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
Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)
Options
Comments
-
One thing thta really winds me up is the paths with a tarmac cycle lane and a concrete path. We've quite a few of them in my area. I never understand some pedestrians insistince on walking in the cycle path, or some cyclists inability to stick to the cycle lane. I'm not talking about moving into the other to avoid a hazard, it's just a complete lack of ability to follow simple guidelines when it comes to lanes that manifests itself at all levels of road user.
Maybe we could do what they do in Denmark and have cycling lanes at a different level to both the road and the footpath.0 -
Christ, here we go again... Am just ignoring the germ spewing nonsense.
I've no intention of reading the rest of the thread but I'm guessing at some of the buzzwords flying around...
Red light jumping
Metal death machines
High vis
Lycra brigade
Road tax
What about
Whataboutery
Insurance
It basically all boils down to two things - entitled arseholes who think they're more important than everyone else and a complete lack of enforcement of the law when it comes to anything but speeding offences.
You can't legislate for the former, but until the powers that be get their act together on the latter, the first group will continue to do whatever suits them best and fdeck everyone else - whether they be on 2 feet, 2 wheels, 4 wheels or more...0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7733
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,660 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48107
they recently replaced the lights at a junction near me, so there's no 'general green' anymore. all green lights are now direction specific; too many people saw a green and went for it, even though they were crossing over oncoming traffic.I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?
too many people on autopilot and not paying enough attention.0 -
Wishbone Ash wrote: »That's a gross over-reaction. I work in the health service frontline and on the frontline a person is only considered to be at risk if they spend more than 15 minutes in close contact (i.e. less than one meter) with an infected person without wearing any PPE.
It's a difficult law to enforce. How do you prosecute a 5 year old?
Maybe that is the reason so many health care workers contacted the virus you are one of the many gullible irish people knocking about0 -
Advertisement
-
Rogerrabit wrote: »Maybe that is the reason so many health care workers contacted the virus you are one of the many gullible irish people knocking about
No it’s because health care workers spent hours and hours in hospitals and clinics treating C19 patients. Don’t be so stupid.0 -
-
Most of us will have heard stories about what people used to do "back in the day," especially regarding driving home after a session. I know I have, and it explains a lot.Wishbone Ash wrote: »There are many other reasons for the reduction such as car design, wearing of seatbelts, falling pedestrian activity, construction of foothpaths, education etc.. I went to primary school in the 1970's and road safety was a constant theme then - safe cross code, free arm bands, cycle training, introduction of the 'lollipop women', bus safety etiquette etc.
(The figures from 1972 are pro-rata even worse than they seem as there were a lot less journeys made then. Many families didn't have a single car nevermind two and long journeys were rare. A commute of 10 miles then would have been considered long).
OK, let's assume that it is even possible to prevent all the accidents (It's not, but for the sake of argument). How do you prevent the vehicular suicides?What should be the target of road deaths is zero.
Every society finds it acceptable because the societal benefits to people from the use of motor vehicles (in terms of the functioning of society and the quality of life improvements for their people) FAR outweigh the costs.How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?
Simply put, if an action causes a million people to have a 100 times better quality of life but one person dies, most sane people will consider that a fair trade-off.
Are all the motorists driving like they're out to get you?Why when I go out cycling should I feel so at risk because of other road users?
Because they are punished appropriately with penalty points that will haunt them for 3 years. Their insurance might go up, depending on their circumstances.Why should anyone who is caught using their phone while driving be allowed behind the wheel again?
Meanwhile, lawbreaking cyclists are never punished at all, no matter what they do.
You're comparing smoking (which only benefits the tobacco companies) with the use of motor vehicles (which literally benefits every single person). Are you sure that's a route you want to go down?People all over the world were dying because of people smoking in bars. The idea that people can do that any more is seen as insanity.
Unlike lawbreaking scum on bikes, who are free to cycle on footpaths and jump red lights with total impunity, motorists can be and are punished for transgressions, up to and including suspension of their licenses.The reality is though that there is no political will to hold motorists accountable for most of their crimes. Driving licences are issued by the state subject to compliance by the holder. Sadly, too many seem to think there is a right to be driving in this country.
