Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?

SeanW · 07-05-2014 04:56PM

cdebru wrote: »

Your use of hyperbole " thundering " to describe a speed of less than 25mph takes away from the rest of your post to be honest.

Other than that the fact that the bus exists does not make it responsible in and of itself for the actions of other people. If he ran into a tree could you sue the owner of the tree ? Same logic if the tree didn't exist he couldnt run into it.

Where does personal responsibility come into it ? If I run onto the road then the primary responsibility for anything that happens is mine , unless there is someone or thing that caused me to run onto the road. If it is someone that is too young to take personal responsibility then the responsibility doesn't pass to society as a whole. And it particularly doesn't fall to someone minding their own business and obeying the law who has not done anything dangerous or contributed to the accident other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Logic. Personal responsibility. Due process for motorists. Fair distribution of guilt/liability.

Values that are alien to some.

bambergbike · 07-05-2014 05:45PM

This shouldn't be about personal responsibility, moral responsibility or criminal responsibility. Of course people who make mistakes or misjudgements are responsible for their own actions. If somebody is exposed to a risk and then makes a mistake and falls victim to whatever the specific hazard is as a result, of course it can be argued that it's their own fault. I'm certainly not saying it isn't. What I'm arguing is that the people who expose other people to risks, usually because they benefit in some way from doing so, have a duty to compensate the people who fall victim to the hazards they have created. Financially. That's the logic behind presumed liability in the countries that have it. The question of who is at fault can be left for criminal proceedings. Civil cases focus on whether A should compensate B (because otherwise A would be offloading the inherent risks of his mode of transport onto B, and that would hardly be fair).

I would also like to think that society as a whole would be willing to accept some responsibility for attempting to keep people safe on our roads even when they make a mistake or misjudgement. Because otherwise, as I've said, an awful lot of people would have to be kept locked up inside, or would be locked into begging lifts rather than getting around under their own steam. Do we really want to live like that?

It doesn't take much speed for a bus to have a lot of momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) and - as we've unfortunately seen - to inflict a lot of damage. In that context, I'm quite happy to stand by my choice of words.

Banjoxed · 07-05-2014 06:10PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

The boy went to cross the road to avoid any repeat of confrontations experienced on previous occasions. Who do you think should foot the bill?

The shower of little scumbags that caused this to happen. If they didn't create hassle where there was none, then this would not occur.

A teeny bit more law and order and a lot less Magic Money Tree, folks.

foggy_lad · 07-05-2014 06:12PM

corktina wrote: »

it's why you have insurance....

Indeed, third party insurance is compulsory in Ireland.

Banjoxed wrote: »

The shower of little scumbags that caused this to happen. If they didn't create hassle where there was none, then this would not occur.

A teeny bit more law and order and a lot less Magic Money Tree, folks.

It would cost more to chase them and get them to court and even then they wouldn't be found liable.

SeanW · 07-05-2014 09:42PM

corktina wrote: »

exactly. This poor lad needs the dosh, would you take it away from him? Let's get our priorities right here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this kid getting what he needs. I just think the source is wrong, i.e. an innocent party. First, the scumbags that caused the problem should have anything they own taken from them, likewise their parents, and a garnishment on their wages or more likely benefits taken in prepituity. Then for the kid to be cared for as well as can be by the national health system, whether of Spain or Ireland.

I am not a lawyer, but I can imagine the childs' actions are pretty much the textbook definition of duress.

bambergbike wrote: »

Having a default limit of 30 km/h in urban areas would make a lot of sense (town name sign at entry to town = 30 km/h speed limit). ... but we could put a blanket limit of 30 in first and then sort out the exceptions and pay close attention to how we make these excepted major roads safe for higher speeds (grass buffer space between pedestrians and buses, for example).

You've lost me. You do realise that many of our "urban" areas are nothing of the sort? There are a lot of so-called "urban" areas where 50kph is ridiculously slow, let alone 30kph which would be just silly.

