Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

1…5253555758…75

Comments

  • #2702
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    The issue is not losing momentum, the issue with badly designed cycle lanes is danger of serious injury or death for those stupid enough/inexperienced enough to use them.

    Good quality and well designed cycling infrastructure is used. I'd point out the Clontarf cycle lane and the Phoenix Park since they've removed parking from Chesterfield avenue. In case of the Phoenix Park all they had to do was get rid of parking which cost 0. Its also benefited pedestrians as the location of the old cycle lane and parking resulted in a lot of pedestrian cyclists conflicts. This resulted in the death of a cyclist in a collision with a pedestrian on the old cycle lane.

    Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path. :confused:

    The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...


  • #2703
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I pass a farm everyday, that doesn't mean i know anything about Farming!

    Come back to us when you've cycled along this road every day for a few months. That is, come back to us when you know what your actually talking about.

    Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

    You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

    Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.


  • #2704
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,987 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path. :confused:

    The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...

    The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground. The people who would use it are the exact people you give out about cycling on the path.Then again that's what most cycle lanes in Dublin amount to. So if you are OK with the Fairview cycle lane through the middle of a park why are you complaining about cyclists cycling on the path. Other than a bit of paint on the ground there is no difference.

    Leafs on the ground are a problem for pretty much every form of transport. Trains have issues with leafs on train lines, cars have to drive slower through roads that are covered with leafs. Leafs dramatically reduce grip for wheeled vehicles and can effectively make the road surface act like ice. Bikes are no different.

    Thinking cycling at 40, 50km/hr is a sign of risk taking on its own just shows a lack of knowledge about cycling and using the road in general. It's all about context. For example there's a massive difference between going at 120km/hr on a motorway road and through a housing estate.


  • #2705
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i guess my attempt at light humour (the conflating the cycling on paths quip) was destined to end up with with Tauriendruid having a minor pop at me.

    but i've also yet to have explained to me why it's easier or safer for cyclists to take that path.
    the danger for cyclists is generally interacting with motorised traffic at junctions, and not on straight stretches of road. the configuration we're talking about here does nothing to make the junction safer for cyclists, it's about getting cyclists out of the way of motorists, plain and simple.


  • #2706
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    though to be fair, there's a nugget of truth in my comment about the cycling on the path.
    literally all they did there was run a line of paint along the footpath. nothing else, but somehow a line of paint changed a footpath into cycling infrastructure, and something that would have been considered a dangerous activity into what is now a safe one. paint is magic, indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

    You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

    Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.

    I know... I guess old age is turning me into a grumpy old man! I used to cycle along that road too and i thought it was fine at the time. but as you get older/more experienced your perspective changes and you see things differently.


  • #2708
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    PeadarCo wrote: »

    Leafs on the ground are a problem for pretty much every form of transport. Trains have issues with leafs on train lines, cars have to drive slower through roads that are covered with leafs. Leafs dramatically reduce grip for wheeled vehicles and can effectively make the road surface act like ice. Bikes are no different.

    Leaves float too...so if a pothole is flooded and covered in leaves, it can he hidden from view. Same goes for broken glass, read debris. etc. All can be hidden under leaves.


  • #2709
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,129 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I'd guess the families of the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year might have a different view. Should they not wear helmets too?
    Well this is a lie. Actually two lies in one.

    The number of pedestrians who died on Irish roads/streets last year was 27, not "forty-ish". Now, normally when someone mis-states statistics like this, a certain "benefit of the doubt" is warranted, but in your case, I don't think so.

    https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

    And your claim that those pedestrians were "killed by Irish motorists" is also a lie because it ignores pedestrian culpability in those cases. RSA research suggests that pedestrian actions or negligence may be the deciding factor in 70% of fatalities.

    https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

    Also from that research, a maximum of 2% of drivers involved in pedestrian fatality accidents hit-and-run so your claim in other posts of motorists "not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie.