I have only once seen a cyclist stopped by Gardai for being a lawbreaking ****. And that was on the pedestrian part of Grafton St.
If you haven't read the thread, don't bother. It's just the usual suspects hijacking the thread to take a dump on motorists.Christ, here we go again... Am just ignoring the germ spewing nonsense.
I've no intention of reading the rest of the thread but I'm guessing at some of the buzzwords flying around...
Red light jumping
Metal death machines
High vis
Lycra brigade
Road tax
What about
Whataboutery
Insurance
It basically all boils down to two things - entitled arseholes who think they're more important than everyone else and a complete lack of enforcement of the law when it comes to anything but speeding offences.
You can't legislate for the former, but until the powers that be get their act together on the latter, the first group will continue to do whatever suits them best and fdeck everyone else - whether they be on 2 feet, 2 wheels, 4 wheels or more...0 -
-
07Lapierre wrote: »Agreed...not possible. You cant walk "in" the path.
Great input. You can walk in the pedestrian section though or you could just accept a typo as exactly that0 -
Advertisement
-
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Great input. You can walk in the pedestrian section though or you could just accept a typo as exactly that
Fair enough, I'll accept your typo if you'll also accept that cycling two abreast is not "Blocking the road"?0 -
Wishbone Ash wrote: »That's a gross over-reaction. I work in the health service frontline and on the frontline a person is only considered to be at risk if they spend more than 15 minutes in close contact (i.e. less than one meter) with an infected person without wearing any PPE.
It's a difficult law to enforce. How do you prosecute a 5 year old?
You are following the Irish health experts advice pity these so called experts were not in favour of the wearing of face masks by the general irish public from the outset of the virus here...and are still not in favour...the advice given by these so called experts is totally out of touch with what is working across Europe and asia to combat the virus.0 -
07Lapierre wrote: »No it’s because health care workers spent hours and hours in hospitals and clinics treating C19 patients. Don’t be so stupid.
You don't know that for sure however working long hours certainly did not help the situation. Keep up the good work.....0 -
07Lapierre wrote: »Fair enough, I'll accept your typo if you'll also accept that cycling two abreast is not "Blocking the road"?
It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »It generally is unless isn't. the cyclists are making an effort not to and hug the kerb
FYP0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »What if the pedestrians have the virus and they pass it to the cyclists? What are you going to do about that outrageous carry on?
The tablets you are taking are affecting your brain dummy0 -
Rogerrabit wrote: »The tablets you are taking are affecting your brain dummy
Cut it out.
-- moderator0 -
Every society finds it acceptable because the societal benefits to people from the use of motor vehicles (in terms of the functioning of society and the quality of life improvements for their people) FAR outweigh the costs.
I think we made a big mistake which is starting to look really bad, basing our societies around private cars. I think overall it's led to a lowering of quality of life all round. It's led to congested cities and disconnected rural areas with sh*tty services, and terrible planning mistakes and urban sprawl, and the worst public transport in Europe. This country is a mess because of cars. The mistakes are showing up now and that's why cars are being removed from cities and public transport and cycling is the focus of progressive countries.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »Imagine if cars didn't park in the footpath and on the cycle Lane, pedestrians walked in the path and stayed off the road and cycle lanes and then cyclists actually used cycle lanes, didn't go side by side blocking the road and using paths as shortcuts.
But sure that's not possible in the real world
Imagine if cycle lanes in Ireland weren't constant drop on/offs between the footpath and roads and actually there in the first place, in most cases.0 -
Thelonious Monk wrote: »I think we made a big mistake which is starting to look really bad, basing our societies around private cars. I think overall it's led to a lowering of quality of life all round. It's led to congested cities and disconnected rural areas with sh*tty services, and terrible planning mistakes and urban sprawl, and the worst public transport in Europe. This country is a mess because of cars. The mistakes are showing up now and that's why cars are being removed from cities and public transport and cycling is the focus of progressive countries.