Take for example this "urban arterial" or whatever the hell the planners call them today, outside (officially, inside) my hometown of Longford. https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.718027,-7.760405,3a,62.8y,170.2h,81.57t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sC_P2imbDKce1oI1MR_KxyQ!2e0

What do you see? Trees, one off houses, fields, agricultural sheds, country lane junctions. And a fingerpost roadsign saying "Longford 2km" pointing to the North. Speed limit? 50kph, the same as the towns Main Street. Reason? Probably something to do with this "urban street" being within a mile of the town proper. What you propose to do is to wallpaper such "urban areas" with 30kph limits in what seems to be no more carefully considered a fashion than that of a drunken redneck shooting a shotgun. If I were to say what I really think of your suggestion, I would probably be banned.

Of course pedestrians should look and listen and take care, but the penalty for being a bit careless in an urban area (or, for that matter, a bit blind or a bit deaf) should not be death or massive injury.

By far the vast majority of illegal behaviour I observe from so called "vulnerable" road users, i.e. cyclists and pedestrians, has nothing to do with disability or geniune absent mindedness, but to do with intentional lawbreaking. I walk in Dublin City most every day these days and I find the find the behaviour of non-motoring road users to be astonishing. It is absolutely crystal clear to me from what I have seen and read that the ONLY factor restricting the illegal behaviour of cyclists and some pedestrians, is the fear of getting flattened by a motorist.

This is who strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect, 99.999999999% of the time.

You propose, by means of Strict Liability and lowered speed limits, to empower such people. People like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

that I see routinely from both pedestrians and cyclists, albeit in a less spectacular fashion. I would like to know why.

cdebru · 07-05-2014 10:00PM

bambergbike wrote: »

This shouldn't be about personal responsibility, moral responsibility or criminal responsibility. Of course people who make mistakes or misjudgements are responsible for their own actions. If somebody is exposed to a risk and then makes a mistake and falls victim to whatever the specific hazard is as a result, of course it can be argued that it's their own fault. I'm certainly not saying it isn't. What I'm arguing is that the people who expose other people to risks, usually because they benefit in some way from doing so, have a duty to compensate the people who fall victim to the hazards they have created. Financially. That's the logic behind presumed liability in the countries that have it. The question of who is at fault can be left for criminal proceedings. Civil cases focus on whether A should compensate B (because otherwise A would be offloading the inherent risks of his mode of transport onto B, and that would hardly be fair).

I would also like to think that society as a whole would be willing to accept some responsibility for attempting to keep people safe on our roads even when they make a mistake or misjudgement. Because otherwise, as I've said, an awful lot of people would have to be kept locked up inside, or would be locked into begging lifts rather than getting around under their own steam. Do we really want to live like that?

It doesn't take much speed for a bus to have a lot of momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) and - as we've unfortunately seen - to inflict a lot of damage. In that context, I'm quite happy to stand by my choice of words.

There is no inherent risk, if pedestrians and motorists follow the laws of this state barring a mechanical failure in which case the motorist or in this case the company is liable.
Both parties have a right to be there, the bus on the roadway and the pedestrian on the provided footpath the "risk" only occurred when the pedestrian left the footpath and entered the roadway without due care and attention.

Nonsense about assumed liability does not improve road safety it is just a charter for the feckless and reckless to do as they please and never be in the wrong.

This stands logic on its head my house is a risk if you decide to try and walk through its walls should I be liable for having a house for my benefit in the way of where you want to walk?

Nobody needs to be locked up, people just need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they are feckless or reckless and they cause yourself injury that is not someone else's responsibility to compensate you for your own fecklessness or recklessness. Now that is not a charter to run people over, it is the law as it is supposed to be you are only liable if you did something wrong you must yield to pedestrians but if you physically cant because of their action that is not your fault it is theirs.

cdebru · 07-05-2014 10:05PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Indeed, third party insurance is compulsory in Ireland.

It would cost more to chase them and get them to court and even then they wouldn't be found liable.

Third party insurance is to pay out where you are liable not a blanket to cover those reckless of their own safety.

They are far more liable for the injuries to that boy than Dunlin bus is they however are getting off Scot free while DB is paying out €9 million for something they did not cause nor could not avoid.

SeanW · 07-05-2014 10:12PM

cdebru wrote: »

Third party insurance is to pay out where you are liable not a blanket to cover those reckless of their own safety.

That's how it SHOULD work, and I imagine compulsory insurance would be a lot cheaper if actually worked that way.

They are far more liable for the injuries to that boy than Dunlin bus is they however are getting off Scot free while DB is paying out €9 million for something they did not cause nor could not avoid.

