Biker79 wrote: » Once you become one, you recognize it in someone else. Cultures with a low barrier to entry are never worth being part of. Whether its cycling or anything else. I suppose some will find that offensive but that's the times we live in.
cletus wrote: » So who is the arbiter of this group 'cyclist'
cletus wrote: » I'm afraid that, despite the kudos and plaudits, Mojomaker, I have to agree with magicbastarder. If you are on a bike, you're a cyclist. If you are driving a car, you're a motorist, etc and so forth.We can't exclude people from any of the many groups they inhabit because we don't like the behaviour they exhibit. There are good and bad people in every walk of life.
eeeee wrote: » The strand road is not pleasant to cycle on. No space for anything else but single lane traffic each way, revving engines and drivers pissed off behind you as they can't pass you because there is no room with on coming traffic. cars parked at the side of the road who just love flinging their doors open at you. I am struggling to see how not being choked with motor traffic will harm an area. Plus there are the dart benefits too, the gates only have to go down for half the amount of traffic! I imagine the Rock Road will get busier, but hopefully it will, like most protected infra has (the new blackrock to dun laoghaire one has already), get more families, kids and people in general out on their bikes to the area instead of piling into a car.
eeeee wrote: » I am in agreement with cletus here, a cyclist is someone who rides a bike, end of for me.
PaulieC wrote: » I guess I have had different experiences and/or tolerances than you. However, with regard to your point about "I am struggling to see how not being choked with motor traffic will harm an area", I agree with you on the Beach Road/Strand Road improvements. My concern is for the the areas that the traffic will move to. It's fine to breezily state that it's all good if it gets more families out together etc. but the majority of traffic on that road is commuter and not family. That traffic will have to be accommodated elsewhere and won't be included in the idyllic family scenes happening along the beach front. As I stated originally, I am all for the creation of 'a' cycleway along this stretch of the road, but forcing a half-assed effort in under the auspices of Covid legislation, with zero consultation, is not the way to do it. And yes, I am fully aware that consultation means further delay.
eeeee wrote: » I commute 200k a week on average (pre covid, I'm down to about 140k per week now), I race bikes and train about 15 hours a week on the bike in total. My tolerances are good Our experiences may vary, for sure, but it's a contentious bit of road to cycle on by any estimation at the minute - single lane in each direction, no cycle lane or hard shoulder, no way for traffic to pass you with any semblance of safety if there is oncoming traffic, then you get the aggravated revving and beeping, the close passes, the people charging at you before the roundabouts. The people pulling out from parking on the side of the door without looking, opening doors without looking etc. It's a model of a terrible road to cycle on. If you look at any similar intervention, for example the recent Blackrock to Dun Laoghaire lane, you will see an abundance of kids and families out, and lots of women on bikes. I have never seen so many of the same, ever, even during lockdown on that road pre cycle lane. The rock road traffic hasn't been affected by this cycle lane, I don't see how the strand road is any different? Hopefully some of those in cars get on bikes when they realise it's quicker and easier to cycle into town rather than drive.
MojoMaker wrote: » Nope, you're a cyclist Eamonnator. You have a demonstrated passion for cycling, a love of bikes, a determination to put your bike ahead of other easier forms of transport, someone who cherishes their rides, looks after your equipment, and looks forward to getting out on the bike / any bike as often as possible, has more than one bike, and actively consumes a variety of biking-related media and information, often with a deep interest in the sporting side of affairs - unless of course I've taken you up incorrectly all these years ^^ As are most regular posters on this forum. Occasionally an interloper will wind their way in here spouting "...but I'm a cyclist too..." in order to defend/deflect the actions of others towards those that have a grá for the bike. Cletus, you wouldn't have laboured hours of love into your Muddy Fox resto if you were just a bicycle user. By definition you're a cyclist too. I make a strong distinction between the two, without apology. More often than not the actions of bicycle users reflect poorly on the cyclist community - those in their cages or on their footpaths see us as all one. By and large the cyclists I know and see (a) are courteous to non-cyclists, (b) obey the rules of the road, (c) look after their equipment, (d) know how to ride capably and display this clearly and consistently. Bicycle users on the other hand struggle with much of the above. Plenty of room for all of us of course, for the love of God just don't pretend that Conor Faughnan is a cyclist :pac:
PaulieC wrote: » My concern is for the the areas that the traffic will move to.
tomasrojo wrote: » There is a meaningless distinction (at least, one I don't personally make or like) between a proper cyclist and a person-on-a-bike. But Faughnan is in a third class. He is paid to undermine initiatives that challenge the supremacy of the motorcar in street and neighbourhood design. He's extremely good at it. He opposes most initiatives in a mild way, and says that if only they were done like <insert far-away place>, he'd be 100% behind them, but not this particular initiative. So, even in this case, he sounds as if he's supporting the cycling infrastructure, but he's successfully getting the idea out that people don't cycle in the winter, even though anyone who uses their eyes knows that what he's saying is completely untrue. So his personal use of a bike (which is genuine) is used to reinforce his image as a can-see-both-sides moderate. He's still trying to undermine public transport, walking and cycling initiatives, and is bizarrely treated as not just a neutral, but some sort of expert.
Conor Faughnan wrote: "...we have to be realistic. We need a functioning city. All of our towns and cities, they're engines of economic development and growth, they're where the jobs are. Unfortunately we can't act as if we're making our plans for people out for picnics, people out for walks, people who love to have a stroll and a cup of coffee. Y'know, we all love to do that from time to time, we all are that citizen. We also have to work...."
Duckjob wrote: » NTA allocates €55m to councils to enhance cycling and walking infrastructure Usual warning applies
Pinch Flat wrote: » "people won't walk in Ireland in the winter, it's too cold" FFS, it's not the north pole......
magicbastarder wrote: » Berlin reports rise in fatalities as new bike lanes fail to keep cyclists safe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/24/berlin-reports-rise-in-fatalities-as-new-bike-lanes-fail-to-keep-cyclists-safe
buffalo wrote: » I think this shows that pop-up bike lanes are only a sticking-plaster. They don't protect cyclists at junctions, which is where most accidents occur anyway. Real infrastructure is needed, as well as enforcement of traffic laws to improve driver behaviour.
breezy1985 wrote: » Every collision or near collision I was in involved a left turning car. One which was more my fault by mostly no one's all the rest involved a car that was behind or parallel to me just before turning and there's no amount of cycle lanes will change that and driver awareness is the only true cure
mr spuckler wrote: » It's not just about cycle lanes though. Changing junction layout to force drivers to slow right down as they're turning, having segregated cycle lanes which have a raised surface as they cross the junction and/or having separate lights for cyclists with good priority in the sequencing would all be beneficial.
A Department spokesperson confirmed that it would apply to eligible second-level pupils only , and not primary pupils.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