    As to whether pedestrians should wear helmets, the data suggests that having an ounce of cop on is enough to lower an already infinitesimally low risk to even lower. Assuming the 70% figure is correct for 2019, then that means about 8 pedestrians died in accidents that were not their fault, and further that all motorists involved were punished in accordance with law because at most 2% hit and run. So ... (8/5,000,00)*100 = a fatality risk of 0.00016% for 2019. If we further assume that helmets would not have helped in some of those cases, the case gets even weaker. So ... no. Pedestrians don't need helmets. Just an ounce of cop-on.


  • #2710
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i'm not disputing the 70% figure for culpability, cos i haven't any good reason to, but it's a bit of a gap in a report like that there's no explanation at all on how culpability is judged, bar
    "The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012)."
    do they mean those files actually contain a judgement of culpability by the investigating garda? or does the researcher make that call based on the garda case notes?

    having seen some reports of high profile cases, i'd question the results of the gardai's investigations in some of those cases. whether correcting this would push the figures up or down, is obviously a guessing game too.


  • #2711
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground.

    Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,129 ✭✭✭SeanW


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i'm not disputing the 70% figure for culpability, cos i haven't any good reason to, but it's a bit of a gap in a report like that there's no explanation at all on how culpability is judged, bar
    "The culpability of the parties involved in pedestrian fatalities was based on the body of work completed using the Garda Investigation Files (2008-2012)."
    do they mean those files actually contain a judgement of culpability by the investigating garda? or does the researcher make that call based on the garda case notes?

    having seen some reports of high profile cases, i'd question the results of the gardai's investigations in some of those cases. whether correcting this would push the figures up or down, is obviously a guessing game too.
    IIRC they went by death certificates, and there was some missing data during the study period, so the figure might not be exactly 70%. But it's probably not far off. And it does underscore one point - not every pedestrian fatality where a motorist is involved is a case of "Irish drivers killing pedestrians". In fact, such cases are probably the minority. But cases of "motorists not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" that most certainly is the minority, and by a very, very wide margin.


  • #2713
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,987 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

    Ah this getting ridiculous. Traffic lanes aren't bits of paint on the road. Most Irish back roads don't even have paint.

    If you ever been to Ireland or pretty much any country aside from the poorest countries you'll see the design of footpaths and roads are very different. They are made of different materials and have different regulations ie a road has to be at least the width of most road going vehicles. With footpaths on the other hand don't have a standard width for a whole host of reasons. And that's just the start of the differences.

    So I'll ask again why do you have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? You obviously don't think it is dangerous otherwise you would be giving out about the cycle lane going through Fairview Park. That lane is a relabled footpath that still has all the potential issues of cycling on a normal footpath.


  • #2714
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.
    True, that.

    https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312


  • #2715
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of contraflow cycle lanes, but normally that means on a one way road, not just the other direction.


  • #2716
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    True, that.

    https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

    Well I suppose that they could move the temporary dividers onto the cycle lane ( that would seem to be aimed at eventually tying in with the no right turn except cyclists at the bridge ) but then you'd just have Twitter going mad about blocking cycle lanes with temporary plastic bollards.


  • #2717
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    To those complaining about cyclists that don't use bits of cycle path and how they are "holding up traffic"...

    Lets take the Nth Strand one as an example, since it was brought up by those complaining, and break down some stats a little-

    There's a nice flat stretch just before the uphill to the lights where the cycle path starts. I would normally hit the start of the uphill there at 30-35kph and might just under 30kph at the top (assuming lights are green),. That's a (conservative) average of 30kph in that uphill stretch. I'm far from a top cyclist so I would say thats a fairly reasonable speed for the type of commuting cyclist that posts on here.

    Imagine one such cyclist coming to the start of that cycle path who decides to stay on the road, and averages 30kph on that stretch with a bus behind them.