A situation which some consider perfectly just.

Carawaystick · 08-05-2014 09:54PM

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

cdebru · 09-05-2014 11:44AM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

There is no inherent danger unless the laws are not obeyed or there is a mechanical fault, all you have given examples of is exactly that, and if either party fails in their legal obligations they bear the liability for the accident .

Pedestrians have a legal obligation to take care of their own personal safety when interacting with vehicles and motorists have a legal obligation to yield to pedestrians whenever possible.

If you are reckless with your own safety then anything including other people pose a risk to your safety but if you are being reckless the responsibility for that risk and any consequences is with you not the other people merely because they exist.

SeanW · 09-05-2014 12:00PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cdebru, there is always a risk of motor traffic/pedestrian interaction.
Look at the pedestrians killed on the footpath on Wellington quay, or the grandmother killed on a path at a bus stop by a Garda driving a car over her
Or the woman killed on the path at the tram junction on Jervis St

Assuming that you are accurate in these claims, they do not involve Strict Liability, since in all cases it is clearly a fault with a motor, either a mechanical or driver fault.

As said above, a law abiding pedestrian or cyclist has nothing whatsoever to fear from a safely/legally operating vehicle.

monument · 10-05-2014 08:11AM

I see many lawbreaking pedestrians.
I see many lawbreaking cyclists.
I see many lawbreaking motorists.

But only one of these things comes with regular fatal and serious injoury danger, and is inherent a danger even before the law breaking starts.

cdebru wrote: »

Pedestrians have a legal obligation to take care of their own personal safety when interacting with vehicles and motorists have a legal obligation to yield to pedestrians whenever possible.

I see the latter part of that disobeyed more often and more clearly than the former.

That's both in towns down the county and in Dublin and Galway etc.

Even in the city centre in Dublin where masses of people jaywalk (which is wrong), you have a "balance" (for want of a better word) of a massive amount of drivers doing things like breaking filter red lights onto ped crossings and blocking crossings or moving across when the green man is on. Fewer, but significant amounts of motorists break red lights, many more break amber lights and reach crossing at the same time as people get a green man light.

cdebru wrote: »

Simple question if the logic of it being the drivers fault holds water was he charged with any offence? Careless driving or dangerous driving ? ....

Criminal liability and insurance-level civil liability are separated across the EU and likely elsewhere.

Criminal liability always has a far higher burden of proof and far high bar.

cdebru wrote: »

This is the courts looking for an excuse to hold someone responsible and as luck would have it a nice semi state is there to pick up the tag.

That does not hold water given the private driver stories others have given on the thread.

cdebru wrote: »

It is why insurance is so expensive in this country, If that accident had happened to the child at home in Spain not a hope they would have got that money in Spanish courts.

Spain's rules on loads of things are loose or widely unenforced. In that regard, it's a basket case compared to most of westren Europe.

cdebru wrote: »

Nonsense this country can not continue to pander to people based on sympathy, and I can guarantee you once bus routes are tendered out to private companies these massive payouts where no fault has been realistically shown will no longer happen.
No way a private company could afford insurance under those conditions and no way courts would force them to pay out under these nonsense rulings.
Seriously how would you get insurance or how much would insurance cost with this nonsense it is only possible for DB because they self insure up to €2 million on a single incident. But given this nonsense you would have to wonder what effect it will have on future premiums and what the excess will be.

Strict liability works just fine in countries with tendered out public transport services.

And Luas already works fine here tendered out.

cdebru wrote: »

Exactly it would be impossible to operate any kind of public transport on the basis of this judgement, buses would literally have to move at walking pace for most of the journey. Making it completely useless to most people.

The Netherlands and Germany have clearer cut strict liability and are know for having a good network of bus and tram services.

So, your conclusions sound reactive and baseless.

cdebru wrote: »

Both parties have a right to be there, the bus on the roadway and the pedestrian on the provided footpath the "risk" only occurred when the pedestrian left the footpath and entered the roadway without due care and attention.

That's bull. Pedestrians have a clear legal right to cross the road anywhere 15 meters away from a crossing.

Try and cross with due care and attention and you still get a large number of drivers some distance away from you to make no attempt at slowing down and often to speed up to get you to move faster.

