Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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 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!

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

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.

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 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.