    Current speed limit on that stretch is 50kph (I would argue 50kph for a double decker bus going up that hill with a wall on one side and a line of cars on the other would be pretty inappropriate speed, but let's discount that and just go with the current legal limit).


    100m @ 30kph = 12 seconds
    100m @ 50kph = 7.2 seconds

    Assuming a worse case scenario where the bus is stuck behind the whole length of the 100m, and the lights are green at the top, that's a difference of 4.8 seconds.

    4.8 seconds ! Really lads? Really?

    And now here's the bonus part....

    Consider that if the bus was following behind the bike, and the bike was doing 30kph-35kph, the cyclist would need to slow down by at least 10-15 kph in order to safely enter the cycle path (with an 18 tonne vehicle approaching from behind - sounds delightfully safe).

    ...so the bus would also have to slow by the same amount, and then accelerate again after the cyclist was clear in the cycle path. By the time the bus has accelerated back up to speed, it could well have lost more than 4.8 seconds.

    So all in all, where faster cyclists are concerned, there's an excellent chance those cyclists going into the cycle path will actually slow buses more than if the cyclist remained in the bus lane, as well as being:-

    - slower for the cyclist
    - less pleasant for the cyclist (uneven surface, pedestrians, parked vehicles)
    - more dangerous for the cyclist (slowing down with an 18 tonne vehicle right behind you)


    Finally, it's 100 metres .... Why on earth would anyone in their right minds take a) more inconvenience and b) more danger to turn off the main road for 100 metres, only to have to stop and ask to get back on ? If it were a 2 or 3 km cycle track fair enough,. Hell even 1km of a half decent cycle track would have me sold to be away from traffic for a bit, but 100 meters ?


  • #2718
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,367 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    .


  • #2719
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    My cake is very big and can have many slices.

    I'm sure it's a very nice cake, though it is finite.

    So every slice of cake focused on cyclists on footpaths is a slice of cake not focused on reducing the death toll on the roads.

    Likewise, our legislative resources, our research resources and our enforcement resources are finite.


  • #2720
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »

    As to whether pedestrians should wear helmets, the data suggests that having an ounce of cop on is enough to lower an already infinitesimally low risk to even lower. Assuming the 70% figure is correct for 2019, then that means about 8 pedestrians died in accidents that were not their fault, and further that all motorists involved were punished in accordance with law because at most 2% hit and run. So ... (8/5,000,00)*100 = a fatality risk of 0.00016% for 2019. If we further assume that helmets would not have helped in some of those cases, the case gets even weaker. So ... no. Pedestrians don't need helmets. Just an ounce of cop-on.

    Try the same calculation for cyclists and let us know how it works out please.


  • #2721
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    gibgodsman wrote: »
    I cycle to work every single day to and from, sometimes to and from 4 times in a day if I go home for lunch. I literally never use the roads and always use the paths, I do not feel safe at all using roads and do not trust any drivers on such.

    I do not fly past anyone on the path either, I take paths that are usually fairly empty but if there is anyone on them I would slow down to almost a stop and let them past if they are coming towards me and otherwise I would slow down behind them to their pace and once the road is clear go on it to pass them

    In Dublin maybe its different, but in Navan its impossible to cycle on the roads and not fear for your life

    Are there no cycle lanes in Navsn?


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

    Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

    But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

    https://streamable.com/bjo2st


  • #2723
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

    Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

    But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

    https://streamable.com/bjo2st
    well... yes, per the thread title, yes.


  • #2724
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    The North Strand one brings you into a bus lane right before a junction with traffic lights and excellent visibility. No reason whatsoever to not use the cycle path.
    No reason whatsoever other than the many reasons pointed out in this post


    including the six tweets with photos showing examples of the blockages that cyclists have encountered on that route.
    Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?


  • #2725
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,004 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.
    Wow.


