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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Irish Times - Rag

1246789

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,741 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    CSO did, and for the Dublin area we have:
    Students at school or college aged between 13 and 18 years
    Dublin City and suburbs
    Bicycle 4,130
    All means of travel 66,472
    I'm not great at maths now the exams are over, but I reckon that's less than 50%. That makes Marino on Griffith Avenue an outliar if the majority on students are on bikes.

    I wasn't claiming that it was 50% everywhere, I was just stating the situation in the school I went to and found it hard to believe it was only 1% of students that cycled. The figures for Dublin means that a little over 6% cycle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »
    @ Vlad One of the most obvious ways I can think were a cyclist pretty much is forced to break the law would be junctions where the traffic lights are triggered by magnets or pressure plates.

    As far as I know if the lights fail to change you are allowed to proceed with caution. This is typically to allow cars to go ahead at a junction where the lights have stuck in one direction but it covers those junctions where a bicycle won't trigger the lights to change. I'd be interested to know the exact legislation though.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Strong safety reasons? Riddle me this. Why are so many people capable of cycling safely around Dublin without finding the need to cycle the wrong way down one way streets? Are they completely (or profoundly ;)) ignorant of the danger they are putting themselves in? Why aren't we all getting killed to death on a weekly basis?

    It's entirely possible to cycle safely around Dublin within the law.

    I suspect that many potential cyclists would disagree with you. Clearly many people do feel the need to use one-way streets in both directions otherwise we wouldn't be hearing complaints and sneers from people such as yourself.

    Why have cycling levels stayed so low in this country at a time of high unemployment and record fuel prices?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Why have cycling levels stayed so low in this country at a time of high unemployment and record fuel prices?

    Good bikes are expensive? No safe place to leave a bike? Laziness? Roads are in sh1te? They are constantly being told it's dangerous? It's hardly because Dawson St is one way.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    As far as I know if the lights fail to change you are allowed to proceed with caution. This is typically to allow cars to go ahead at a junction where the lights have stuck in one direction but it covers those junctions where a bicycle won't trigger the lights to change. I'd be interested to know the exact legislation though.

    I have never come across any legislation to this effect. I would say you would need to rely on the mercy of the court or the officer bringing the charge.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,308 ✭✭✭quozl


    I suspect that many potential cyclists would disagree with you. Clearly many people do feel the need to use one-way streets in both directions.

    Just to point out, even if lots of potential cyclists hold this belief that is absolutely no evidence for it being true - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    I held a number of common-knowledge beliefs (footpath cycling being safer for one, the un-debatable importance of the thing that can only be mentioned in the other thread being another) before I decided to start cycling that I've since learnt aren't true.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    stetyrrell wrote: »
    I wasn't claiming that it was 50% everywhere, I was just stating the situation in the school I went to and found it hard to believe it was only 1% of students that cycled. The figures for Dublin means that a little over 6% cycle.

    These are the values I got for secondary students in the 2011 census

    Greater Dublin Area 6.14%
    Cork City 0.99%
    Limeric City 3.14%
    Galway City 3.61%
    Waterford City 0.58%


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭Lawr


    "Masochistic" suggests she finds it painful…

    Actually, I think masochistic suggests she enjoys the pain.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Good bikes are expensive? No safe place to leave a bike? Laziness? Roads are in sh1te? They are constantly being told it's dangerous? It's hardly because Dawson St is one way.

    It is all those things but one-way streets, and one way systems, in particular are one of those things that are a very real obstacle to cycling as a form of transport. They are one of the things that proper cycling countries either didn't do at all or that they have systematically approached to avoid negative impacts on cycling.

    It is also one of the things that should be possible to fix very quickly. Most one-way streets around the country are not multilane systems like the Quays, most are relatively minor streets where a few signs and a change in driver attitude could do wonders.

