Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

https://twitter.com/kenfoxe/status/1293139090691559425

07Lapierre wrote: »

Still, its better than this one!...

https://scontent.fdub4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/116255332_3244275428928725_7766705148008481815_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Lkfwj2tBCcUAX8YogGY&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&oh=71d2176083d2c5ba1a46461fe874e379&oe=5F59EDA0

Thats a unicycle lane obviously. Only one wheel on that!

magicbastarder

Stark wrote: »

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

SeanW

breezy1985 wrote: »

That house isnt wearing a helmet

Does the roof count?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Those dark brown bricks are impossible to see at night. All of us on (or bordering on) the road need to take responsibility for our own safety.

Nope, just those on the road. When I'm walking, I only have to worry about what's on the footpath. Like two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom.

Stark wrote: »

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

Wide loads are always going to cause a safety hazard, e.g. taking up both sides of the road and requiring very wide turns. So, yes, they're going to need to be announced, accompanied etc.

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kenfoxe/status/1293139090691559425

Little should I wonder. Ireland didn't have a functional driver testing system until a few years ago (and even at that, our system today only barely functions) that's bound to have left a few legacy issues.

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Little should I wonder. Ireland didn't have a functional driver testing system until a few years ago (and even at that, our system today only barely functions) that's bound to have left a few legacy issues.

My lad applied for his theory test last week, waiting list February 2021 :eek:

Decent segment on The Last Word on cycling earlier. Conor Faughnan from the AA, the vice-chair of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, and a motoring correspondent. Balanced debate, worth a listen.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Decent segment on The Last Word on cycling earlier. Conor Faughnan from the AA, the vice-chair of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, and a motoring correspondent. Balanced debate, worth a listen.

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

That's very unfair tbh.

They do house insurance as well :pac:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

****'s sake. Maybe because he's a cyclist? :rolleyes:

Try listening to the piece before commenting. He's firmly in favour of more cycling. Seriously, dude. The battleground mentality isn't doing you any favours.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

****'s sake. Maybe because he's a cyclist? :rolleyes:

Try listening to the piece before commenting. He's firmly in favour of more cycling. Seriously, dude. The battleground mentality isn't doing you any favours.

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

Can I ask that we not open that set of debates again re 30 kmph. It's getting really tiresome.

Welfare, immigrants and 30kmph speed limits.. it's all there is these days in boards.

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Pinch Flat

kenmm wrote: »

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Did we do insurance yet? Or "road tax"? Apologies if i missed it

kenmm wrote: »

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Was there ever any point in the first place?

SeanW

Spook_ie wrote: »

My lad applied for his theory test last week, waiting list February 2021 :eek:

Yikes, is that for his driving test or just the theory test?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO CYCLISTS! How many times do you have to be told this? Geez!

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Yikes, is that for his driving test or just the theory test?

Just the theory

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Did we do insurance yet? Or "road tax"? Apologies if i missed it

Insurance yes, some were surprised that a lot of cyclists have it already, some didn't believe they did and of course it isn't mandatory anyway etc

Weepsie wrote: »

If there was a strictly observed 30kph spped limit in the city journey times would probably in fact increase.

It's about traffic flow and it being predicable, and manageable. We'd need to entirely cut out the amber gambling though as every car that does that disrupts the expected flow and helps cause little tailbacks.

In theory, absolutely. Can't see it working in practice, though, when some light sequences literally let two or three cars through at a time and that's it. That really removes any incentive to stop on amber. (Disclaimer: I've only started commuting by car regularly since covid and I know DCC have changed a lot of the signal timings since it started. It might be better when the original settings are restored).

Weepsie wrote: »

If there was a strictly observed 30kph spped limit in the city journey times would probably in fact increase.

It's about traffic flow and it being predicable, and manageable. We'd need to entirely cut out the amber gambling though as every car that does that disrupts the expected flow and helps cause little tailbacks.

