nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Rogerrabit

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Spook_ie

Duckjob wrote: »

<snipped>

You'll probably need to carry on wondering since any documented examples of this very specific arrangement happening and with any sort of serious consequence seem to be pretty short supply.

That's why I'm wondering, anyone not got a thesis idea might be able to pick up on the effects of blunt force trauma caused by bicycle handlebars and brake levers on flesh and blood, of course to some cyclists they seem to think they don't hurt at all.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

?? I don’t see many cyclists cycling along holding a steel pipe out front like a sword? Any injuries from being impaled by the end of a handlebar are a risk taken by the cyclist, not a pedestrian. BTW that happened to me a few years ago. Yes it hurts... but I’m still here.

I would have said impaled by a spear/sword if I meant a spear/sword, also you don't have to be impaled at all, blunt force trauma is where it's all at, even when involving cars there's very little impaling going on.

breezy1985

Spook_ie wrote: »

Me thinks you presume too much, use the search function, I think you were involved in the thread, if not then apologies but I'm not going through the same old tired arguments from cyclists.

Not going through the same old tired arguments but then has 2 more posts immediately after carrying on tired old arguements

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

I would have said impaled by a spear/sword if I meant a spear/sword, also you don't have to be impaled at all, blunt force trauma is where it's all at, even when involving cars there's very little impaling going on.

Ah My apologies.. my mistake. So the point your trying to make is even less relevant.

magicbastarder

anyway, getting back to the thread title, it's quite clear what the main cause of cyclists cycling on footpaths is.
it's motorists.
so we fix the issue of cyclists on footpaths by tackling the motorists, cos it's all their fault.

PeadarCo

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's why I'm wondering, anyone not got a thesis idea might be able to pick up on the effects of blunt force trauma caused by bicycle handlebars and brake levers on flesh and blood, of course to some cyclists they seem to think they don't hurt at all.

But remember a cyclist can also be hurt if they collide with a pedestrian. The last death associated with a cyclist pedestrian collision was the cyclist involved. Who ends up being hurt more really depends on the nature of the collision. This alone gives any cyclist a very strong incentive to not hit a pedestrian because there's a decent chance they will get hurt potentially very badly. Which you can see by the relative lack of data on these collisions. And again nobody is saying cyclist pedestrian collisions are good. However for pedestrians as statistics show cars are a far bigger danger.

breezy1985

Right so we are almost at 300 pages. Hands up anyone who has actually had their mind changed on this issue

[Deleted User]

Spook_ie wrote: »

Me thinks you presume too much, use the search function, I think you were involved in the thread, if not then apologies but I'm not going through the same old tired arguments from cyclists.

Couldn't find anything, except your persistent demands for speed limits for cyclists - a solution looking for a problem to solve.

But gwan, tell us how you're the one taxi driver in Dublin who actually obeys traffic laws.

xckjoo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Right so we are almost at 300 pages. Hands up anyone who has actually had their mind changed on this issue

Right here.

In my mind 3 things need to happen. 1) the statute of limitations of vandalism need to be removed, 2) Duckjob needs to be prosecuted for their heinous criminal activity as a child and 3) their family should be placed in indentured servitude to the owners/descendants of the owners of the vehicles they callously defaced.

It might not be cheap to make these legal changes and track down the victims, but as a society we would all sleep a little safer at night if these kinds of criminals were not out roaming the streets with their dirty index fingers

Spook_ie

breezy1985 wrote: »

Not going through the same old tired arguments but then has 2 more posts immediately after carrying on tired old arguements

You never heard of politness, I think he deserved an answer as I thought you deserved an answer, obviously I was wrong and as such apologies, now try avoiding the silliness you are trying to bring more of into the thread.

Duckjob

xckjoo wrote: »

Right here.

In my mind 3 things need to happen. 1) the statute of limitations of vandalism need to be removed, 2) Duckjob needs to be prosecuted for their heinous criminal activity as a child and 3) their family should be placed in indentured servitude to the owners/descendants of the owners of the vehicles they callously defaced.

It might not be cheap to make these legal changes and track down the victims, but as a society we would all sleep a little safer at night if these kinds of criminals were not out roaming the streets with their dirty index fingers

Dammit! I fought so hard back in the day to claw myself up from that murky criminal underworld, and then 40 yrs later I go and incriminate myself on boards. I have the curtains closed now but I'm expecting that knock on the door anytime now

I can only hope that I don't have to share a cell with equally hard cases like those monsters that did knick-knacks on neighbours doors and ran away.

