Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Hurrache · 29-05-2020 5:04pm

Don't think there has been 1 post denying cyclist break the rules.

MJohnston · 29-05-2020 5:05pm

micar wrote: »

This is crutical

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I do feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The road is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA

I might be remembering wrong, but didn't that footpath explicitly permit cyclists at one point?

MJohnston · 29-05-2020 5:06pm

1 sheep2 wrote: »

This thread is insane. Mixture of some cyclists denying that cyclists break the rules and others blithely justifying why they break the rules.

What disingenuous nonsense.

1 sheep2 · 29-05-2020 5:06pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I might be remembering wrong, but didn't that footpath explicitly permit cyclists at one point?

It would seem not to matter to you anyway.

MJohnston · 29-05-2020 5:07pm

1 sheep2 wrote: »

It would seem not to matter to you anyway.

Great contribution. A+ work.

07Lapierre · 29-05-2020 5:08pm

1 sheep2 wrote: »

This thread is insane. Mixture of some cyclists denying that cyclists break the rules and others blithely justifying why they break the rules.

ALL road users break the ROTR. Fact!

1 sheep2 · 29-05-2020 5:09pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Great contribution. A+ work.

The sheer irony of this post.

Zebra3 · 29-05-2020 5:59pm

Wednesday, nearly killed cycling home from work by a motorist who decided to drive on my side of the road, directly towards me.

Today, nearly hit by a truck that had to break as it overtook me and nearly smashed in to an oncoming car.

Shall I start a thread on motorists? :rolleyes:

Limpy · 29-05-2020 6:16pm

micar wrote: »

This is crutical

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I do feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

More likely it was originally 1 inbound and 1 outbound lane. The addition of a bus lane reduced the lane widths.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA

Safety first. If you gotta get to work and come home to your family don't take a chance, because some moaner says you cycled 4 feet Away from them.

I don't cry when people walk into a cycle lane. Infact I use the path regularly to overtake people walking in cycle lanes. There's some sad individuals around who are only looking for excuses to complain.

Tarabuses · 29-05-2020 6:18pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

Wednesday, nearly killed cycling home from work by a motorist who decided to drive on my side of the road, directly towards me.

Today, nearly hit by a truck that had to break as it overtook me and nearly smashed in to an oncoming car.

Shall I start a thread on motorists? :rolleyes:

That would probably be a good idea rather than hijacking a thread about the difficulties pedestrians encounter daily on the footpath.

Wishbone Ash · 29-05-2020 6:37pm

micar wrote: »

..Simply.......I do feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus....

(I presume you meant to say 'don't feel safe'.)

The irony is that a narrow lane/road is much safer for cyclists as you can 'take' the lane and motorists are less likely to skim by at speed but have to slow down and wait for a proper opportunity to overtake.

Zebra3 · 29-05-2020 7:26pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

That would probably be a good idea rather than hijacking a thread about the difficulties pedestrians encounter daily on the footpath.

Difficulties?

:D:D

micar · 29-05-2020 7:30pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

(I presume you meant to say 'don't feel safe'.)

The irony is that a narrow lane/road is much safer for cyclists as you can 'take' the lane and motorists are less likely to skim by at speed but have to slow down and wait for a proper opportunity to overtake.

I've amended the post. Thanks

It's one road when I wouldn't take the lane. I would be cycling up the road at rush hour. Although it is reduced, I did have motorists over take with very little room.

Added to this is the condition of the surface.....it's quite poor......a foot from the kerb all the way up.

I learned very quickly that it's not worth it staying on the road. Hence, why I moved onto the footpath.

AndrewJRenko · 29-05-2020 8:45pm

Tarabuses wrote: »

That would probably be a good idea rather than hijacking a thread about the difficulties pedestrians encounter daily on the footpath.