  • #2726
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,129 ✭✭✭SeanW


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Try the same calculation for cyclists and let us know how it works out please.
    Maybe once you've withdrawn your false claim about:
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    the forty-ish pedestrians killed by Irish motorists last year.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Another of those 'exceedingly rare' stale red breaking events today - unfortunately the traffic lights may not be 100% clear on the video.

    Nice lady in the Volvo drives past me in Stillorgan holding her phone up at the wheel in her right hand. She then blows through the very stale red light at the pedestrian crossing (with the old lady in the green raincoat just about to cross).

    But yeah, let's worry about cyclists on pavements.

    https://streamable.com/bjo2st
    So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?


  • #2727
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    SeanW wrote: »
    Maybe once you've withdrawn your false claim about:



    So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?


    Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!
    https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c


  • #2728
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    Well this is a lie. Actually two lies in one.

    The number of pedestrians who died on Irish roads/streets last year was 27, not "forty-ish". Now, normally when someone mis-states statistics like this, a certain "benefit of the doubt" is warranted, but in your case, I don't think so.

    https://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/RSA-Statistics/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

    And your claim that those pedestrians were "killed by Irish motorists" is also a lie because it ignores pedestrian culpability in those cases. RSA research suggests that pedestrian actions or negligence may be the deciding factor in 70% of fatalities.

    https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Analysis_of_road_user_groups/Pedestrian%20fatalities%20on%20Irish%20Roads%202008%20to%202015.pdf

    Also from that research, a maximum of 2% of drivers involved in pedestrian fatality accidents hit-and-run so your claim in other posts of motorists "not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" is also a lie.
    Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, it wasn’t 40 in 2019. There was what looks like a statistical blip in the numbers for 2019, down to 27. The average for the previous ten years was 37 pedestrians killed each year, closer to my estimate than yours. Sadly, given the increased numbers of pedestrian deaths already this year, I’d guess that that average will be climbing back up.
    You seem to have overreached just a little in your analysis of culpability.
    For a start, the question of culpability doesn’t change the facts that these pedestrians were killed by motorists. That is a factual description of what happened. Culpability is a different question, an important question – but it does change that actual fact.
    On the question of culpability, that presentation unfortunately doesn’t actually define the basis for their allocation of culpability, which is a bit of a fatal flaw. You also seem to have ignored the significant chunk of deaths they deemed to be jointly culpable – 26%. You also seem to be applying an analysis of 2008-2012 deaths to 2019 data – a little leap there.
    So it doesn’t really seem like a very sound conclusion.
    Now, back to you for your analysis of the risks to justify helmet wearing for cyclists?
    SeanW wrote: »
    So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. But hey, no-one died, so ... no big deal. Right?
    I suppose the difference would be that she’s supposed responsible for a couple of tonnes of metal, rather than 10kg-20kg of bike. That’s a fair old difference, right?
    namloc1980 wrote: »
    .
    Honestly, it’s a bit disappointing. It’s good to see some progress for sure, but an increase of €250 on the purchase price is just pi$$ing about – it does nothing to make eBikes reachable for commuters.
    SeanW wrote: »
    IIRC they went by death certificates, and there was some missing data during the study period, so the figure might not be exactly 70%. But it's probably not far off. And it does underscore one point - not every pedestrian fatality where a motorist is involved is a case of "Irish drivers killing pedestrians". In fact, such cases are probably the minority. But cases of "motorists not taking responsibility for their tonnes of metal" that most certainly is the minority, and by a very, very wide margin.
    I don’t think we need to redo the culpability argument again, so let’s focus on the responsibility question. We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits. We have the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel, like the nice lady in Stillorgan.
    So eh, taking responsibility?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Another lucky cyclist saved from being murderised by a bastard truck driver, turning, oh wait no that's not what happened!
    https://www.dumpert.nl/item/7953955_d793c23c

    Sure, they were both on the wrong side of the road! Oh wait, no, we're trawling the world to drag in anecdotal 'evidence' to try to distract attention from the actual facts of what's happening on Irish roads.