Agreed. Today, a house for sale at €450,000 is considered "affordable"! For most people, that means both parents must be in full time employment. If they have kid(s), they need two cars (because they both work different times/locations), which in turn means they need child care 5 days a week.
When you compare this to our parents generation. My parents bought a house based on my Dads sole income. my mum was a stay at home mum, so no childcare and only one car needed. Even then, we lived on a bus route which gave us direct access to Dublin City Centre.0 -
Advertisement
-
Which recent cyclists deaths are down to the fault of the cyclist?In fairness I've seen comments on those news items where people automatically blame the driver when no one actually knows the details of the accident. I'm sure even some of the time it's the cyclists own fault? Not that anyone deserves to die of course but there are cyclists who take ridiculous risks on the road, and before anyone mentions it, yes I know motorists take stupid risks also...
Universally cautious? Have you ever seen a van driver or truck driver pulling up to load or unload?Motorists cause next to no danger when mounting a footpath. They are almost universally cautious of pedestrians and yield fully in almost all instances. The idea that motorists mounting curbs is markedly dangerous is nonsense. What it is is irritating and rude, which are exactly the same gripes pedestrians have with cyclists.
The Coroner's Inquest into this accident incident hasn't taken place yet, so I don't think the full details are in the public domain.Yes I know they both relate to the same accident, that's why the words "Fatal result of the above" are typed in between them, anyways perhaps you could contact the author of the article and ask if the pedestrian was on the shared cycle path or not, I see nothing in the article to indicate either way.
Maybe we should move on from red light jumping to look at, ooh let's say' speeding by motorists. How often does this happen, do you think?At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.You didn't "point out" anything, you simply expressed your own opinion that all the data and evidence is irrelevant to you.
You have chosen to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all international context that disproves your view, but you have given no reason why any reasonably well balanced person should follow. Your argument basically consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same empty platitudes.
As to why I mentioned Canada specifically, it's generally accepted by your ilk that Irish motorists are horrible and need to be regulated much more heavily. Yet Canada regulates its motorists much more heavily than Ireland, and yet they suffer significantly more road fatalities than Ireland by every relative measure? Why are the lesser-regulated Irish motorists involved in fewer fatalities? Surely, if you and your ilk are to be believed, Canada should have fewer road deaths per captia/vehicle/km traveled than Ireland.
You have also singled out Irish motorists specifically, but given ZERO reason why Irish motorists specifically deserve the level of opprobrium directed towards them. ZERO. None. Nada. Squat. Zip. People are entitled to ask you why you are singling out Irish motorists in that way.
And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.
You've chosen to ignore the context, and the facts, so I really have no idea what you're trying to suggest here.
I pointed out that you're strawmanning - argueing against a position that was never made. No-one was making international comparisons but you.
The standard that I hold Irish motorists to is the standard of not killing two or three people each week. All the research from the RSA shows the major causes of deaths to be down to lawbreaking - speeding, drink driving, phone use.
So maybe if we start actually enforcing traffic laws, maybe we'd have fewer deaths? Do you think?
The evidence that you've presented from Canada shows you nothing of the sort. For a start, you'd need to look how serious they are about enforcing their laws.Yet you single out Irish motorists specifically. So comparisons, data, evidence are all appropriate in judging your claims.
It's not just "very hard" the evidence shows that it is not feasible. I mentioned Canada specifically because they regulate motorists much more heavily than Ireland yet suffer more fatalities. Yet according to people like you, Canada should have less fatalities, not more.
You also choose to ignore things like vehicular suicide which contributes significantly to road fatalities.
If you choose to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all the international context, that is your right, but everyone else has the right to draw their own conclusions and object to your nonsense.
How slightly? If it's 20 seconds, do you think that's OK?30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.
Yeah, I've seen cyclists doing this too at red lights. It happens all the time. And yet, no-one dies. Is it really as dangerous as, say, speeding by drivers - being one of the top three causes of road deaths?Yup it's wrong and dangerous, anyone breaking a red light motorist or cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road imo.
I've seen plenty of cars break red lights, never after 30 seconds though. Then im not from Dublin, maybe ye are all a bit more kamikaze up there.