Good to get back on topic, scroll down through these photos if you want to see good examples of the difficulties pedestrians encounter daily on the footpath.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23makewayday&src=typed_query&f=image

07Lapierre · 29-05-2020 9:52pm

Rogerrabit wrote: »

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Welcome to boards.ie Jamie!

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/1266016429008134144?s=21

1 sheep2 · 29-05-2020 10:11pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Welcome to boards.ie Jamie!

https://twitter.com/jamieheaslip/status/1266016429008134144?s=21

Yes, I'm sure Jamie Heaslip is starting threads on Boards.

Limpy · 29-05-2020 10:11pm

Rugby Jocks with big shoulders taking over the whole footpath..so annoying.

bigar · 29-05-2020 10:22pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Is every footpath cyclist 5 years old all of a sudden?

Of course. Just like that every driver needing access to every street is an OAP or disabled and every van has tools and machinery they need on a job in every street.

Rogerrabit · 30-05-2020 3:49am

Tarabuses wrote: »

That would probably be a good idea rather than hijacking a thread about the difficulties pedestrians encounter daily on the footpath.

What has that to do with cycling on footpaths?

Tarabuses · 30-05-2020 3:24pm

Rogerrabit wrote: »

What has that to do with cycling on footpaths?

Probably the fact that one of those difficulties is cyclists on the footpath.

I would love to have some of those Make Way Day signs to use on my daily walk where I encounter vehicles parked on the footpath all the time.

Rogerrabit · 30-05-2020 4:42pm

It's a FOOTpath not a cycle lane

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I don't feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

More likely it was originally 1 inbound and 1 outbound lane. The addition of a bus lane reduced the lane widths.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA[/quote]

Rogerrabit · 30-05-2020 4:46pm

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?

I see now why so many front line workers caught the virus

Weepsie · 30-05-2020 4:50pm

Rogerrabit wrote: »

It's a FOOTpath not a cycle lane

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I don't feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

More likely it was originally 1 inbound and 1 outbound lane. The addition of a bus lane reduced the lane widths.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA

[/quote]

Sorry you can't have it both ways.

You need to either get comfortable with them on the path, or get better at being on the road yourself.

Going uphill isn't a defense either. It's a cop out

Otherwise youre talking absolute sn!te

And just so you know. The cycle lane on the otherside is contraflow precisely for going uphill.

I cycle up that road regularly. Never have issues. It's down hill, with all the space in the world that people pass me dangerously

Flickerfusion · 30-05-2020 4:55pm

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

If only cyclists would use those bloody cycle lanes!

https://streamable.com/u0shp6

The cycle lanes in Cork a particularly bad joke. There was a brief spell of optimism when they put in some properly designed cycle lanes, then they just defaulted back to that kind of chaos again.

There's basically no enforcement of anything, be it cars parked in cycle lanes, cars double parked, cars breaking red lights, bikes breaking red lights, cyclists going at high speed on pavements.

Sure there are no visible cops anywhere, so I don't know what people expect.

If this were a properly run city, you'd have much more visibility of traffic wardens or local police who deal with minor issues like traffic, street crime and so on.

We've none of that in any Irish city really.

SeanW · 30-05-2020 4:55pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Cycling has turned into a quasi religion/cult activity, any transgressions by them are quickly turned into an exercise of whataboutery.

Amazing how quickly it happened. Literally the next post after yours, a cyclist came along to prove you right. :cool:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or maybe it's because traffic law in general isn't enforced here, which is why we end up with 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits.

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out the fact that Ireland is among the safest countries in the world - by all relative measures - to use the roads?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Measure the data by any relative metric you like: Road fatalities per 100,000 people per year, road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles, road fatalities per billion kilometres traveled, it makes no difference. Ireland typically comes out among the safest by any of those measures.

With specific regard to speed, the data shows that even if every single collision is accidental (i.e. no vehicular suicides or murders), and every fatality following on from such accidents was caused solely by inappropriate speed by a driver, and every single kilometre was driven at inappropriate speeds, then the average Irish driver would need to drive - all at inappropriate speed - 263,157,895 kilometres before causing a speed related fatality.

