Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Footpaths are for pedestrians' - new DCC billboard

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    reprazant wrote: »
    I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

    The markings on it specify the difference.

    By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

    A footpath is a raised area, often with a grass verge, designed to allow pedestrians to walk alongside roads whilst protecting them from vehicular traffic, they dont normally have 'lanes', and when they do these are usually unsafe, too narrow and ignored by pedestrians. The example I posted is clear case.

    Lanes on roads are ALWAYS marked with white lines, but just so you know, there is ambiguity about whether a cycle lane is actually a legal lane at all, just as there is ambiguity as to whether many off-road cycle lanes are legal.

    So yes, there is a strong possibility that there are just roads and footpaths, except in the case of a shared bus/cycle lane or 'proper' off road cycle lanes (such as the grand canal path), which are legally recognised as separate lanes.


  • Options
    #33
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    reprazant wrote: »
    I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

    The markings on it specify the difference.

    By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.
    And if the council paints the top of a 10cm-wide wall the right colours and puts up a sign, then that's a cycle track, is it?

    Well, legally it would be.

    This is part of the problem. The definition of a cycle track in Irish law is the presence of a sign. There are no binding standards that specify any of the important stuff, like width, surface, how to interact with junctions and driveways.

    These footpath cycle tracks are near universally rubbish. And pedestrians by and large don't keep to their bit, and it's not because they're stupid. It's because the design isn't clear. People just don't pay that much attention to strips of paint beneath their feet. It's been found over and over again, in all countries that try them.

    So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.


  • Options
    #34
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    droidus wrote: »
    A footpath is a ....
    no defination of a cycle path there I notice. Care to provide?


  • Options
    #35
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    If only cyclists would take heed. I'm tired of walking to and from work, constantly looking over my shoulder for some cyclist who thinks its perfectly ok to speed past someone, leaving inches of room for space.

    And yet these same hypocrites complains about cars that do the same.

    Laughable.

    That is a massive generalisation, are you trying to suggest that all cyclists are guilty of cycling on the path?!


  • Options
    #36
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Zulu wrote: »
    I reckon (s)he's driving at a system similar to what I've seen elsewhere where there is a kerp between the road & the cyclepath, creating an additional mini road between the road & the footpath.

    I've no idea where (s)he thinks the money for such a massive & expensive undertaking would come from though.

    I dont believe that cyclists should ever cycle on the path or be put into conflict with pedestrians. Off road cycle lanes should only be put in place where there is sufficient space to allow them to be used safely (see Sutton-fairview) or where they are segregated, and cyclists should not be forced to cycle on the footpath by badly planned and dangerous infrastructure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Zulu wrote: »
    no defination of a cycle path there I notice. Care to provide?

    Sure, anywhere the authorities decide to paint a white line.

    No questioning of my definition of a footpath I see. Im glad we're in agreement.


  • Options
    #38
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    reprazant wrote: »
    I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

    The markings on it specify the difference.

    By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.
    And if the council paints the top of a 10cm-wide wall the right colours and puts up a sign, then that's a cycle track, is it?

    Well, legally it would be.

    This is part of the problem. The definition of a cycle track in Irish law is the presence of a sign. There are no binding standards that specify any of the important stuff, like width, surface, how to interact with junctions and driveways.

    These footpath cycle tracks are near universally rubbish. And pedestrians by and large don't keep to their bit, and it's not because they're stupid. It's because the design isn't clear. People just don't pay that much attention to strips of paint beneath their feet. It's been found over and over again, in all countries that try them.

    So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.

    Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?


  • Options
    #39
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.

    This ^^


  • Options
    #40
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,013 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    I would guess that no one on this thread is in favour of footpath cycling.

    In which case, who cares?


  • Options
    #41
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?

