There's an option to report 'vehicle invasion' obstruction in the app. Man, we're going to need bigger datacentres...
I'm disappointed it doesn't really let you report "this is permanent shite infrastructure".
But I can log where I had a pleasant ride /nsfw
Just paint I'm pretty sure.
Not sure rumble strips are used in isolation on a section of regional road; more typically in the transition zone on the entrance to urban speed limits from rural in combination with signage.
That's a review of safety measures from about 20 years ago and rumble strips are close to bottom of the pile in terms of effectiveness.
For speed reduction creating a section of road where the adjacent vertical height is larger than horizontal road width tends to slow drivers. Typically rural areas that ratio is skewed towards a large horizontal distance but reversed easily in urban areas.
You might get that sensation if you try to drive fast over new bridge in New Ross
when i read things like that, i can't help but think 'the way that study is done is pure horseshit'.
asking people to select someone from a pair who 'looks less human' is asking for the answer you want. if the way it's reported is accurate, they're not asking 'do you think one of these people looks less human?' - they're making the selection mandatory. and that is hardly scientific.
Cyclist dies during UK BHF Sportive - RIP...
I was reading this article because I kayak a bit, as well as wild camp, so I wanted to see if the bylaws were being updated to reflect tents and camping.
A passing reference in the article to implementing speed limits for bicycles and scooters along the canal Greenways, led me to post it here. There's no suggestions to how it would be policed or monitored.
Going from consultants are looking at possible routes to "Minister Ryan would certainly provide funding to construct a bicycle path on top of the rail link if it prevented the Sligo to Galway rail service from reopening" is a bit of a stretch!
Waterways Ireland have opened the draft bye laws for comment
I'd suggest folks take the time to give feedback. Specifically on
Why?
Because this is the addition proposed
No person shall "Exceed a speed of 15 kilometres per hour on any bicycle, tricycle or powered personal transporter while using any greenway."
Essentially you could be found in breach of the bye laws for something you can't detect as there is no requirement for a speedometer on a bike
Not sure if someone's already posted this one...
The Global bicycle cities index list Dublin in 60th place for bike friendliness, way behind some places you'd never believe.. pretty poor for Ireland..
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/06/20/these-are-the-top-10-bike-friendly-cities-in-the-world-and-9-of-them-are-in-europe
Those pesky vigilantes reporting illegal and dangerous acts by drivers
Is this green/blueways along the canals or in general? I don't see why Waterways Ireland would/should have any stake in greenways like Waterford/Mayo which are nowhere near water of any sort (bar the sea in those 2 cases) and are under respective local authority bylaws AFAIK.
That said, I agree that submissions should go in for the reasons you state.
There are 2 sets of bye laws
The Canal bye laws apply on the Grand, Royal canals and the Barrow only
The Shannon ones apply along the Shannon only
I submitted yesterday, with the points about no speedometer requirement, and also that inappropriate speed is covered by the clause above.
Jesus, I could understand they might want to discourage club cyclists doing training spins while people are walking but 15km/hr is crazy slow, that's going to make it difficult for even casual touring cyclists.
I think 30km/h is the limit in the Bodensee paths in Germany,but it's a 17 yr old memory so open to correction 😀
The clause above the limit covers "training spins" or inappropriate speed in busy areas. The speed limit is unnecessary
(m) Use any bicycle, tricycle or powered personal transporter in a manner that endangers or causes a nuisance to themselves and other users of any greenway.
Really positive interview with Imogen Cotter on her near-death accident and recovery: https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/unsung-heroes-imogen-cotter-on-coming-back-from-a-near-death-experience/
Gives some context to the question of what would happen if the authorities clamped down on law-breaking on our roads - specifically the "every cyclist breaks red lights" argument ... just one instance of checkpoints;
Garda checkpoints in Wicklow lead to several prosecutions (msn.com)
“A number of offences were detected, including tyres in a dangerous condition and a disqualified driver. Prosecutions have commenced.”
In fairness, this doesn't actually tell us what the other offences were, or what type of vehicles were involved
#sharetheroad
There aren't enough expletives to describe the attitude of the judge in this case
Does it matter though? They were clearly vehicles and clearly serious enough to warrant commencement of prosecutions. It goes back to the point of, imagine what would be demonstrated by systematic checkpoints and speed cameras. The idea that its runners, cyclists and eScooters on the roads that are the menace.
Here's another one giving a snapshot (and bearing in mind this link/ post in the eScooter thread https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12218129/Moment-driver-narrowly-avoids-hitting-young-girl-scooter.html and the comment made that there were probably loads of such incidents happening all the time);
Irish Rail warns of ‘reckless driving’ after three trucks hit bridges and level crossing | Independent.ie
Thank god the offenders weren't piloting eScooters.
My point was just that we don't know what the rest of the offences were, or whether they involved cars or bicycles or what
that's astonishing.
Shameful by that judge- total cover up & then to blame the cyclist.
Genuinely hard to believe.
I rarely post but this this can't be ignored.
The judge's comments were quoting the Garda report, so pretty sure they are accurate regarding condition of bicycle and clothing.
I would consider cycling at night on an N road without lights as wreckless; irrespective of the wrongs off any driver. I personally wouldn't cycle in a well lit urban area without lights.
If cyclist was just injured and took a Personal injury case he's getting hit with Contributory negligence in any civil court.
The driver was off course grossly negligent but the judge has to comment on all the evidence.
The review in relation to failures of the justice system is separate to the standalone specifics of the accident and I have no idea why an enquiry shouldn't have looked at that aspect of case; it seems nuts but not surprising.
i would argue that the culpability aspect is moot; the issues were the way the case was handled, with a clear criminal act committed in leaving the scene
I suppose that depends on the parameters that were set up for the report. Was it solely to look at the actions of the defendant after the incident? Or was it to look at the incident in the whole, including facts, as laid out by the gardaí, pointing to degrees of culpability.
Note, my suggestion above should in no way be viewed as me excusing or absolving in any fashion the driver of the car, but if the facts of the case are that the cyclist had no lights on his bike after lighting up hours, then they are the facts
The report was set up to deflect from the fact the driver should not have been behind the wheel in the first place.
The man was left dead on the side of the road & the driver left him there.
I dont know why the man was cycling there but it was just after 10pm in early August- I dont think his actions deserved the tone used by the judge.
As the judge referred to the Gardai Forensic we can take it was in his brief?
I'd be surprised if he'd have dealt with lighting of bike is his brief was just the actions of the Defendant. The title of report would suggest it had a very wide scope.
The reason this case stands out isn't the hit and run(which are appalling common) but the failure of the justice system in having a convict free when he should have been in jail; and that is probably what motivated the review.
The driver is sub human but that doesn't allow the judge to prejudice his report by ignoring evidence ( in relation to lighting and a previous near miss).
One could reasonably argue that the absence of lighting was causative. The absence of insurance and NCT are both illegal( and speak to the driver's character) but in the absence of a proven defect in vehicle being relevant to collision you can't reasonably argue that those aspects are causative.
I'd be all in favour of lengthy mandatory sentences for hit and run convictions
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