There are also factors specific to Ireland, such as the extension of "urban" speed limits long distances into the countryside, which as far as I am aware, is unique to Ireland.

But hey, this is SO relevant to the topic of lawbreaking cyclists on footpaths :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko · 30-05-2020 6:05pm

1 sheep2 wrote: »

You will find few more hostile to errant motorists than I am. In the last three days, I have banged on the back of a car that cut across me while I was crossing on a green light, confronted two people who were stopped on a pedestrian crossing, and reprimanded someone who had stopped in a cycle lane causing a cyclist to have to go around them. Your preconception of me is wrong.

Such whataboutery is enraging. It is near impossible to criticise cyclists without having it said that motorists are worse. The end result of that logic is absurd. 'But what about truck drivers...'

Why would it be so enraging to have it said that motorists are worse. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed 2 people over the same period.

So the ratio of danger is something like 1:2000 - broadly similar to the experience in the UK where motorists kill about 5 people each day while cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year.

Why is that simple factual context so enraging? Do those facts undermine attempts to enrage people about the very minor issues relating to cyclist behaviour?

SeanW wrote: »

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out the fact that Ireland is among the safest countries in the world - by all relative measures - to use the roads?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Measure the data by any relative metric you like: Road fatalities per 100,000 people per year, road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles, road fatalities per billion kilometres traveled, it makes no difference. Ireland typically comes out among the safest by any of those measures.

With specific regard to speed, the data shows that even if every single collision is accidental (i.e. no vehicular suicides or murders), and every fatality following on from such accidents was caused solely by inappropriate speed by a driver, and every single kilometre was driven at inappropriate speeds, then the average Irish driver would need to drive - all at inappropriate speed - 263,157,895 kilometres before causing a speed related fatality.

There are also factors specific to Ireland, such as the extension of "urban" speed limits long distances into the countryside, which as far as I am aware, is unique to Ireland.

Would you like to try sharing some of your reassuring statistics with the families of some of the twice the usual number of pedestrians killed by drivers so far this year?

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

See how well they get reassured and let me know please.

SeanW wrote: »

But hey, this is SO relevant to the topic of lawbreaking cyclists on footpaths :rolleyes:

But hey, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

30-05-2020 6:16pm

What I take from the thread is, it is ok to break laws and inconsideration, if you can show someone else is worse

J_E · 30-05-2020 6:18pm

It works both ways.

Unfortunately there are a lot of bad cyclists who either don't know the rules of the road or outrightly ignore them, go flying up paths, cut off people without warning, break red lights in dangerous ways, even flying between lanes of moving cars. Nobody can deny that.

I don't think there's anyone arguing about this, so let's move the conversation somewhere constructive and take the point to cyclists who are adhering to rules and generally good.

The reason cyclists sometimes use the path is simply for safety and lack of trust on the road. There are similarly some bad motorists out there who are quite aggressive or who are not aware of the space a cyclist needs. Some roads are narrower and have a risk of car doors flying open or taxis/heavy vehicles cutting on a little close for comfort.

Other times, the cycle infrastructure is poor. cycle paths randomly cut off with no indication of where to move to, or are blocked by parked cars.

Most of us, we're just trying our best to follow the rules, be safe and respectful to those around us. I think in reality you will find any decent cyclist using a footpath will do so at a respectable pace and awareness of other users of the footpath. I sometimes cycle on footpaths, knowing that some roads aren't safe or as cycle-friendly. I keep my speed modest and watch out for other path users, and reprimand rogue cyclists. The only accidents or incidents I've had have been due to failure of the bike/a miscommunication between my own intention and a pedestrian/motorist. The reality is, nobody is without fault on the road, and we could all encourage better practices from all sides.