Did you mean to say that journey times would probably decrease?

Marcusm

07Lapierre wrote: »

SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO CYCLISTS! How many times do you have to be told this? Geez!

In a sense you are right in that it is impossible to accurately judge their speed. However, they can be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “riding... without reasonable consideration” each of which could be used against a cyclist in excess of the speed limit. I imagine such furious cycling occurs infrequently although cyclists (like all road users) are regularly furious!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWC8sT06Zi0

TaurenDruid wrote: »

In theory, absolutely. Can't see it working in practice, though, when some light sequences literally let two or three cars through at a time and that's it. That really removes any incentive to stop on amber. (Disclaimer: I've only started commuting by car regularly since covid and I know DCC have changed a lot of the signal timings since it started. It might be better when the original settings are restored).

Sorting out the amber gambling (which is evolving into 3-4 solid red light running) would be a major help in Dublin.
And yes, it means someone from planning has to get their finger out and do more analysis of light sequencing.

Duckjob

Marcusm wrote: »

In a sense you are right in that it is impossible to accurately judge their speed. However, they can be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “riding... without reasonable consideration” each of which could be used against a cyclist in excess of the speed limit. I imagine such furious cycling occurs infrequently although cyclists (like all road users) are regularly furious!

Yeah that's a catch-all like "driving without due care and attention", but the fact is it still makes no sense taking about people on bikes lack of adherence to a law that very specifically applies for motorised vehicles only.

It's just a dead horse being flogged by posters who, due to their mindsets against "cyclists", desperately want those laws to apply to people riding bikes for no rational reason. Not one cogent logical argument has been put forward here as to why they *should* apply to people riding bikes. Any that have been put forward have been dashed and in some cases undermined by the very posters trying to put them forward.

It's all purely grudge-based nonsense.

Duckjob

TaurenDruid wrote: »

In theory, absolutely. Can't see it working in practice, though, when some light sequences literally let two or three cars through at a time and that's it. That really removes any incentive to stop on amber. (Disclaimer: I've only started commuting by car regularly since covid and I know DCC have changed a lot of the signal timings since it started. It might be better when the original settings are restored).

What "incentive" do you need ? It's the law that you stop on amber unless it would be dangerous to do so.

Having said that, if the worst that was happening was drivers scooting through on a slightly stale amber, we'd be laughing, but the situation is far, far, far, worse than that.

The whole time I lived in Dublin - it was always a bit of an amber gambler city. Last 5 years have been absolutely piss taking levels. I put it down to a combination of traffic massively increasing since the last recession and the cumulative effect (i.e. the slow decline until we reach the point where it is acceptable).

I catch myself drifting into that mindset as well from time to time, which is a pain as when I drive int he UK (for example) need to be really mindful as they actually enforce red light jumping (with cameras and traffic police).

EDIT: Its getting to the stage where in some places (Like the Becket bridge where there is a no left turn heading westbound from the convention centre) that its a red light jump + illegal move (i.e. red light for straight ahead, but cars sailing on ahead and illegally to the right). I got beeped the other day as I was walking across the road (on a green pedestrian).

07Lapierre

Marcusm wrote: »

In a sense you are right in that it is impossible to accurately judge their speed. However, they can be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “riding... without reasonable consideration” each of which could be used against a cyclist in excess of the speed limit. I imagine such furious cycling occurs infrequently although cyclists (like all road users) are regularly furious!

No. I'm just RIGHT.
You are also right. Cyclists can be dicks too and can ride recklessly/irresponsibly, which i agree can be very annoying/frustrating.

Stark

They really need to sort out mandatory hi-viz for houses.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1293466867928104961

Stark wrote: »

They really need to sort out mandatory hi-viz for houses.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1293466867928104961

FFS - Someone managed to REVERSE into a house?

magicbastarder

maybe the handbrake was left off the car and it rolled?
though since the house was empty, someone may have abandoned a car there.