    Did the trucker not have any brakes though?


  • #2729
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,004 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I suppose the difference would be that she’s supposed responsible for a couple of tonnes of metal, rather than 10kg-20kg of bike. That’s a fair old difference, right?
    How many times has this lad had that explained to him in his time on Boards do you think? Its at least 20 times in this thread alone, he'll be back tomorrow saying the same thing, its pathological :confused:


  • #2730
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    So I'll ask again why do you have an issue with people cycling on footpaths? You obviously don't think it is dangerous otherwise you would be giving out about the cycle lane going through Fairview Park. That lane is a relabled footpath that still has all the potential issues of cycling on a normal footpath.

    Because it's against the law.

    Because as a teenager cycling along the path by the sea wall at Clontarf, I clearly terrified a pensioner who thought I was going to hit him, and gave out to me and my mate, and I thought yeah, that's pretty ****ty, I shouldn't do that. Empathy. It's a thing.

    Because I've been hit twice by cyclists on the footpath twice in the last 18 months.

    Because I've seen other pedestrians had to jump out of the way of bikes on the footpath.

    Because in the vast majority of cases, for adults, cycling on the footpath is completely unnecessary, certainly so in the city centre, and it's just laziness to avoid having to follow the one-way system.

    I'm not giving out about the cycle path going through Fairview because it's a bloody segregated cycle lane, which is what I thought we all wanted, and there's a pedestrian path there too, so the cyclists shouldn't be on the footpath part! This isn't rocket science.


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    True, that.

    https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

    That's an amazingly stupid design and I wouldn't dream of endorsing it for one minute.


  • #2732
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    my wife works (well, used to work, waiting to find out how permanent the WFH option is) in the city centre, and was saying you do *not* want to use the pedestrian crossings at the grattan bridge/parliament street/wellington quay junction without your wits well honed. she reckons she's witnessed several near fatalities there from motorists taking the piss or possibly genuinely just being dozy and misreading lights.
    one of her colleagues witnessed a pedestrian being knocked down, motorist completely in the wrong.
    and in the interests of balance, she's also shouted at cyclists too at the junction.
    apropos of nothing (i think that's the general ethos of this thread):

    https://twitter.com/J1Rooney/status/1286338662779826176


  • #2733
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Duckjob wrote: »
    To those complaining about cyclists that don't use bits of cycle path and how they are "holding up traffic"...

    Lets take the Nth Strand one as an example, since it was brought up by those complaining, and break down some stats a little-

    There's a nice flat stretch just before the uphill to the lights where the cycle path starts. I would normally hit the start of the uphill there at 30-35kph and might just under 30kph at the top (assuming lights are green),. That's a (conservative) average of 30kph in that uphill stretch. I'm far from a top cyclist so I would say thats a fairly reasonable speed for the type of commuting cyclist that posts on here.

    Imagine one such cyclist coming to the start of that cycle path who decides to stay on the road, and averages 30kph on that stretch with a bus behind them.

    Current speed limit on that stretch is 50kph (I would argue 50kph for a double decker bus going up that hill with a wall on one side and a line of cars on the other would be pretty inappropriate speed, but let's discount that and just go with the current legal limit).


    100m @ 30kph = 12 seconds
    100m @ 50kph = 7.2 seconds

    Assuming a worse case scenario where the bus is stuck behind the whole length of the 100m, and the lights are green at the top, that's a difference of 4.8 seconds.

    4.8 seconds ! Really lads? Really?

    And now here's the bonus part....

    Consider that if the bus was following behind the bike, and the bike was doing 30kph-35kph, the cyclist would need to slow down by at least 10-15 kph in order to safely enter the cycle path (with an 18 tonne vehicle approaching from behind - sounds delightfully safe).

    ...so the bus would also have to slow by the same amount, and then accelerate again after the cyclist was clear in the cycle path. By the time the bus has accelerated back up to speed, it could well have lost more than 4.8 seconds.