    Making cycling inconvenient makes no sense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    These are the values I got for secondary students in the 2011 census

    Greater Dublin Area 6.14%
    Cork City 0.99%
    Limeric City 3.14%
    Galway City 3.61%
    Waterford City 0.58%

    These are the values for 2002

    Greater Dublin Area 7.51%
    Cork City 2.88%
    Limerick City 6.03%
    Galway City 4.78%
    Waterford City 2.25%


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Kav0777


    Irish times article today about an Orwell wheeler (Paul O'Neil) taking on the Marmotte:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/alpine-trek-the-end-of-a-journey-only-a-bicycle-could-make-possible-1.1433796


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,823 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    Tombo feels that completely unremarkable T junction in Phibsboro (which I used to cycle through on a regular basis, but thanks for assuming otherwise) is so unsafe to allow him to cycle down a one way street. Don't like the busy junction? Better go the wrong way down a one way street (conveniently avoiding a set of lights I might add).........

    This attitude is despicable.


    The point I made is that it is safer to drive cycle down an empty street, with no traffic on it, even if its going the wrong way down a one way street, than it is to cycle down a busy street with lots of traffic on it that is swerving from lane to lane and leaving no room for cyclists (which as you know.

    In terms of traffic, I cycled via the t-junction this morning. Traffic was backed to the traffic lights at St Peters Road, which as you know is 150 yards back from the t-junction. At the point where the traffic divided into two lanes close to the t-junction, a truck moved into the left lane in front of me without indicating and proceeded to drive on to the footpath so that he could straighten the truck on the lane. I can not see how this is a safer environment than being on a parralel road 50 yards away that has not a single car driving on it.

    Rather than describing my attitude as despicable, you might just explain why my viewpoint is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Rather than describing my attitude as despicable, you might just explain why my viewpoint is wrong.

    It's very simple really. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which rules you follow and which you don't. That's the crux of the matter. That is the attitude which I find despicable.

    In addition I'm willing to bet that 'safe' route is also more convenient for you. If you wanted to turn right at the T junction I'm guessing you'd be willing to brave the 'maelstrom' and suddenly safety wouldn't be such a big deal.

    As I said before that junction is completely unremarkable. I suspect that the city is packed with situations in which you feel you are entitled to break the rules 'for safety reasons'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭High Nellie


    Motorists are sold a dream.

    Look at the advertising and the imagery conjured up: freedom; speed; youth; vibrancy; the wind blowing in your hair; a status symbol ....

    And what do they get instead: frustration; stress; inertia; backed up in rows in their expensive metal boxes.

    But what makes a small number so angry is that while they are struggling there in their stressed states they see the dream out through their windows in the form of cyclists. That's what makes a lot of them so angry. It's not the breaking of the law really. For example, between 50% and 70% of motorists admit to breaking the speed laws (depending between surveys). So 'most' motorists break the law regurlarly in a much more dangerous way than cyclists.

    It's the freedom that gets to them, man ......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,174 ✭✭✭buffalo


    It's not the breaking of the law really. For example, between 50% and 70% of motorists admit to breaking the speed laws (depending between surveys). So 'most' motorists break the law regurlarly in a much more dangerous way than cyclists.

    edit: I take it all back! Mis-read the post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,174 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    I think you need to re-read his post, the subtly is in the grammar. His post makes allot of sense.

    Missed that all important 'the', my mistake.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    In Paris (hardly the cyclist's nirvana, but still a step better than Ireland in some respects), they have made one-way streets two-way for cyclists in a quite systematic way (pretty much all 30 km/h streets, and other streets too by building a dedicated contraflow lane). On your typical 30km/h street, there's nothing more than an "except cyclists" sign added to the no entry sign in terms of infrastructure, except maybe with a bit of kerb-separated lane at the beginning of the street to make it more explicit.

    For example, here you have a contraflow lane at the beginning of the street, but further down it becomes a regular lane, and just to simply disappear later on (with some painted signs as a reminder). Hardly an example of the best infrastructure, but this shows that it is possible for cyclists to cycle the "wrong" way on one-way streets. Note how narrow the street is. One of the cyclist or driver will probably have to stop to let the other pass (generally the driver will stop at the first empty spot). It certainly feels like cycling the wrong way on a typical Dublin (or Cork) one-way street, except there it's legal. And guess what, it just works.