    I imagine because they're either arses or because the road doesn't allow them to get where they want directly. They should be stopped and issued with fixed-penalty notices. Fixed-penalty notices for cyclists should have been introduced a long time ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Zulu wrote: »
    No you TRY again :rolleyes:

    I get what you are trying to say, but I don't agree. In that picture there is a footpath & cycle lane side-by-side. They even appear to have used different surfaces to aid in the distinction, as well as the simple paint markings.
    reprazant wrote: »
    I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

    The markings on it specify the difference.
    I'm going to be very pedantic here and say that the markings are very clear that this is one lane to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians.

    If there were two separate lanes here, there would be white line painted in between. There isn't. Different surface types don't mark out a lane.

    You could say that it's "obvious" what's intended, but that's irrelevant in a legal context. What's "obvious" is that the lane is not wide enough to accomodate separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians, so the council created a shared-use lane with ambiguously placed images in the hope that no-one would challenge their claim that it's a cycle track.

    Now that pedantry is passed, I have no specific problem with the message mentioned by the OP. There is a bit of a drive on by DCC with messages for cyclists, but I don't think the intention is to demonise cyclists, but rather educate them as to their responsibilities on the roads. Many cyclists are genuinely unaware that it's illegal to ride on the footpad or that they have to stop at red lights or have lights on their bike.
    Drivers break lights and park on footpads, but they know this is illegal, they just choose to do it.


  • Options
    #43
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?

    I imagine because they're either arses or because the road doesn't allow them to get where they want directly. They should be stopped and issued with fixed-penalty notices. Fixed-penalty notices for cyclists should have been introduced a long time ago.

    Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.


  • Options
    #44
    rich.d.berry
    Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

    You're just trolling, aren't you?


  • Options
    #45
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.
    There are threads here about this idea already. Suffice it to say that it would be prohibitively expensive and impossible to enforce. That's why you need fixed-penalty notices. The Gardaí can stop a cyclist and penalise them without having to waste court time.

    Does anyone know what happened to the plan to create laws to allow FPNs for cyclists?


  • Options
    #46
    Bunnyhopper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Bunnyhopper


    reprazant wrote: »
    I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

    The markings on it specify the difference.

    Actually, the law says that the edges of a cycle track should be marked either with a thick white line on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track. So in this case, you could argue that it's not a cycle lane beside a footpath, it's a wide cycle track. In many cases the markings and signage used on cycle facilities by local authorities are confusing at best.

    A cycle track can be part of a footway which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles, and a cycleway can be for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians, so the footpath V cycle track V cycleway distinctions are unhelpfully confusing.

    Where it's clearly a footpath provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians then cyclists should not be on it. However, the lack of clarity is part of the problem with these "facilities". You may object that this is pedantry, but in the event of a collision on a footpath?/cycleway?/cycle track? you can be sure that the professional pedants will be out in force and charging by the hour.


  • Options
    #47
    dubmess
    Registered Users Posts: 282 ✭✭dubmess


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

    Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.


  • Options
    #48
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    dubmess wrote: »
    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

    Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.

    Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?


  • Options
    #49
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    droidus wrote: »
    Off road cycle lanes should only be put in place where there is sufficient space to allow them to be used safely (see Sutton-fairview)
    And yet this stretch is exactly were I've had problems with cyclists using the footpath/not using the cycle lane.
    droidus wrote: »
    Sure, anywhere the authorities decide to paint a white line.
    ... Im glad we're in agreement.
    Super, so you agree there's a cycle lane there afterall. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #50
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    dubmess wrote: »
    Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.
    Switzerland charges a small fee on bikes, I think it's basically a sort of public liability insurance & tax rolled into one.
    The discussion was had here before, but basically in order to make it a reasonable cost relative to a bicycle (i.e. less than €10/year), it costs more to collect the cash and print up the "discs" than the system takes in.


  • Options
    #51
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

    I suggest you take it up with every government in the world (apart from the Swiss) as none of them can be bothered with registering cyclists.

    From what I know, the purpose of vehicle registration is primarily to establish ownership and to tax owners, not to fight crime, though I suppose that is a useful side effect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    seamus wrote: »
    dubmess wrote: »
    Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.
    Switzerland charges a small fee on bikes, I think it's basically a sort of public liability insurance & tax rolled into one.
    The discussion was had here before, but basically in order to make it a reasonable cost relative to a bicycle (i.e. less than €10/year), it costs more to collect the cash and print up the "discs" than the system takes in.