I have seen plenty of cyclists zoom through red lights minutes after they have turned red without a care in the world also though.
Both wrong, both need to be stopped.
What post in particular argued that cars parked on footpaths were relative to 18 people being killed on the road?Actually I don't think I whinged anywhere about kids having fun, I think the matter I'm concerned with is the fake news from people arguing about cars being parked on footpaths being relative to 18 people being killed on the roads.
No discussion has been prevented. Discuss away.Charles Babbage wrote: »Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.
Factually incorrect, yet again;Most of us will have heard stories about what people used to do "back in the day," especially regarding driving home after a session. I know I have, and it explains a lot.
OK, let's assume that it is even possible to prevent all the accidents (It's not, but for the sake of argument). How do you prevent the vehicular suicides?
Every society finds it acceptable because the societal benefits to people from the use of motor vehicles (in terms of the functioning of society and the quality of life improvements for their people) FAR outweigh the costs.
Simply put, if an action causes a million people to have a 100 times better quality of life but one person dies, most sane people will consider that a fair trade-off.
Are all the motorists driving like they're out to get you?
Because they are punished appropriately with penalty points that will haunt them for 3 years. Their insurance might go up, depending on their circumstances.
Meanwhile, lawbreaking cyclists are never punished at all, no matter what they do.
You're comparing smoking (which only benefits the tobacco companies) with the use of motor vehicles (which literally benefits every single person). Are you sure that's a route you want to go down?
Unlike lawbreaking scum on bikes, who are free to cycle on footpaths and jump red lights with total impunity, motorists can be and are punished for transgressions, up to and including suspension of their licenses.
I have only once seen a cyclist stopped by Gardai for being a lawbreaking ****. And that was on the pedestrian part of Grafton St.
If you haven't read the thread, don't bother. It's just the usual suspects hijacking the thread to take a dump on motorists.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141
Congratulations ,when did you get your Masters degree in epidemiology?Rogerrabit wrote: »You are following the Irish health experts advice pity these so called experts were not in favour of the wearing of face masks by the general irish public from the outset of the virus here...and are still not in favour...the advice given by these so called experts is totally out of touch with what is working across Europe and asia to combat the virus.
Cyclists don't hold up traffic. Cyclists ARE traffic.Niner leprauchan wrote: »It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb
I feel I should point out it's not really safe for cyclists to be so tight against the gutter - there are usually drains and road defects along road edges and in my experience it gives motorists a sense that they can drive a little closer to you than what is comfortable. If you're cycling at a normal speed you should always take a little more space on the road. Doesn't mean being dead center, but it means declaring your position on the road and not putting yourself in danger.0 -
I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the rules of the road which recommend that cyclists adopt a primary position in the centre of the road whenever necessary.Niner leprauchan wrote: »
It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb07Lapierre wrote: »Fair enough, I'll accept your typo if you'll also accept that cycling two abreast is not "Blocking the road"?0 -
Had a lovely run in the cycle lane tonight.0
-
Imagine if cycle lanes in Ireland weren't constant drop on/offs between the footpath and roads and actually there in the first place, in most cases.
While this is absolutely true, it doesn't change the fact that cyclists have a habit of not using them when they do exist and using the path when it suits them
Likewise pedestrians walking in the cycle Lane and cars parking in them boils my piss0 -
-
I don't think you can blame cars for that, this was caused by a wide variety of factors, not least of which is the de-industrialisation of the Western world - whereas before there were factories that could support small towns, now more and more people have to pile into bigger cities to gain access to a market for more specialised employment. That causes the regions formerly supported by industry to die and the cities to overheat.07Lapierre wrote: »Agreed. Today, a house for sale at €450,000 is considered "affordable"! For most people, that means both parents must be in full time employment. If they have kid(s), they need two cars (because they both work different times/locations), which in turn means they need child care 5 days a week.
When you compare this to our parents generation. My parents bought a house based on my Dads sole income. my mum was a stay at home mum, so no childcare and only one car needed. Even then, we lived on a bus route which gave us direct access to Dublin City Centre.