Pedestrians are scared in to running across even the smaller residential streets in some places.

People are often forced out into the road by motorists parking on footpaths -- such illegal parking is epidemic.

SeanW wrote: »

Assuming that you are accurate in these claims, they do not involve Strict Liability, since in all cases it is clearly a fault with a motor, either a mechanical or driver fault.

It still involves strict liability as such makes sure there is never any or very limited question.

monument · 10-05-2014 08:29AM

SeanW wrote: »

This is who strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect, 99.999999999% of the time.

You propose, by means of Strict Liability and lowered speed limits, to empower such people. People like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

that I see routinely from both pedestrians and cyclists, albeit in a less spectacular fashion. I would like to know why.

Going to have to call bull**** in that one.

On a daily bases without I see at least a few motorists passing a zebra crossing without yielding to an old person, a school child or a person pushing a pram waiting in fear to cross. Putting one foot on the road or not makes little or no difference. And many motorists regularly see fit to approach this zebra crossing at speeds between 55-70km/h in a 50km/h zone which stared a 1km or so back the road lines with houses, estates and two shops (so by no means the middle of nowhere where higher speeds would be ok).

Elsewhere where there are no crossing provided for 100s of meters, people are "encouraged" by motorists and cyclists to hurry up if they dare try to cross the road. That encouragement comes sometimes in the form of not slowing down and, other times, by speeding up slightly.

For every idiot who cyclists like that there's tens of children, people who are old and less able to cross and others who have mobility impairments.

And for every idiot who cyclists like that there's also 100s of fit and able people walking and cycling who are just trying to get from A to B or whatever.

SeanW · 10-05-2014 07:54PM

monument wrote: »

Criminal liability always has a far higher burden of proof and far high bar.

True, criminal liability generally requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt" whereas civil liability requires proof to the standad of the "balance of proabilities".

No jurisdiction that treasures due process has a standard of "you're part of a non-favoured group, so you are automatically guilty." That's the difference.

Speaking of the difference between criminal and civil liability, say the OP story had been a case of a private motorist who had been struggling financially, and a cycle courier who had caused the accident by his/her own illegal behaviour.

A €9,000,000 payout would preclude that motorist from getting car insurance at least in the following 5 years, and even at that at a sane premium, if ever.

It would have the same practical effect as taking away their driving license, possibly forever.

Furthermore, a routine of such payouts could raise insurance premia so far beyond anything that is reasonably affordable as to drive other law abiding motorists off the road in the same fashion.

You, bambergbike, Iwannahurl and others believe that this is fair and proprtionate, given the behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists and the already staggering costs imposed on motorists by government, especially in Ireland. I would like to know why.

That's bull. Pedestrians have a clear legal right to cross the road anywhere 15 meters away from a crossing.

IANAL but as far as I know, the law allows pedestrians to cross almost anywhere, but does not give them absolute priority without being at a junction, a zebra crossing or a green man.

It still involves strict liability as such makes sure there is never any or very limited question.

What you mean is "there is never any due process or opprotunity for the motorist to present a defense."

If a motorist behaves irresponsibly and causes harm, the law does not require strict liability for them to be found responsible.

monument wrote: »

Going to have to call bull**** in that one.

Well, I'm going to have to call bull on your call of bull, because I walk around Dublin city centre most days and I observe that the vast majority of illegal/irresponsible behaviour by cyclists and pedestrians has nothing to due with impariment, duress or genuine mistake, and everything to do with disrespect for the law, including what I consider to be very serious cases of pedestrians and cyclists breaking a red light against oncoming traffic on the basis that the oncoming car/bus/taxi is going slowly enough that they can be forced to stop on their green.

On a daily bases without I see at least a few motorists passing a zebra crossing without yielding to an old person, a school child or a person pushing a pram waiting in fear to cross. Putting one foot on the road or not makes little or no difference. And many motorists regularly see fit to approach this zebra crossing at speeds between 55-70km/h in a 50km/h zone which stared a 1km or so back the road lines with houses, estates and two shops (so by no means the middle of nowhere where higher speeds would be ok).

All of which is clearly both wrong and illegal and should be treated as such. You will get no argument from me there.

I am just wondering why if a motorist causes an accident in or near your above crossing under the conditions you describe, they should be treated the same in the courts as a motorist who gets into an accident when the cause is reversed? That's what doesn't make any sense.