    Why would cyclists in this area use that street? Well the alternative is somewhat of a detour, it looks like that (nothing excessively scary, but quite similar to a typical Dublin busy city street), and mostly, brings you there, giving you the pleasure of negotiating this multilane roundabout (believe me, you have to try it once to fully appreciate the experience -- you will have two to three lanes of cars trying to exit the roundabout while you continue straight on).

    On another subject, last time I've cycled in Paris, I also noticed the new little signs they added to some traffic lights, allowing cyclist to turn right (or straight at T-junctions) at all times, treating a red light as a yield (no streetview link, but here's a description). The benefit for cyclists is huge, in that you get to pass the junction separately from motorised traffic, in particular right-turning HGVs with their blind spots. Again, this works just fine, and has been generalised after a conclusive experimental phase.

    Why am I saying all that? You asked for examples where breaking the rules makes sense from the point of view of the cyclist's security and comfort. I mentioned Paris precisely because it's not really advanced cycling-wise, so it makes the comparison with Dublin all the more relevant. Of course, the difference is that, in the examples I gave, it is legal for cyclists to do so. But instead of moaning that cyclists should never break the rules etc. etc., you might as well acknowledge that there are indeed illegal alternatives that are safer or more convenient to cyclists, and that we should think whether it really makes sense to keep them illegal. galwaycyclist's point about cycle lane mandatory use was an easy one, yet still illustrates perfectly the point, since I'm pretty sure you never adhered to that law. And no one explained to Tombo2001 why it doesn't make more sense to use the empty one-way back street instead of the busy junction. To me it makes perfect sense, and ideally, cyclists should be offered that option, with the peace of mind that legality has to offer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    In addition I'm willing to bet that 'safe' route is also more convenient for you.

    And what's wrong with that? Quite often safety and convenience go hand in hand. The whole point of making one-way streets available in both ways for cyclists is about offering a much more convenient alternative to cyclists in many cases.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭droidus


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    It's very simple really. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which rules you follow and which you don't. That's the crux of the matter. That is the attitude which I find despicable.

    Do you find jaywalkers 'despicable'? Im not trying to be confrontational, but every single person in this country who has ever crossed the road has broken the 'rules', and the majority do it every day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    droidus wrote: »
    Do you find jaywalkers 'despicable'? Im not trying to be confrontational, but every single person in this country who has ever crossed the road has broken the 'rules', and the majority do it every day.

    But to be fair, a jaywalking pedestrian doesn't attempt to justify it by saying it's safer...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭droidus


    Which means he has even less justification for his despicable actions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Are we talking safety or convenience here? The convenience argument I get, the safety one I don't. Attempts to link the two I find tenuous. In fact, they are quite often in direct conflict.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    But to be fair, a jaywalking pedestrian doesn't attempt to justify it by saying it's safer...

    When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    enas wrote: »
    When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.

    True, but sometimes at the expense of someone else's real safety.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    True, but sometimes at the expense of someone else's real safety.

    When your own convenience is in contradiction with your own safety or someone else's safety, as you mention, there is something seriously wrong with how the environment is designed. Something has to be changed, and this is what we should be discussing about rather than assigning blame on this cyclist and this other cyclist.

    I don't believe that happens too often though. And no, I don't believe that cycling a one-way street the wrong way is dangerous for anyone -- in Paris (as an example), they experimented it, they saw it works, they validated it, and that's it. I wish they did the same in Dublin or Cork. Furthermore, until it becomes legal, I won't morally blame those (of which I'm not) who do it any more than I used to blame those cyclists who illegally refused to use cycle lanes before the latest change in the law (of which I was).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    enas wrote: »
    When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.