I know Boards is a hive for pitchforks and angry rants, but maybe we could have a bit of a civilised discussion and help make each other more aware of best practices and alternatives for a bad situation?

Casey78 · 30-05-2020 6:22pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or maybe it's because traffic law in general isn't enforced here, which is why we end up with 98% of motorists breaking urban speed limits.

Good old Andrew. Turns everything back to motorists even though there was no mention of them anywhere in the opening post.

Casey78 · 30-05-2020 6:24pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would it be so enraging to have it said that motorists are worse. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed 2 people over the same period.

So the ratio of danger is something like 1:2000 - broadly similar to the experience in the UK where motorists kill about 5 people each day while cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year.

Why is that simple factual context so enraging? Do those facts undermine attempts to enrage people about the very minor issues relating to cyclist behaviour?

Would you like to try sharing some of your reassuring statistics with the families of some of the twice the usual number of pedestrians killed by drivers so far this year?

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

See how well they get reassured and let me know please.

But hey, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

This thread is about people cycling on footpaths. It's not about motorists, yet you continuously bring up motorists..why is that?

Have you anything to say about people cycling on footpaths?

magicbastarder · 30-05-2020 6:28pm

micar wrote: »

This is crutical

As a person who goes to work each day by bike, there is a section on my way home where i cycle on the footpath.

It's uphill and takes about 90 seconds.

Why use the footpath and not the road?

Simply.......I don't feel safe sharing the road with motorists. The outbound lane is just about the width of a Dublin bus.

More likely it was originally 1 inbound and 1 outbound lane. The addition of a bus lane reduced the lane widths.

When i come across a pedestrian, I give them plenty of room.

If needed I'll hold back and pass them at the driveway sections.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/4eLHcrsQDCiUDFwVA

to expand on this further - cyclists cycling northbound on mobhi road, if they want to use the cycle lane, are directed to a pedestrian crossing near the bottom and transferred over the other side of the road onto an off-road cycle path:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3728366,-6.2658091,3a,75y,4.93h,80.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D121.00463%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

my assumption is that the council don't want people cycling on the road on the uphill stretch as they'd obviously be slow and holding up traffic/putting themselves in danger. it's a little odd as the cycle traffic then passes each other on the opposite side to normal - you're passing people going the opposite direction, but they're on your left (downhill cyclists remain on the road in the bus lane).

however, and this is where the fun starts; when you get to the home farm road junction, the bike path simply ceases:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3758677,-6.2647718,3a,75y,14.3h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA-dZetTcnPI3cHIs9eJV3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

by the council's own logic, presumably, they don't want cyclists on the road going uphill. yet halfway up mobhi road, the pretence at dealing with this is abandoned; it's not as if the hill has ended, or the road has gotten wider, they've simply abandoned the provision for uphill cyclists.
so a cyclist who has been on the cycle path now has two options - to use the road the council didn't want them on in the first place, or to continue on the path, but now they would be using it illegally.

in short, yes, many cyclists use the path, some when there's no need or benefit, but often cyclists use the path because the road simply hasn't been designed with them in mind.
it's an irritation when a cyclist is using a path when there's no need, of course. but that's only a small part of the story, if many cyclists have been conditioned to do so.

AndrewJRenko · 30-05-2020 6:47pm

Casey78 wrote: »

Good old Andrew. Turns everything back to motorists even though there was no mention of them anywhere in the opening post.

Like I explained above, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

TaurenDruid · 30-05-2020 6:48pm

Footpaths are for pedestrians. Not for parking on, not for cycling on. That's the law. Unfortunately, rarely enforced. I see and pass cyclists on the footpath every day on the way to work (pre-covid), been hit by them twice in the last year and had a couple more near misses (why would you cycle while looking at your phone?! Oh, deliveroo, yeah, rules of the road, red lights and common sense don't apply to you...)