    Again, enforcing the law is not about profit or breaking even. The primary objective of a 'tagging' system would be to disincentivise cyclists from breaking the law. If it succeeded at this, then it is deemed a success. Not if it makes money.


  • Options
    #53
    Bunnyhopper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Bunnyhopper


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense.

    I agree, but if there are two options for how you enforce the law and one costs more than the other, I'd say it's also common sense to go for the more cost-effective option. In this case, that means fixed penalty notices rather than registration plates.

    On a related point, I support greater enforcement of the rules for cyclists but I'd argue that that ought to happen in the context of a reassessment of those rules and of the infrastructure. For example, I'd like to see cyclists who go the wrong way on one-way streets getting FPNs, but I'd also like to see a more considered use of contra-flow cycle lanes.


  • Options
    #54
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

    I suggest you take it up with every government in the world (apart from the Swiss) as none of them can be bothered with registering cyclists.

    From what I know, the purpose of vehicle registration is primarily to establish ownership and to tax owners, not to fight crime, though I suppose that is a useful side effect.

    Then you believe that governments always make the right decision.

    Nice.


  • Options
    #55
    dubmess
    Registered Users Posts: 282 ✭✭dubmess


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

    I'm not proposing anything, they're not my studies and not my set of moral codes, just the way the world works. Seriously surprised that a government might put revenue first? Read the papers much?


  • Options
    #56
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    Bunnyhopper wrote: »
    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense.

    I agree, but if there are two options for how you enforce the law and one costs more than the other, I'd say it's also common sense to go for the more cost-effective option. In this case, that means fixed penalty notices rather than registration plates.

    On a related point, I support greater enforcement of the rules for cyclists but I'd argue that that ought to happen in the context of a reassessment of those rules and of the infrastructure. For example, I'd like to see cyclists who go the wrong way on one-way streets getting FPNs, but I'd also like to see a more considered use of contra-flow cycle lanes.

    But how often would these FPNs be handed out? One in a thousand incidents, at best? One in ten thousand?

    I don't see the deterrent.


  • Options
    #57
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    I'm all for not cycling on the footpath, its just too slow. Also you splill your coffee avoiding buggies and like.

    But is this to prevent the recent carnage on the footpath where so many were killed and maimed.


  • Options
    #58
    Duke Leonal Felmet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭Duke Leonal Felmet


    dubmess wrote: »
    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

    I'm not proposing anything, they're not my studies and not my set of moral codes, just the way the world works. Seriously surprised that a government might put revenue first? Read the papers much?

    I'd take a punt at saying fighting serious assault generates no revenue (dont make a moronic comment about solicitors), and is actually a burden on the state.

    So, the government puts revenue first? Why not close prisons? Why bother with criminal law?

    It isn't the way the world works. Instead of reading papers, I got an education so I can make my own mind up on matters, instead of regurgitating what is fed to me.


  • Options
    #59
    Bunnyhopper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Bunnyhopper


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    But how often would these FPNs be handed out? One in a thousand incidents, at best? One in ten thousand?

    I don't see the deterrent.

    About as often as someone gets fined for breaking the 30KPH limit in Dublin city centre, I'd guess. If you don't enforce a law then it doesn't matter how many number plates you stick on a bike or a car.


  • Options
    #60
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,743 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »
    Then you believe that governments always make the right decision.

    Nice.

    Well, if it's between the opinion of all the governments and one guy on the internet on an issue of relatively minor importance, I'll go with all the governments in the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    BostonB wrote: »
    I'm all for not cycling on the footpath, its just too slow. Also you splill your coffee avoiding buggies and like.

    But is this to prevent the recent carnage on the footpath where so many were killed and maimed.
    No I made a complaint to my dad (the sherrif of nottingham) because my new loafers got dirty when I had to step out of the way of a cycle-terrorist.


Advertisement