Sheldons Brain · 10-05-2014 11:09PM

monument wrote: »

I see many lawbreaking pedestrians.
I see many lawbreaking cyclists.
I see many lawbreaking motorists.

But only one of these things comes with regular fatal and serious injoury danger, and is inherent a danger even before the law breaking starts.

While fatal injuries caused by cyclists are unusual they are possible and less serious injury is very likely. Motor vehicles moving on footpaths are extremely unusual, many lout cyclists proceed this way as a matter of routine and are not subject to any road testing nor required to have insurance.

monument · 11-05-2014 10:58AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

While fatal injuries caused by cyclists are unusual they are possible and less serious injury is very likely. Motor vehicles moving on footpaths are extremely unusual, many lout cyclists proceed this way as a matter of routine and are not subject to any road testing nor required to have insurance.

As another poster pointed out, motorists kill (and also injure) people on footpaths all the time.

Motorists moving on footpaths is also very common -- the epidemic levels of footpath parking requires such. Requirement for road testing does not seem to stop them.

SeanW wrote: »

No jurisdiction that treasures due process has a standard of "you're part of a non-favoured group, so you are automatically guilty." That's the difference.

Three main points here:

(1) It's liability and not guilt. These are not as interlinked as people thing.

(2) It's noting to do with being a "favoured" or "non-favoured" group.

(3) It's not fully strict, even where the system is codified in written law. There's usually wiggle room or factors taken on board -- both in the non-codified (and unclear and seems to only kick in upper courts) Irish system and the codified Dutch system.

With the Dutch system, this link goes into detail on the topic, and as it says: "The driver always at fault? This flow chart makes clear it is not that simple!" ... http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

BTW I'm not a fan of moving to a codify the Irish system any time soon as the issue is too complex for even a tiny bit of rational debate. There's too much misunderstanding on both sides. But maybe a more unified court approach might be a good idea.

As the link points out, even the name "strict liability" is somewhat misleading. It's not strict and with adults it's shared.

SeanW wrote: »

IANAL but as far as I know, the law allows pedestrians to cross almost anywhere, but does not give them absolute priority without being at a junction, a zebra crossing or a green man.

Nobody has absolute priority anywhere.

But where a pedestrian has started crossing (away from a crossing etc and without jumping out in front of traffic which has no chance of stopping) motorists and cyclists are supposed to yield. Both motorists and cyclists are not allowed by law to keep going and so speeding up to rush people should be out of the question.

SeanW wrote: »

If a motorist behaves irresponsibly and causes harm, the law does not require strict liability for them to be found responsible.

Indeed, but the law has fairly high bars to find somebody responsible and where there's no witnesses etc, strict liability also covers motorists behaving irresponsibly and puts them at least part responsible for costs (in the Dutch system 100% for children without ill intent and 50% for adults).

SeanW wrote: »

Well, I'm going to have to call bull on your call of bull, because I walk around Dublin city centre most days and I observe that the vast majority of illegal/irresponsible behaviour by cyclists and pedestrians has nothing to due with impariment, duress or genuine mistake, and everything to do with disrespect for the law, including what I consider to be very serious cases of pedestrians and cyclists breaking a red light against oncoming traffic on the basis that the oncoming car/bus/taxi is going slowly enough that they can be forced to stop on their green.

I was not answering your why question, I was challenging your bs that "99.999999999% of the time" strict liability and reduced speed limits would protect protect the idiot cyclist in the video.

He/she is closer to 00.000000001% than they are to 99.999999999%.

SeanW wrote: »

I am just wondering why if a motorist causes an accident in or near your above crossing under the conditions you describe, they should be treated the same in the courts as a motorist who gets into an accident when the cause is reversed? That's what doesn't make any sense.

Not sure what your asking... Is it if motorist who cause an accident and motorists who do not should be treated the same? If so, I'm not saying that.

paddyland · 11-05-2014 04:11PM

It has to be said that the greatest annoyance to me as a pedestrian has to be cyclists.

I walk on the footpath. I walk in the park. I walk along the strand. I walk along leisurely, or sometimes I walk in a hurry. Sometimes I cross roads.

No matter where I walk, I encounter cyclists. Sometimes cycling sedately, but far more usually, bombing along.