Problem is some cyclists are lazy. Yes, you could get from George's Street to Baggot Street cycling legally - but actually following one-way streets? Nah, I'll just cycle on the footpath instead, it's not like I'm a car! (And even then, I often see cyclists cycle the wrong way down the one-way road that is Stephen's Green North).

Which kinda gives the lie to the whole "It's not safe to be on the road!" argument...

As predicted when I saw the thread, yep, looooads of whataboutery, straight away. Drivers are assholes, too. We know.

magicbastarder · 30-05-2020 6:55pm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Problem is some cyclists are lazy. Yes, you could get from George's Street to Baggot Street cycling legally - but actually following one-way streets?

to be fair, the council are taking steps to address some of this; one of the classic example always has been getting from merrion square to the bottom of grafton street; the way you'd have to cycle it before now was to go down westland row and use pearse street, which is not a pleasant street to send a rookie cyclist down.
but in the last few weeks, they've opened the contraflow cycle lane on nassau street, cutting the journey by more than half, and much more pleasant to cycle.

Casey78 · 30-05-2020 6:55pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Like I explained above, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

No, you just came on spouting your usual whataboutery nonsense that you are well known for on this board.
Every thread that even dares mention anything about a cyclist doing something wrong you straight away bring up motorists. You're as predictable as they come.

ewc78 · 30-05-2020 7:00pm

Casey78 wrote: »

No, you just came on spouting your usual whataboutery nonsense that you are well known for on this board.
Every thread that even dares mention anything about a cyclist doing something wrong you straight away bring up motorists. You're as predictable as they come.

I only read the opening post on this thread and I said to myself yer man Andrew will be on soon with his motorists whataboutery

magicbastarder · 30-05-2020 7:04pm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, deliveroo

that's a whole other debate; deliveroo could not give a whit about the safety of, or behaviour of their 'employees' doing the delivering, and have made sure they're not even employees.

1 sheep2 · 30-05-2020 7:12pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would it be so enraging to have it said that motorists are worse. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed 2 people over the same period.

So the ratio of danger is something like 1:2000 - broadly similar to the experience in the UK where motorists kill about 5 people each day while cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year.

Why is that simple factual context so enraging? Do those facts undermine attempts to enrage people about the very minor issues relating to cyclist behaviour?

It's so irritating to be misconstrued by these zealots. What I said was enraging is the whataboutery of those dismissing the misbehaviour of cyclists because of the behaviour of cars, which I had acknowledged in the very same post is frequently objectionable.

The cycling lobby often use these death statistics as if they were of any relevance whatsoever. It's the equivalent of justifying juvenile anti-social behaviour on the basis that the death rate of such attacks is much lower. Given the relative improbability of a cyclist killing a pedestrian in a collision, the same principle would justify cycling anarchy.

What these people are too ignorant to see is that a pedestrian never fears for their life on encountering a cyclist on the footpath. That's not the source of the gripe. It's the insecurity and irritation pedestrians feel that causes the anger. It's a pretty squalid mindset that assesses the morals of social interactions based only on death-rate.

J_E · 30-05-2020 7:13pm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Problem is some cyclists are lazy. Yes, you could get from George's Street to Baggot Street cycling legally - but actually following one-way streets? Nah, I'll just cycle on the footpath instead, it's not like I'm a car! (And even then, I often see cyclists cycle the wrong way down the one-way road that is Stephen's Green North).

Which kinda gives the lie to the whole "It's not safe to be on the road!" argument...

As predicted when I saw the thread, yep, looooads of whataboutery, straight away. Drivers are assholes, too. We know.

You know this, so why can't we have a reasoned discussion without pulling out all the fringe cases and obvious offenders. Is this thread purely a ranting mechanism, or a discussion to be had? I noticed people here on Boards are more interested in sharing their opinion than listening to another. We're going in circles here ranting about the same thing.

Some cyclists are not just lazy, they're outright dangerous. We know this and nobody would deny that unless they were being genuinely ignorant. There are cases for using the path though, in a way that is considered and the 'best case' for a bad situation.