Duckjob

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's why I'm wondering, anyone not got a thesis idea might be able to pick up on the effects of blunt force trauma caused by bicycle handlebars and brake levers on flesh and blood, of course to some cyclists they seem to think they don't hurt at all.

I see. Well, carry on wondering about stuff that statistically in the real world, is micro in comparison to other problems of road safety.

kenmm

Duckjob wrote: »

I see. Well, carry on wondering about stuff that statistically in the real world, is micro in comparison to other problems of road safety.

You'd be as well trying to get someone to sponsor research into the effects of standing on an upturned 3 pin plug and ways to prevent it.

07Lapierre

Duckjob wrote: »

Dammit! I fought so hard back in the day to claw myself up from that murky criminal underworld, and then 40 yrs later I go and incriminate myself on boards. I have the curtains closed now but I'm expecting that knock on the door anytime now

I can only hope that I don't have to share a cell with equally hard cases like those monsters that did knick-knacks on neighbours doors and ran away.

That brings back memories! ... Thugs committing trespass, vandalism (possible scratched on a door knocker, or footprints on the lawn!), resulting in post traumatic stress etc. etc.

(or maybe just kids having a bit of harmless fun)

breezy1985

Duckjob wrote: »

Dammit! I fought so hard back in the day to claw myself up from that murky criminal underworld, and then 40 yrs later I go and incriminate myself on boards. I have the curtains closed now but I'm expecting that knock on the door anytime now

I can only hope that I don't have to share a cell with equally hard cases like those monsters that did knick-knacks on neighbours doors and ran away.

"As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
I take a look at my life and realize there's not much left
'Coz I've been knick-knackin on doors so long, that
Even my mama thinks that my mind is gone
But I ain't never wrote on cars that didn't deserve it
Ever wash your car you know that's unheard of"

Coolio: Scrotebags Paradise

Pinch Flat

breezy1985 wrote: »

Right so we are almost at 300 pages. Hands up anyone who has actually had their mind changed on this issue

I think sean o'casey bridge should be demolished and a new multi-use bridge put back in it. Cyclists one one level and one level for pedestrians.

kenmm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think sean o'casey bridge should be demolished and a new multi-use bridge put back in it. Cyclists one one level and one level for pedestrians.

And heavily policed with armed guards on each end.

Charles Babbage

micar wrote: »

You could the same thing about a parked car

Pure whataboutery.......

It is the reference to speeding that is whataboutery, since this thread is supposed to be about cycling on paths but has intentionally been derailed into matters that have nothing to do with this. It is remarkable how in this thread black becomes white.

However, since you mentioned it, nobody has ever been struck by a parked car and some people are significantly penalised for leaving a car in a location for a slightly longer period of time. Does any cycling fine for a moving violation exceed the cost of unclamping a car?

Pinch Flat

07Lapierre wrote: »

That brings back memories! ... Thugs committing trespass, vandalism (possible scratched on a door knocker, or footprints on the lawn!), resulting in post traumatic stress etc. etc.

(or maybe just kids having a bit of harmless fun)

There wasn't a dirty vehicle around us that didnt escape a Gilroy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilroy_was_here

PeadarCo

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It is the reference to speeding that is whataboutery, since this thread is supposed to be about cycling on paths but has intentionally been derailed into matters that have nothing to do with this. It is remarkable how in this thread black becomes white.

The reason the thread has gone away from the original complaint is one because bar children I don't think anyone here agrees with it. So nothing to argue about and two even for the cyclists who do cycle on the foothpath(who aren't children) it not really an issue/there are far bigger dangers for pedestrians. When you go looking for statistics you find very little/none. If it was a major problem you would have information.

I imagine the complaint was correct. Anecdotally I've noticed more people cycling on footpaths primary children/teenagers. My guess is its related to the restrictions imposed by the Covid crisis. The vast majority of them in my experience are not going faster than the average jogger. So it's an non issue.

And if you want to get adults off the foot path onto the road (the place I agree where they belong) you have to start asking why they don't cycle on the road. Talk to any inexperienced cyclist the biggest complaint/fear about cycling on the road is driver behaviour. So you can see where that leads the thread.

breezy1985

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think sean o'casey bridge should be demolished and a new multi-use bridge put back in it. Cyclists one one level and one level for pedestrians.