If I need to cross the road, I use the traffic crossing, or if there is none, then I look and cross carefully. I can see a car coming, and he can see me. Often, I get courtesy from a car driver, if I am trying to cross, or half way across. Never will you get such courtesy from a cyclist. Never. They will mow you down rather than give you space.

What about all these lovely country parks we have developed in recent decades? Killarney National Park is a great example. Miles and miles of walks, through forestry, along rivers, out in the open. Nowhere in that park can you walk in absolute relaxation without that sudden rush of air as a would be Tour de France maniac swishes past you on a narrow track at 30mph or more.

What is it about most cyclists that they simply have to battle forward at full pelt, mowing anything and everything out of their way? Pedestrian on the path in front of them? Get out of the way. Car turning left in the distance in front? Race up their inside at top speed, instead of measuring your pace so that neither needs to stop. Bus behind in the bus lane? Stop pedalling, and coast along on your bicycle, wobbling left and right, making sure everyone on the bus is inconvenienced as much as possible. Don't start pedalling until the bus gets his sole opportunity to pass, then pedal like mad.

Anyway, just to get back to my initial point. Perhaps I am at risk of dying every time I set foot outside my door, by a speeding motorist. But in forty years of living and walking all over the place, I have hardly ever been buzzed by a car, while getting buzzed by maniac cyclists is a daily occurrence.

Who do I sue if I get walloped by a flying bicycle?

monument · 11-05-2014 06:47PM

You seem to have a large issue with some other motorists when you drive, but you somehow think pedestrians don't also regularly encounter these ill behaving motorists.

Amazing.

paddyland wrote: »

Who do I sue if I get walloped by a flying bicycle?

Exactly the same person a cyclist sues if they get hit by a "flying bicycle".

And it's just like who a cyclist sues when a jaywalking pedestrian knocks then off their bike.

Vic_08 · 11-05-2014 07:47PM

monument wrote: »

You seem to have a large issue with some other motorists when you drive, but you somehow think pedestrians don't also regularly encounter these ill behaving motorists.

Amazing.

Exactly the same person a cyclist sues if they get hit by a "flying bicycle".

And it's just like who a cyclist sues when a jaywalking pedestrian knocks then off their bike.

The owner of the bus that was was minding it's own business in the next lane under whose wheels you got pushed of course.

And so we are back on topic of putting liability where it should be; the responsible party as opposed to the easy target who carries licences, reg plates, insurance and deep pockets.

monument · 11-05-2014 08:09PM

Vic_08 wrote: »

... as opposed to the easy target who carries licences, reg plates, insurance and deep pockets.

AKA the main source of danger on the roads.

Maybe you're forgetting that's why the use of cars, vans and trucks requires licences, reg plates, and insurance.

And as for "easy target" often they are not such easy targets as shown by hit and runs.

paddyland · 11-05-2014 08:41PM

monument wrote: »

You seem to have a large issue with some other motorists when you drive, but you somehow think pedestrians don't also regularly encounter these ill behaving motorists.

Amazing.

Nothing amazing about it. When I am out walking, I hardly ever have to encounter motorists except when I am crossing a road, or walking in a supermarket car park. On the contrary, I encounter cyclists everywhere, road, footpath, park, wherever. There is nowhere, and I mean absolutely nowhere, that I can walk that avoids cyclists, other than walking across my own kitchen floor.

monument wrote: »

Exactly the same person a cyclist sues if they get hit by a "flying bicycle".

And it's just like who a cyclist sues when a jaywalking pedestrian knocks then off their bike.

Cyclists are generally travelling a hell of a lot faster than pedestrians, faster than would allow for last minute avoidance, and generally, too fast for the circumstances. There are places where cyclists can speed, just like for motorists. And there are places they can't, just like for motorists. Except there are no speed limits for cyclists. Unfortunately, it is left up to their own judgement. Where there is a likelihood of pedestrian activity, cyclists should slow down. How you enforce that is entirely another thing, but it would be nice if cyclists had some concept of where it is suitable to cycle fast, and where it isn't.

monument · 11-05-2014 09:07PM

paddyland wrote: »

Nothing amazing about it. When I am out walking, I hardly ever have to encounter motorists except when I am crossing a road, or walking in a supermarket car park. On the contrary, I encounter cyclists everywhere, road, footpath, park, wherever. There is nowhere, and I mean absolutely nowhere, that I can walk that avoids cyclists, other than walking across my own kitchen floor.