    So all in all, where faster cyclists are concerned, there's an excellent chance those cyclists going into the cycle path will actually slow buses more than if the cyclist remained in the bus lane, as well as being:-

    - slower for the cyclist
    - less pleasant for the cyclist (uneven surface, pedestrians, parked vehicles)
    - more dangerous for the cyclist (slowing down with an 18 tonne vehicle right behind you)


    Finally, it's 100 metres .... Why on earth would anyone in their right minds take a) more inconvenience and b) more danger to turn off the main road for 100 metres, only to have to stop and ask to get back on ? If it were a 2 or 3 km cycle track fair enough,. Hell even 1km of a half decent cycle track would have me sold to be away from traffic for a bit, but 100 meters ?

    So much wrong in so much post...

    It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

    It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

    Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...


  • #2734
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,560 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    do buses, on average, drive through that junction at 50km/h?


  • #2735
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    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.

    Because it's not open yet :rolleyes:


  • #2736
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    So much wrong in so much post...

    It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

    It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

    Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...

    Can we take it that you're equally concerned about the vast number of '5 seconds per bus' delays that occur every time a car or (more often) a van or truck parks in a bus lane to make a delivery? These are a fairly constant feature along the Camden/Wexford/Aungier/George/Dame St axis into town. I recall one day have a 'clean run' along that route, and doing a little dance at the end to celebrate - but every other day, there were Guinness or Bulmers trucks at the hotel on Camden St or the Long Hall, or the bread van at Five Guys or the Urban Plant crowd watering the plants at the Trinity Hotel or a combination of these.

    That's a big issue, right?


  • Advertisement
  • #2737
    engleburt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 33 ✭engleburt


    I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
    Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.


  • #2738
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,129 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Thargor wrote: »
    How many times has this lad had that explained to him in his time on Boards do you think? Its at least 20 times in this thread alone, he'll be back tomorrow saying the same thing, its pathological :confused:
    The standard excuse from cyclists for their lawbreaking is "nobody died, get over it" same thing is true here. And the hundreds of pics Andy has posted of inconsiderate parking (nobody died), so ... no big deal.

    As pedestrians, we put up with this crap from Irish cyclists as a matter of general routine, why should we be bothered by the occasional gob****e doing it in a car, given both how that played out and more broadly, the statistics that show pedestrians are very safe on our streets?
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, it wasn’t 40 in 2019. There was what looks like a statistical blip in the numbers for 2019, down to 27. The average for the previous ten years was 37 pedestrians killed each year, closer to my estimate than yours. Sadly, given the increased numbers of pedestrian deaths already this year, I’d guess that that average will be climbing back up.
    I suspect that it's 2020 that will be the outlier. The pandemic upset everyone's life and changed everyone's travel patterns, that's likely to have had some impact.
    You seem to have overreached just a little in your analysis of culpability.
    For a start, the question of culpability doesn’t change the facts that these pedestrians were killed by motorists. That is a factual description of what happened. Culpability is a different question, an important question – but it does change that actual fact.
    The statement is misleading. A clearly loaded term, it implies that the motorists actions were responsible for the fatality in all cases. This is clearly false. In many of those cases, the pedestrian killed themselves by being a muppet and the motorist was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A more accurate statement would be that:
    "27 pedestrians (that) lost their lives on Irish streets/roads under various circumstances" or something to that effect, but this statement has less punch than "Motorist killing pedestrians"
    On the question of culpability, that presentation unfortunately doesn’t actually define the basis for their allocation of culpability, which is a bit of a fatal flaw.
    If you have a problem with the 70% figure I suggest you take it up with the RSA. They don't have a mandate to cover for bad drivers so it's safe to assume they didn't pull it out of their backsides.
    You also seem to have ignored the significant chunk of deaths they deemed to be jointly culpable – 26%. You also seem to be applying an analysis of 2008-2012 deaths to 2019 data – a little leap there.
    They deemed the driver to be solely culpable in 26% of cases, joint culpability was 2% and unknown culpability was also at 2%. Even if we assign full fault to motorists in those cases, that still leaves 70% of fatalities caused by the pedestrian in some way.
    Now, back to you for your analysis of the risks to justify helmet wearing for cyclists?
    Well, for one thing, pedestrians spend most of their time on footpaths, whereas cyclists in theory are supposed to be on the street/road. And you all keep complaining about how horrible and dangerous it is for you to cycle with all the horrible Irish drivers that are out to get you :rolleyes: so it would seem to me that you should have at least some protection in the case of a collision. Like how motorists have crash-worthy car design, airbags and seat belts, I'd assume that having something between your head and the pavement or a car bumper would be a good idea.
    I don’t think we need to redo the culpability argument again, so let’s focus on the responsibility question. We have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits.
    And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. Provably so, and by a very large margin.
    Did the trucker not have any brakes though?
    So the trucker is responsible for the cyclist veering out in front of them with zero warning? Kind of like how every fatal collision between a motorist and a pedestrian is an example of a "motorist KILLING pedestrians" ...