Reclaim the Liffey and make it a cycle path. Thats what the Dutch would do

magicbastarder

Charles Babbage wrote: »

However, since you mentioned it, nobody has ever been struck by a parked car and some people are significantly penalised for leaving a car in a location for a slightly longer period of time. Does any cycling fine for a moving violation exceed the cost of unclamping a car?

i'm - rather stupidly - going to run with this.
clamping and unclamping a car costs manpower. so that's certainly part of the equation; you've to factor in the cost of the time required to clamp the car, and then send someone out to unclamp it.
and parking illegally is essentially theft. paying for parking on a city street is paying for a service (and an incredibly cheap one, at that), so by parking without paying, you are stealing that service. so there's a punitive aspect involved too.
and that's not to take into account the factor of the sheer deterrent factor that you'd need to involve.

it's the same amount (in dublin) financially, AFAIK, to pay a clamping release fee, as it is for the financial fine of speeding.

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

Reclaim the Liffey and make it a cycle path. Thats what the Dutch would do

that's linear thinking, you need to think sideways.

https://www.shuttlebike.com/en/

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

The financial element should be a percentage of income, not fixed. The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it. (No, Andy, this is not a cue to post pics of illegally parked cars). But some look on that €80 as pocket change and just the parking fee they might or might not have to pay depending on how efficient the clampers are being.

Charles Babbage

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing as I hate cycling on the footpath but there is the odd justification like when a cycle path stops every 10 seconds to yield for a driveway or some just stop abruptly without reason and you have to use the path to get onto the road. This is particularly common on roundabout cycle paths. There are also way too many paths that cut right across the wait area/button for the green man

Criminals always do so because they find some benefit in it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm - rather stupidly - going to run with this.
clamping and unclamping a car costs manpower. so that's certainly part of the equation; you've to factor in the cost of the time required to clamp the car, and then send someone out to unclamp it.
and parking illegally is essentially theft. paying for parking on a city street is paying for a service (and an incredibly cheap one, at that), so by parking without paying, you are stealing that service. so there's a punitive aspect involved too.
and that's not to take into account the factor of the sheer deterrent factor that you'd need to involve.

it's the same amount (in dublin) financially, AFAIK, to pay a clamping release fee, as it is for the financial fine of speeding.

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

As you point out, it is a question of finance, not safety.
Not paying for parking should be penalised by a ticket with payment associated with it.
The punitive element is wholly disproportionate to the lack of punitive measures for things like cycling on the footpath.

magicbastarder

cycling on the footpath is illegal. there's no specific FCPN associated with it, but the most likely punishment should a garda stop you, is the 'cycling without due care and attention one' which is a €40 FCPN. if he or she decides to do you more generally, that's a day in court.

but let's face it. illegal parking is rampant in dublin, the only policing of illegal parking is of paid public parking spots. you can leave your car anywhere else and the chances of being punished are so close to zero it's not worth arguing the toss.

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The financial element should be a percentage of income, not fixed. The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it. (No, Andy, this is not a cue to post pics of illegally parked cars). But some look on that €80 as pocket change and just the parking fee they might or might not have to pay depending on how efficient the clampers are being.

I'd have thought penalty points would be a less controversial way of achieving the same objective - making it seriously unpalatable to be a repeat offender.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Reclaim the Liffey and make it a cycle path. Thats what the Dutch would do

They'd be more likely to reclaim the motorway and make it a cycle path I think.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think sean o'casey bridge should be demolished and a new multi-use bridge put back in it. Cyclists one one level and one level for pedestrians.

There is a plan for a new walking / cycling bridge further east, down at the Central Bank.

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299315352036421632

Hope the Garda didn't interrupt any interesting videos for the lads;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299452186481623046

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it.

it costs about €3 per hour to park your car on the street (citation needed) in many places in dublin.
if you park illegally, and there's a (say) one in thirty chance of being caught in every hour, it's trivial not to pay.
how trivial it is, is purely based on your chances of being caught.

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd have thought penalty points would be a less controversial way of achieving the same objective - making it seriously unpalatable to be a repeat offender.

They'd be more likely to reclaim the motorway and make it a cycle path I think.

There is a plan for a new walking / cycling bridge further east, down at the Central Bank.

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299315352036421632

Hope the Garda didn't interrupt any interesting videos for the lads;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299452186481623046

Cars being pulled by a bike. God that must have been a real kick in the insecurity

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

Because this scumbag is representative of all Irish drivers, right?

How many Irish drivers do you think condone driving 9 times over the legal alcohol limit? And what is your evidence for said number?

Be specific.

When I defend Irish drivers, I specifically refer to evidence and data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

I expect you to do the same in your association of this scumbag with Irish drivers as a whole.