Sounds like you don't walk much or only walk in very limited types of areas -- across Ireland in cities, towns and villages you'll find motorists parked on footpaths, driving up on footpaths to park, crossing footpaths to get into driveways, crossing footpaths to get into filling stations etc.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists are generally travelling a hell of a lot faster than pedestrians, faster than would allow for last minute avoidance, and generally, too fast for the circumstances. There are places where cyclists can speed, just like for motorists. And there are places they can't, just like for motorists. Except there are no speed limits for cyclists. Unfortunately, it is left up to their own judgement. Where there is a likelihood of pedestrian activity, cyclists should slow down. How you enforce that is entirely another thing, but it would be nice if cyclists had some concept of where it is suitable to cycle fast, and where it isn't.

Agreed, it would be nice if cyclists had some concept of where it is suitable to cycle fast, and where it isn't.

Must be the same people you can find daily speeding in cars and trucks around residential areas, at crossings, near schools, etc

paddyland · 11-05-2014 09:12PM

monument wrote: »

Sounds like you don't walk much or only walk in very limited types of areas -- across Ireland in cities, towns and villages you'll find motorists parked on footpaths, driving up on footpaths to park, crossing footpaths to get into driveways, crossing footpaths to get into filling stations etc.

Agreed, it would be nice if cyclists had some concept of where it is suitable to cycle fast, and where it isn't.

Must be the same people you can find daily speeding in cars and trucks around residential areas, at crossings, near schools, etc

Absolutely. All I am saying is, taking all those things into consideration, when I am a pedestrian, I am far more inconvenienced and endangered by cyclists. Far, far more.

monument · 11-05-2014 10:03PM

paddyland wrote: »

Absolutely. All I am saying is, taking all those things into consideration, when I am a pedestrian, I am far more inconvenienced and endangered by cyclists. Far, far more.

I'm sure that's your impression about being more endangered, but it's not back that up by stats.

paddyland · 11-05-2014 10:44PM

monument wrote: »

I'm sure that's your impression about being more endangered, but it's not back that up by stats.

It's nothing to do with 'stats.' When I am out walking, I am not worrying about 'stats,' I am worrying about cyclists flying past me on footpaths and park walkways at far too high a speed, knocking into me, and generally making life very uncomfortable and irritating. Cyclists complain about incursion into 'their' cycle lanes. What about somewhere for me to walk without constant incursion of cyclists?

The thread is about compensation culture affecting public transport provision. But part of public transport use is walking to get to it, and waiting when you get there. Standing at a bus stop, and boarding a bus, would be a lot easier, safer and more comfortable if cyclists weren't around. Cyclists would equally say cycling would be easier and safer if buses weren't around. Therein lies the paradox, but I have to say I would err strongly towards the rights of pedestrians and public transport over cyclists. That's just me, and ferociously pro-cycling extremists are only inclined to entrench my view of that.

MGWR · 12-05-2014 05:26AM

monument wrote: »

I'm sure that's your impression about being more endangered, but it's not back that up by stats.

That begs the invocation of Mark Twain's "three kinds of lies" quote, "stats" being the third kind along with "lies" and "damned lies". All depends on who collects the "stats", and you certainly want more than one source, and as few governmental sources as possible.

monument · 12-05-2014 07:24AM

paddyland wrote: »

It's nothing to do with 'stats.' When I am out walking, I am not worrying about 'stats,' I am worrying about cyclists flying past me on footpaths and park walkways at far too high a speed, knocking into me, and generally making life very uncomfortable and irritating. Cyclists complain about incursion into 'their' cycle lanes. What about somewhere for me to walk without constant incursion of cyclists?

The thread is about compensation culture affecting public transport provision. But part of public transport use is walking to get to it, and waiting when you get there. Standing at a bus stop, and boarding a bus, would be a lot easier, safer and more comfortable if cyclists weren't around. Cyclists would equally say cycling would be easier and safer if buses weren't around. Therein lies the paradox, but I have to say I would err strongly towards the rights of pedestrians and public transport over cyclists. That's just me, and ferociously pro-cycling extremists are only inclined to entrench my view of that.