    Yes, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. While 'despicable' is strong word that I'd not use, I really don't accept the "it's safer to use the one way street the wrong way, so it's ok to do so argument". You can justify rule breaking in any way you like, but to come up with a bullshit 'saftey' reasoning gets my goat a little. 'Perceived Safety' is just another way of trying to justify a stance that is entirely about convenience.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    enas wrote: »
    Furthermore, until it becomes legal, I won't morally blame those (of which I'm not) who do it any more than I used to blame those cyclists who illegally refused to use cycle lanes before the latest change in the law (of which I was).

    I have no problem with the fella cycling the wrong way on a one way street, I do have a problem with the attempt to justify it as safer! :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭dogsears


    enas wrote: »

    you might as well acknowledge that there are indeed illegal alternatives that are safer or more convenient to cyclists, and that we should think whether it really makes sense to keep them illegal.

    That's fine but "safer" and "more convenient" aren't the same, though I suspect a lot of the excuse making based on "its safer" is really more about "its more convenient". And of course more convenient can quickly morph into "I couldn't be arsed doing it any other, even slightly less convenient way".

    I don't buy the argument about safety at all, or at least the conclusion that being presented with a potentially unsafe situation blesses any rule breaking.

    I've never yet approached a set of traffic lights on red and been faced with a situation of such imminent threat to life or limb that my only option was to cruise on through (and then do the same at the next set, and the next). I'm not saying there aren't dangers, but in my experience the answer is generally to slow right down, hang back, stop well short of the light if necessary. Exceptionally the answer might be to creep past the light, or round the corner, but to breeze on through, consistently, even past other cyclists who are stopped (how can they possibly survive:eek:), well lets not pretend that's about safety of any kind.

    As for convenience, I think its a perfectly valid reason for exceptions to be made. No reason why rules of the road should entirely ignore convenience. So lobby your representatives, present the experience from other countries, gather support from others, challenge candidates at election times etc. But at the moment, living as we do in a world where we share the roads with others, we need to respect the rules and abide by them, whether we agree with them or not. Abiding by rules you might not agree with, (and you might be right) is what living in an orderly society is all about.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭MrCreosote


    enas wrote: »

    On another subject, last time I've cycled in Paris, I also noticed the new little signs they added to some traffic lights, allowing cyclist to turn right (or straight at T-junctions) at all times, treating a red light as a yield (no streetview link, but here's a The benefit for cyclists is huge, in that you get to pass the junction separately from motorised traffic, in particular right-turning HGVs with their blind spots. Again, this works just fine, and has been generalised after a conclusive experimental phase.

    The sooner traffic lights are made into yield signs for cyclists in Ireland the better. It's quicker, safer, better for both motorists and cyclists and would just formalise what a lot of cyclists already do (like the mandatory cycle lane law)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    'Perceived Safety' is just another way of trying to justify a stance that is entirely about convenience.

    May I ask again, what is wrong with convenience? You use that word as if it is the absolute sin. Isn't encouraging cycling all about making it more convenient (than it currently is, than driving currently is)? Perceived safety isn't a way to justify convenience. Rather, perceived safety and convenience are two aspects of comfort in general, i.e. how comfortable it is to cycle.

    People want to do what's most comfortable to them. Until cycling is made more comfortable, people will either not cycle (that's what most people end up doing), or find their own ways to make it more comfortable, even when that's illegal (by cycling the wrong way, by cycling on a footpath, by avoiding a cycle lane when that was illegal). Since that's obviously not satisfactory, we should discuss about making comfortable cycling the legal option, rather than spending our energy criticising the illegal cyclist. We're missing the big picture otherwise.

    Now, I realise I'm not contradicting you, and I agree that as long as it is illegal to cycle the wrong way, people shouldn't do it. I don't do it. But let me ask you a question. Are you saying that cycling the wrong way is very dangerous, and so is morally highly condemnable, despite experimental evidence that shows that's it's really safe? Were you condemning cycling outside cycle lanes when they were mandatory? And if the answers are yes and no (as I suspect), what's the difference between the two?


Advertisement