Irish Times - Rag

slideshow bob wrote: »

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.

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

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'.

High Nellie wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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

TinyExplosions wrote: »

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.

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

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).

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!

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)