Are you claiming that one or more of the parties may have acted on purpose?AndrewJRenko wrote: »The Coroner's Inquest into this accident incident hasn't taken place yet, so I don't think the full details are in the public domain.
Oh, I don't know, but here's a crazy idea:Maybe we should move on from red light jumping to look at, ooh let's say' speeding by motorists.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD START YOUR OWN SODDING THREAD.
You were ****ting on Irish motorists. I provided context. Yes, you consider context, data and evidence to be irrelevant, but that's just you.I pointed out that you're strawmanning - argueing against a position that was never made. No-one was making international comparisons but you.
Which is not only provably impossible, but the data shows that Irish motorists are actually relatively good at not killing people.The standard that I hold Irish motorists to is the standard of not killing two or three people each week.
Yet you focus solely on speed?All the research from the RSA shows the major causes of deaths to be down to lawbreaking - speeding, drink driving, phone use.
No. I don't. For one thing, Ireland has a very strange definition of "urban area" and so the risks you claim from "speeding in urban areas" is severely overstated.So maybe if we start actually enforcing traffic laws, maybe we'd have fewer deaths? Do you think?
For example, according to Irish transport planning, this road is an "urban road" with an urban area speed limit of 60kph. Or how about this, also an "urban area" with a 60kph limit. Or, how about this "core urban street" with its 50kph limit?
AFAIK, this crap is unique to Ireland.
I don't think that having a large scale clampdown on people driving above 50kph past fields and out-of-town ribbon developments would accomplish a whole lot. Furthermore, I dare say that most sane people would agree. But according to you, anyone who does so is part of your "98%"
Try getting a drivers license in Canada. Their system would rival any Byzantine absurdity. It takes many years and a multitude of tests to become fully licensed. If they enforce their laws anything like the way the regulate their Byzantine licensing system, then there should be fewer road deaths per capita/vehicle/km driven than Ireland - and BOTH should be contributing to that.The evidence that you've presented from Canada shows you nothing of the sort. For a start, you'd need to look how serious they are about enforcing their laws.
Because according to your kind, regulating motorists more should result in lower road deaths. But as Ireland v. Canada proves, not only is that untrue, but the exact opposite is true. There's a similar dynamic in China where the laws regulating motorists are so severe that you're not even allowed to change the colour of your car. Doesn't stop the drivers from driving like they're trying to kill everyone.
FYP. I stand corrected - some lawbreakers are being held to account with a small fine.Factually incorrect, yet again;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.39771410 -
Seth Brundle wrote: »I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the rules of the road which recommend that cyclists adopt a primary position in the centre of the road whenever necessary.
Rules of the road aren't laws of the road. I don't really care what they say however you do say "when necessary" and your attitude is why there's so much anger going around.
I cycle to work daily, use the cycle lanes when possible and stay close to the kerb to allow traffic space to pass me.
It results in fewer asshats skimming me at speed. Course some still do, can't solve all the world's asshats.
Likewise when I'm driving I relax, wait for space and pass a cyclist in good time and distance but again, there's always the ass who will do his best to block the road even when there's a perfectly good cycle Lane completely empty0 -
I feel I should point out it's not really safe for cyclists to be so tight against the gutter - there are usually drains and road defects along road edges and in my experience it gives motorists a sense that they can drive a little closer to you than what is comfortable. If you're cycling at a normal speed you should always take a little more space on the road. Doesn't mean being dead center, but it means declaring your position on the road and not putting yourself in danger.
Fair enough, I accept your point. 2 feet out is sufficient in my opinion and when all is said and done, isn't the objective to get to our destination on one peace with minimum grief?
I as a cyclist, share the road with cars. They are bigger than me and I try to avoid playing chicken with them because you know what? Bring morally correct it's little comfort when your dead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe ask yourself why cyclists dont use them. Why do cyclists choose to share the road with drivers instead. Take your head out of the sand!Niner leprauchan wrote: »While this is absolutely true, it doesn't change the fact that cyclists have a habit of not using them when they do exist and using the path when it suits them
Likewise pedestrians walking in the cycle Lane and cars parking in them boils my piss
As for cyclists using the path, this is a minority and in my experience tends to be children.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement