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

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

@Seanw you say you were almost killed twice by cyclists, can you expand on that? I've almost been killed on the bike twice by motorists through no fault of my own.

- On one occasion I was T-boned by a van & hospitalised for a sever concussion and a neck injury. Hit & run.

- On the second occasion I was rear ended by a car and hospitalised for a bruised kidney and a massive muscle tear on my glut. Driver took me to hospital and legged it.

What exactly happened on the two occasions you were almost killed? What injuries did you receive & what was the outcome? I find it fascinating that you've almost died twice at the hands of cyclists.

Naturally, I sincerely hope you've recovered and are well.

Any update? Again, hope you recovered well and are back on the road.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

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

You sure do! When talking about "Irish Cyclists" however, well it's rather more personal non provable/disprovable opinion and Joe Duffy really, isn't it ?

I did, in the name of balance, try to find a post , any post from you that might give you some credit that you were attempting balance. Even by away of vague acknowledgement that "Irish Cyclists" are also, by "evidence and data" incredibly safe. Alas, I had no joy finding one.....

SeanW wrote: »

...deflecting from the appalling behaviour of Irish cyclists ....

SeanW wrote: »

I hear what you're saying, but I've found it difficult not to generalise about cyclists given how many of them...

SeanW wrote: »

I also posted a Liveline recording where yet more people talked about their experiences sharing footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers/

Side note: Joe's show is considered evidence now ?

SeanW wrote: »

.... Irish cyclists are totally unregulated and it shows. That does not change the fact that Irish cyclists are totally unregulated, and it shows in their appalling behaviour.

SeanW wrote: »

Nothing special about you, I'm afraid, dealing with lawbreakers on two wheels is just a hazard you have to live with as an Irish pedestrian.

SeanW wrote: »

No, we don't "know this very well" because it's a load of cobblers. But the cynics among us might suggest all this whataboutery by cyclists to distract from the appalling behaviour of cyclists is somewhat self-serving. :rolleyes:

SeanW wrote: »

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show ....

SeanW wrote: »

As someone who has had the misfortune of being a pedestrian in Ireland's main cities, yes Irish cyclists are - in the main - profligate lawbreakers. Totally unqualified to point the finger at others.

SeanW wrote: »

So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. ...

SeanW wrote: »

If motorists drove their cars the way Irish cyclists cycle, you can be sure I'd have some harsh words for them.

SeanW wrote: »

The standard excuse from cyclists for their lawbreaking is ...

SeanW wrote: »

As pedestrians, we put up with this crap from Irish cyclists as a matter of general routine ....

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

at least they've started on a segregated cycle path along griffith avenue. seemed to start quickly and not a lot of progress on it though, from what little i've seen.

there has been some progress:

still seems unnecessarily narrow (for a two way cycle lane) given the space available. more permanent looking than the rest of the cycle lane works DCC have been undertaking recently. the kerb is a little 'organic' looking, seems to have been shaped by hand rather than by a mould.

TaurenDruid

"What do we want?"

"SEGREGATED CYCLEPATHS!"

"When do we want them?"

"NOW!"

"Ok, here you go..."

...

"What do we want?"

"SEGREGATED CYCLEPATHS WITH UNIFORMLY EVEN KERBS!"

[Deleted User]

SeanW wrote: »

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.

So you'll be specific about not linking the cyclists who cycle near you on footpaths with 'lawbreaking scum' and 'menacing with intent'?

You expect me to treat drivers a whole lot differently to how you treat cyclists apparently. There's only one of those groups that kills 2 or 3 people each week on the roads. It's not cyclists, btw.

[Deleted User]

For anyone still struggling to understand the issues on the North Strand

https://twitter.com/EmesSav/status/1300077229267996673?s=19

magicbastarder

this cannot be; that cycle path is the most perfectly adequate cycle path in dublin.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For anyone still struggling to understand the issues on the North Strand

https://twitter.com/EmesSav/status/1300077229267996673?s=19

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand! Go, you!

The terrible crime that's being committed is apparently someone coming out of a car park?

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users? What happens in this cycletopia, when cyclepaths need to cross each other? There could be a one-way system, I suppose. Oh, wait, no... I've seen what happens when some cyclists are presented with a one-way system - "**** that, it'd take me out of my way! Hup! There we go, nice footpath!"

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand!

*psst*, there's two.
perhaps you cannot see the silver car which has pulled up on the inside of the wall on the other side of the emerging car, so i have news - there's a silver car which has pulled up inside the wall, on the far side of the far side of the emerging car.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

*psst*, there's two.
perhaps you cannot see the silver car which has pulled up on the inside of the wall on the other side of the emerging car, so i have news - there's a silver car which has pulled up inside the wall, on the far side of the far side of the emerging car.

Yes, there is. A case of illegal parking. Deserves a ticket.

No - is it far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and around the illegally parked car; or to cycle out on the road with a double-decker or three following him up the hill?

I'm gonna go out on a limb, here - but I'm gonna say the former.

McHardcore

Why am I not surprised that it is a Fastway courier that is parked on the cycle path.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand! Go, you!

The terrible crime that's being committed is apparently someone coming out of a car park?

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users? What happens in this cycletopia, when cyclepaths need to cross each other? There could be a one-way system, I suppose. Oh, wait, no... I've seen what happens when some cyclists are presented with a one-way system - "**** that, it'd take me out of my way! Hup! There we go, nice footpath!"

You do realize that one way streets only came into existence because of cars? That’s one of the great advantages of cycling.... you can go anywhere. There are lots of examples of contra flow bike lanes which reflect this.

( you really do know feck all about cycling for a so called “cyclists”

)

[Deleted User]

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No - is it far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and around the illegally parked car; or to cycle out on the road with a double-decker or three following him up the hill?

I'm gonna go out on a limb, here - but I'm gonna say the former.

You don't have to go out on a limb to say that it would be far, far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and not have to go around the illegally parked car and van.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users?

My problem with that is that it should be the exception rather than the rule. Nothing is sacrosanct on the roads or paths, but it would be nice to think that
a) the cyclist has a reasonable chance at having a clear run on the cycle path most days, and
b) the driver has a reasonable chance of getting a ticket when they do park illegally.

Neither of these are true.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

You do realize that one way streets only came into existence because of cars? That’s one of the great advantages of cycling.... you can go anywhere. There are lots of examples of contra flow bike lanes which reflect this.

( you really do know feck all about cycling for a so called “cyclists” )

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

jackofalltrades

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

The reason the thread has gone away from the original complaint is because it was hijacked. Plain and simple.
It barely got started before it was intentionally derailed with whataboutery and deflection. Then the title was altered to legitimise this behaviour.
If the thread was going to die through lack of disagreement then it should have been left go that way.
If cyclists wanted a thread to discuss cycling issues then they should have set up a new one.
If you think it's a "non-issue" then good for you, but others should be allowed the space to discuss the matter.
It all reeks of ganging up to silence criticism.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

And why were the street pedestrianised in the first place?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

So what? After all nobody died right?

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

So what? After all nobody died right?

Yes, that is apparently what it boils down to for some cyclists justifying their lawbreaking, and apparently now it's more than just Andy... :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, that is apparently what it boils down to for some cyclists justifying their lawbreaking, and apparently now it's more than just Andy... :rolleyes:

Wrong. Nobody is justifying lawbreaking. Although even you agree that a toddler/kid can cycle on the pavement (even though its illegal). The rest of us accept that cyclist break the ROTR all the time. All road users break the ROTR, that's not the issue. The issue is the severity of the law breaking. Cycling on the pavement is a minor irritation. nothing more.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cycling on the pavement is a minor irritation. nothing more.

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

Agreed! doesn't bother me in the slightest because i cycle on the road!

kenmm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

Sometimes, yeah it is only a minor irritation.

Sometimes it's a massive pain in the hole as it inconveniences a few hundred cyclists which then goes on to inconvenience a few hundred other road users as everyone shuffles around to avoid the parked car.

Sometimes it becomes downright dangerous (a few illegally parked cars in a row).

If I were in charge of policy I would have illegally parked cars towed tight away. No clamping (keep that for legally parked but expired parking), straight to tow. That would stop it happening right away.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

In the UK they think its a big deal...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/consultation-begins-on-banning-pavement-parking-in-england

07Lapierre

kenmm wrote: »

Sometimes, yeah it is only a minor irritation.

Sometimes it's a massive pain in the hole as it inconveniences a few hundred cyclists which then goes on to inconvenience a few hundred other road users as everyone shuffles around to avoid the parked car.

Sometimes it becomes downright dangerous (a few illegally parked cars in a row).

If I were in charge of policy I would have illegally parked cars towed tight away. No clamping (keep that for legally parked but expired parking), straight to tow. That would stop it happening right away.

Steady on! your recommending ENFORCEMENT of existing ROTR? That's a bit radical no?

Stark

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand! Go, you!

The terrible crime that's being committed is apparently someone coming out of a car park?

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users? What happens in this cycletopia, when cyclepaths need to cross each other? There could be a one-way system, I suppose. Oh, wait, no... I've seen what happens when some cyclists are presented with a one-way system - "**** that, it'd take me out of my way! Hup! There we go, nice footpath!"

Maybe have a look at what's behind the car coming out of the car park.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

in many cases, yes.
however, seeing as it's endemic, it in many places essentially renders the cycle lane non-existent. forcing cyclists out into the road, a road which has often been designed without cyclists in mind (precisely because the provision for cyclists was included with the unusable cycle lane).

i could name plenty of places where the cycle lane is unusable because of fly parking. i cannot name any footpaths which are unusable because of cyclists.

PeadarCo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The reason the thread has gone away from the original complaint is because it was hijacked. Plain and simple.
It barely got started before it was intentionally derailed with whataboutery and deflection. Then the title was altered to legitimise this behaviour.
If the thread was going to die through lack of disagreement then it should have been left go that way.
If cyclists wanted a thread to discuss cycling issues then they should have set up a new one.
If you think it's a "non-issue" then good for you, but others should be allowed the space to discuss the matter.
It all reeks of ganging up to silence criticism.

Depends on what you mean by a "non-issue"? Anything can be a world ending problem if defined correctly. If you define it as how dangerous it is to pedestrians it is a non issue. It been the guts of two decades since a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. Cars on the other hand kill a pedestrian every few weeks if not more often.

If you want to talk about cycling and footpaths and especially teenagers and adults cycling on footpaths you need to ask why they are on the footpath and not on the road. The minute you start asking why one of your answers is driver behavior real or perceived and how it endangers cyclists. These people consider the road too dangerous then cycle on the footpath. So if you are serious about stopping cycling on footpaths you have to look at driver behaviour and enforcing the rules of the road full stop.

So if you want cyclists to stop cycling on footpaths driver behaviour is automatically included in the conversation when it comes to stopping it as uncomfortable as that is.

TaurenDruid

So if you are serious about stopping cycling on footpaths you have to look at driver behaviour and enforcing the rules of the road full stop.

So if you want cyclists to stop cycling on footpaths driver behaviour is automatically included in the conversation when it comes to stopping it as uncomfortable as that is.

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!

PeadarCo wrote: »

These people consider the road too dangerous then cycle on the footpath.

Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!

Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

So people who cycle on the path are too lazy to follow the rules of the road.???? You have ignored the biggest problem for cyclists on the road which is a small subset of drivers who feel anyone slower than them whether it be car/bike/pedestrian etc should not be on the road. For anyone serious about tackling the issue enforcement of the rules of the road is very important. That means tackling the rampant red line breaking, speeding, dangerous overtaking, illegal parking etc etc. Now once you get that sorted you will get cyclists off the footpath. The reason being which I appreciate for non cyclists can be very difficult to understand, the road is faster than the footpath the vast majority of the time. Footpaths are not designed for bikes and with all the pedestrians generally are a place where bikes can't go any sort of speed and ending up in hospital after an accident. It should tell you a lot about certain portions of the population perceive drivers when they would prefer to take a slower and more obstacle laden foot path than share the road with drivers.

Cyclists are not a major danger to pedestrians at least when compared to cars. To repeat its the guts of 2 decades since a pedestrian was killed by a bike. On the other hand pedestrians are killed every couple of weeks by cars. Sometimes even more often. If you are really serious about keeping pedestrians safe you need to look at the vehicles and drivers that kill them on a regular basis.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!

Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

Why don't you do something about it? why not email your local TD or maybe the Local Garda Station and request greater law enforcement?