  • #2739
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    So much wrong in so much post...

    It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

    It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

    Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...


    So much wrong with that reply....

    I listed factors which, when set against the ease of continuing staight on for 100m to the lights, means humans being humans will take the easier option.

    Not going to argue with you over how often that lane it gets parked in as I don't have the stats and I'm pretty sure you don't either - but its been blocked enough times as I came up there it to just make going straight the easier option.

    If you want to argue that a bus that coming up behind a cyclist can slow from from 50kph down to maybe 20-25kph and accelerate back up to 50kph (up a hill), all without losing 5 seconds then well then... yeah....

    Likewise, you want to argue that because you seeing some people using the lane must logically mean the infrastructure is not dangerous to use. That's a complete logic fail.

    If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

    With all due respect, I'm relating experience of using/getting on/getting off that particular piece of infrastructure, and I'm relating them from everyday experience of using the infrastructure, not just looking at it from behind the steering wheel of a car or from a bus. I'm not going to get involved in arguing the toss of those details with somebody who is coming from a position of little of no experience.


  • #2740
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Sure no one got hurt so its OK I suppose.

    https://youtu.be/xq6MtArnpKk


  • #2741
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,987 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Because it's against the law.

    Because as a teenager cycling along the path by the sea wall at Clontarf, I clearly terrified a pensioner who thought I was going to hit him, and gave out to me and my mate, and I thought yeah, that's pretty ****ty, I shouldn't do that. Empathy. It's a thing.

    Because I've been hit twice by cyclists on the footpath twice in the last 18 months.

    Because I've seen other pedestrians had to jump out of the way of bikes on the footpath.

    Because in the vast majority of cases, for adults, cycling on the footpath is completely unnecessary, certainly so in the city centre, and it's just laziness to avoid having to follow the one-way system.

    I'm not giving out about the cycle path going through Fairview because it's a bloody segregated cycle lane, which is what I thought we all wanted, and there's a pedestrian path there too, so the cyclists shouldn't be on the footpath part! This isn't rocket science.

    So a bit of paint and a law change suddenly make a cycle lane safe? As we have seen with the old pheonix park cycle lanes a big of paint and a legal designation did not make them safe. The decision to allow parking on Chesterfield avenue meant you had massive conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a death of cyclist on the cycle lane after colliding with pedestrian. Remember pedestrians are just as much a danger to cyclists as the other way around.

    For all your anecdotal evidence for how dangerous cyclists are to pedestrians the most recent death from a pedestrian cyclist collision was a cyclist. Give give you my own accedote from being clipped by a cyclist on the footpath (handlebar clipped my shoulder) the cyclist went flying off their bike and I barely noticed the glancing impact.