I'm sure you are inconvenienced by people in bicycles. There's no way I could even question your feeling of endangerment.

However, if we're still talking about pedestrians overall (and not just how paddyland feels), then the stats clearly show that the motorists are by a long shot the main source of death and serious injury. That's not to say some cyclists are not a problem a lot if the time, nobody is saying that.

paddyland wrote: »

but I have to say I would err strongly towards the rights of pedestrians and public transport over cyclists.

Mainly it seems -- based on what you have said -- because you you're mixing up cyclist misbehavior with any rights cyclists should have.

Or maybe you think no cyclists should have rights because some misbehave? Because that sounds a lot like the thinking that pedestrians have no rights because many jaywalk.

paddyland wrote: »

ferociously pro-cycling extremists

Who exactly are you talking about? Or do you just like shadow boxing?

MGWR wrote: »

That begs the invocation of Mark Twain's "three kinds of lies" quote, "stats" being the third kind along with "lies" and "damned lies". All depends on who collects the "stats", and you certainly want more than one source, and as few governmental sources as possible.

Yes, because there's a grand world-wide conspiracy to cover up the deaths caused by cyclists, while the deaths caused by motorists are just makeyupy!?

The rolly-eye icon would not start to do that justice.

Cookie_Monster · 12-05-2014 08:41AM

paddyland wrote: »

It's nothing to do with 'stats.' When I am out walking, I am not worrying about 'stats,' I am worrying about cyclists flying past me on footpaths and park walkways at far too high a speed, knocking into me, and generally making life very uncomfortable and irritating. Cyclists complain about incursion into 'their' cycle lanes. What about somewhere for me to walk without constant incursion of cyclists?

The thread is about compensation culture affecting public transport provision. But part of public transport use is walking to get to it, and waiting when you get there. Standing at a bus stop, and boarding a bus, would be a lot easier, safer and more comfortable if cyclists weren't around. Cyclists would equally say cycling would be easier and safer if buses weren't around. Therein lies the paradox, but I have to say I would err strongly towards the rights of pedestrians and public transport over cyclists. That's just me, and ferociously pro-cycling extremists are only inclined to entrench my view of that.

and everything would be much easier for everyone if there were no cars around

paddyland · 12-05-2014 09:38AM

I'll put my viewpoint differently. Put it this way. I would give cyclists every properly designed infrastructure they deserve, wherever possible, and design it properly, not the rubbish they have put up with for years.

Hand-in-hand with that, I would OUTLAW wannabe Tour de France morons from cycling at 30-40mph anywhere other than on purposely designed or appointed tracks. The public road is not a racetrack, for cars OR for cyclists.

That includes packs of ten or twenty or more cyclists taking over roads like the Roundwood road on Sunday afternoons, except on individually specified and authorised days, under licence, with full Garda attendance.

I would allow leisurely cyclists the full run of places like Killarney National Park, at walking pace or slightly above. I would bar and arrest cyclists in full yelow combat gear, on racing bicycles, who intend to travel far too fast and dangerously where pedestrians, children and dogs are about.

You cannot have it both ways. There are other people around besides cyclists.

Cookie_Monster · 12-05-2014 09:50AM

I would give cyclists every properly designed infrastructure they deserve

so, roads...

Hand-in-hand with that, I would OUTLAW wannabe Tour de France morons from cycling at 30-40mph anywhere other than on purposely designed or appointed tracks.

would you still allow cars to do those speeds? If so what's the difference?

paddyland wrote: »

That includes packs of ten or twenty or more cyclists taking over roads like the Roundwood road on Sunday afternoons, except on individually specified and authorised days, under licence, with full Garda attendance.

those cyclists are just traffic like the hundreds of tourists or dozens of coaches that block up that road every weekend. Trying to ban people from using the roads when the are fully entitled to legally do it is ridiculous.

There are other people around besides cyclists.

Indeed but cyclists are people too and you can't just ban them because of your ridiculous unjustifiable hatred of them.

Someone on boards recently pointed out that cyclists seem to be the only subset of people now-a-days who you can openly abuse without fear of censure, I'm agreeing with that sentiment more and more every day.

Are decisions like this making public transport impossible in Ireland?

Comments