TallGlass2 wrote: » You've never cycled this patch. Point blank you don't leave that part of the road, end of. I done it once and it was a ****ing disaster. Plus the wall is a good leg rest when stopped.
magicbastarder wrote: » I've asked you twice, and explicitly, to explain to me why you think it's easier and safer for me to cycle on that path rather than stay in the road? The lane is explicitly provided for cyclists. It's on the sign demarcating the lane. In terms of ease, staying in the lane is the brain dead choice. Choosing to leave the lane and then merge back into it where I explicitly have less priority would be an idiotic thing to claim is easier. And in terms of safety, how anyone can claim that it's safer to choose to yield priority, leave the lane, and then have to merge back into it - on the *inside* of left turning traffic - is astounding. One of the absolute golden rules of safe cycling in the city is to not find yourself on the inside of left turning traffic. That if you're carrying any decent speed, to take the lane through the junction. Now, maybe whoever designed that thought it might be a nice alternative for a nervous cyclist who wasn't going to be able to take that hill at a decent pace and were worried about being squashed up against the wall. If that cyclist wants to take that option, let them. But I won't. I've been at this long enough to know I'm safer and faster in the road.
micar wrote: » Can this thead be closed as it's not going anywhere and has achieved, as expected, nothing.
TaurenDruid wrote: » You're right, it's a mystery to me. How could anybody struggle to grasp this?!
TaurenDruid wrote: » /looks at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall /looks at road with cars and buses /looks back at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall /looks back at road with cars and buses You're right, it's a mystery to me. How could anybody struggle to grasp this?!
Thargor wrote: » Just for anyone not familiar with the area, this is the "cycle lane" that apparently cyclists should be using instead of the perfectly legal adjacent road and bus lane, it starts here like this:https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,43.4y,201.66h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and a few doors up, less than 30 seconds riding later it spits you back into traffic here in a way that would embarrass a county council in Somalia:https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3567953,-6.2438098,3a,75y,85.19h,71.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9gT1bRYXTuWyE028COTquw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 How could anybody actually struggle to grasp this?
magicbastarder wrote: » the weird* thing about that bus lane is that it quite explicitly is for the use of bikes too.https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,48.9y,183.22h,94.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 * i.e. not weird in the slightest
TaurenDruid wrote: » The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The key difference that you unfortunately still seem to be missing is that motorists do kill people on the roads, 2 or 3 people each week, mostly other motorists and passengers, but also a bunch of pedestrians and cyclists – while cyclists don’t kill people, or at least kill people very, very rarely – about once per decade.
Ah, the old passive voice – trusty servant of bureaucrats everywhere to avoid any sense of personaly responsibility – they ‘lost their lives’.
They were killed by motor vehicles. That’s an indisputable fact.
The question of culpability is worthy of further discussion
but the simple fact is that cars, vans and trucks are bloody dangerous,
The absence of any definition of culpability is a fatal flaw in any research report. The absence of a research paper, one that has been peer reviewed, is an even more fatal flaw (if there is such a thing). A PowerPoint presentation on its own is not a good way to present important research.
That’s not really the question you were asked though. You did a nice statistical calculation of the risks to pedestrians to show why they don’t need helmets, so I was simply suggesting that you apply the same statistical model to cyclists. Why would you be shying away from this?
That’s a relative measure. It tells you nothing about whether Irish motorists are taking responsibility for their vehicles or not. That fact that 98% of them are breaking urban speed limits would suggest that they’re not taking responsibility in law.
Have you ignored the question about whether the truck had brakes? Would that not be the appropriate reaction when something like that happens in front of you on the road? It didn’t seem like the truck braked at all.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Wait, is this Andy finally, finally admitting that footpaths should be kept to their intended purpose, i.e., use by pedestrians?! HALLELUJAH! Took you a while, but you got there in the end! Well done, lad!
SeanW wrote: » 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?
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » 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"
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. Provably so, and by a very large margin.
SeanW wrote: » 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" ...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » That's how it's done when you keep pavements for their intended purpose, and don't put the convenience of delivery crews before the safety of vulnerable pedestrians, and (in this case) cyclists.
TaurenDruid wrote: » I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.
FarmerBob wrote: » Those new cycle lanes are generally empty.
meeeeh wrote: » we meet obstacles on the road in all forms of transport.
Thargor wrote: » Except the amount of times you have to stop start when using a main road compared to using our pathetic cycle lanes is miniscule as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple different people with multiple examples over and over again , come on Dougal you're nearly there...
TaurenDruid wrote: » I responded to someone's ****e who said they'd have to stop and start all the time. Like that was some sort of terrible imposition, and not something every road user is supposed to do, all the time, when required.
Thargor wrote: » So... what are you whining about then? EDIT: Oh wait you switched to some other shyte mid-stream about traffic lights up at the IFSC because you didnt like the way your current whinge-fest about the alley blocked by a van being totally the same as cycling on the main road beside it was going, I see now...
TaurenDruid wrote: » Still never said it was. Sauce for the goose, like...
TaurenDruid wrote: » The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"... Hmm...
Thargor wrote: » Oblivious much? Get your crayons out for the fifteenth time: Its not against the Rules of the Road to cycle on the road even if theres a cycle lane present. Its Hard to explain these things when this is the level of understanding you're dealing with though:
TaurenDruid wrote: » If it's not blatant whataboutery, it's being utterly pedantic, putting words in people's mouths, or - as in this case - rampant exaggeration. Though... no, wait, you're right. Having seen the utter inability of most cyclists to stop at traffic lights at all, never mind when they're every few metres like at the IFSC, yeah. You may have a point about cyclists' failure to obey the rules of the road. Glad to see you admitting it, finally.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.
07Lapierre wrote: » Yeah I used to be an inexperienced cyclist too. When I look at that photo, I see an old narrow pavement with some paint on it. I see cracks in the concrete and green moss (which makes the concrete slippy if wet, or lethal in winter if not gritted by the council) On the other side of the wall I see a wide bus lane,which I'm perfectly entitled to use and I'm confident enough to cycle about a meter or so ou from the wall and I'm confident I can maintain 30+ kph up that hill. I'm confident I wouldn't delay any other vehicles no more than a few seconds. In short, I don't see ANY reason to cycle on that pavement.
Thargor wrote: » Or just cycle on the road where you can go 20-25 kph non-stop between your start point and your destination instead of stopping and starting every few meters and "just going round" every obstacle at walking pace like an idiot, tough decision.
TaurenDruid wrote: » So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here? What I'm seeing * On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that? .
TaurenDruid wrote: » So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here? What I'm seeing: * A path and road that date from - I think - the 1850s. Perhaps earlier. * A concrete path with a clearly marked cycle lane. * A delivery van parked on that cycle path. * On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that? I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.