    The decision in the Phenoix Park to move the cycle lane into the vacated parking spaces had made the Park a far more enjoyable and safer experience for everyone.

    From a personal point of view I generally don't have an issue with cyclists going a long a path as long as they move slowly. Slow moving cyclists are no different from joggers and pose no greater danger if you.

    Given you are so law abiding and emphatic I'm sure you'll understand when cyclists use the roads which they are legally entitled to use instead of the dangerous/terrifying cycle lanes.

    If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.


  • Advertisement
  • #2742
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    do buses, on average, drive through that junction at 50km/h?

    On average, probably not, because they're driving between a stone wall and another lane of traffic, uphill, approaching the brow of a hill, and a junction with traffic lights, and quite often there'll be a cyclist slowing them down to maybe 15 or 20k.


  • #2743
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Duckjob wrote: »
    If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

    "There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

    versus

    "There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

    :confused:


  • #2744
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    "There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

    versus

    "There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

    :confused:

    Your easily confused! ;)


  • #2745
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.

    Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

    I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

    I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

    I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

    What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

    And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!


  • #2746
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,866 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.
    How did you work that out please?
    TaurenDruid wrote: »

    What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored.
    It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

    That's why it's ignored.


  • #2747
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    How did you work that out please?


    It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

    That's why it's ignored.

    So cycling on the cycle path not properly segregated from the pedestrian is worse than cycling on the road not being segregated from killing machines as you call them. So the pedestrians are the problem now?


  • #2748
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

    Here's a genuine question for you:

    Is your stance:

    a) I'll question behaviors I don't get and maybe by the answers I'll get an insight that I don't have at the moment .

    or

    b) I'll ask questions and then reject the answers I get and continue to try to assert my logic as someone who has little or no experience of the situations over the logic given by people who live and breath these situations every day.


    It seems like b) - You're questioning, but at the same time you're not willing to accept the answers to the questions, which renders the questioning pretty pointless.


  • #2749
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,987 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

    I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

    I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

    I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

    What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

    And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!

    But here's the issue what you consider to be a well designed cycle lane isn't up to scratch. To say you've been ignored all the responses that go into great detail about why a cycle lane might not be suitable. The people who decide if a cycle lane is adequate are the people who use it. If they don't use it, it tells all you need to know about its quality.

    And if you say you have no problems with cyclists using the road why complain about cyclists on the road ? If you agree that cyclists are entitled to use the road what's the problem? It shouldn't matter if they are on a cycle lane or the road because according to you, you consider them entitled to use the road. Therefore a cyclist on the road beside a segregated cycle lane is perfectly entitled to be on the road if I understand you correctly.

    Leaves covering the road are a massive problem for all forms of wheeled transport. They can stop trains from running, make road dangerous to drive if enough leaves cover a road(in an urban environment this will never be an issue due to the lack of trees and number of vehicles) they can hide pot holes or other obstacles. Again all this has been explained to you. Even if you walk down a path covered in leaves you'll have to walk slower. There is a reason leaves are swept off paths and roads. They interfere with the contact between a wheel/foot and road/footpath/rail. It isn't rocket science.

    I understand the issue with cyclists on footpaths and in most cases agree with it. But if want these cyclists to use the road you need to take the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Ignoring people give a multitude of explanations for certain decisions is not taking the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Which is important because if you can't listen and understand issues with defective cycle lanes you won't be able to sort out your core problem. Getting people off paths and onto roads means addressing driver behaviour and enforcing road traffic laws ie actually enforcing the 30km/hr zone in Dublin City centre etc. This is far broader issue than the causes of bad cycle lanes.


  • #2750
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    True, that.

    https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

    I can only assume that road/cycle lane is still "under construction" ? that cant be the final design..can it?


  • #2751
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,286 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    TaurenDruid wrote: »

    I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.


    Here's an example of such a bike lane:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drd93p8XcAEGuS0?format=jpg&name=medium


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement