let's look at dictonary:

If an event or someone's behaviour is unexpected, it surprises you because you did not think that it was likely to happen.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/unexpected

I can do word definitions all week. I find it quite entertaining.

If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver.

Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver.

Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?

This is a thread about cyclists, so maybe we should actually be focusing on getting cyclists to take responsibility for their cycling, rather than deflecting.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

This is a thread about cyclists, so maybe we should actually be focusing on getting cyclists to take responsibility for their cycling, rather than deflecting.

What problem would we be trying to solve with that approach? The one death per decade at the hands of cyclists? Though indeed one of the two deaths in the past two decades occurred on the road, so it's actually half that rate - one death every twenty years.

So more people are killed by motorists in the average week than are killed by cyclists in the past twenty years. More people are killed by bees and wasps than are killed by cyclists.

Do you think we're focusing on one of the important issues of our time here?