VanHalen · 30-05-2020 7:14pm

This debate started out about cyclists using the footpath meaning that social distancing is being ignored. What gets me is when cyclists do this and there is a perfectly good cycle path which they continue to disregard - not one littered with cars parked on it. The Grange Road from Baldoyle to the roundabout at Donaghmede. Cyclists (in both directions) refuse to use the cycle lane meaning I ( a pedestrian) have to walk out onto the cycle lane to avoid them. Only in Ireland!

Casey78 · 30-05-2020 7:20pm

VanHalen wrote: »

This debate started out about cyclists using the footpath meaning that social distancing is being ignored. What gets me is when cyclists do this and there is a perfectly good cycle path which they continue to disregard - not one littered with cars parked on it. The Grange Road from Baldoyle to the roundabout at Donaghmede. Cyclists (in both directions) refuse to use the cycle lane meaning I ( a pedestrian) have to walk out onto the cycle lane to avoid them. Only in Ireland!

But but but what about motorists something something...

magicbastarder · 30-05-2020 7:31pm

#notallcyclists yadda yadda

but this thread was destined to be a bit of a car crash anyway. the opening post was a little, obscure in places, shall we say.
speaking as a cyclist, i'm more used to being given out to for not using cycle paths, rather than using footpaths.

J_E · 30-05-2020 7:36pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

#notallcyclists yadda yadda

but this thread was destined to be a bit of a car crash anyway. the opening post was a little, obscure in places, shall we say.
speaking as a cyclist, i'm more used to being given out to for not using cycle paths, rather than using footpaths.

Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.

Qrt · 30-05-2020 7:47pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Nearly run over by two teen girls cycling round a vend on a path at speed and with the constant lack of regular cycling meant much swerving and braking but we all survived. No virus passed between us, that I know of.

Yeah I wish they'd cycle on the road but traffic and. Lot of drivers are a bit*h.

Tbh loads of people don’t know how to Road cycle because they weren’t taught. The Irish version of the bikeability scheme was stopped in 2009 and afaik hasn’t been reimplemented...

I only know because I missed out by a year

SeanW · 30-05-2020 7:50pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has every suburban jeep driver got the judgement of a five year old, all of a sudden?

https://twitter.com/karldeeter/status/1266274719906459652

Thank you for proving the points I've been making on this board for a long time now. :pac: Which is quite simply that when motorists do things that threaten other road users, they usually do so by doing things other than speeding (like cutting people off, stopping on pedestrian crossing etc).

Thanks for that

Not that it even proved anything anyway because it was a strawman argument and a thread hijacking. No-one here will defend reckless drivers, but they were not the topic of the thread (until the thread was hijacked).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would it be so enraging to have it said that motorists are worse. Motorists have killed more than 4,000 here since the turn of the century. Cyclists have killed 2 people over the same period.

So the ratio of danger is something like 1:2000 - broadly similar to the experience in the UK where motorists kill about 5 people each day while cyclists kill 1 or 2 people each year.

And yet, Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user. The facts on this are clear and irrefutable.

Why is that simple factual context so enraging? Do those facts undermine attempts to enrage people about the very minor issues relating to cyclist behaviour?

Because they're meaningless. Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

Would you like to try sharing some of your reassuring statistics with the families of some of the twice the usual number of pedestrians killed by drivers so far this year?

What does this have to do with anything? Facts don't care about "who they reassure" they're just that. Facts.

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/05/27/road-deaths-up-9-double-number-of-pedestrians-killed-this-year-from-2019/

See how well they get reassured and let me know please.

Any increase is unfortunate, but the facts remains that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

But hey, I didn't bring up the topic of enforcement of traffic laws. Others brought up the topic, I simply added a little factual context.

The topic was lawbreaking cyclists. And the only counter seems to be "look, look, motorists, breaking speed limits in one of the safest countries in the world."

You can hijack as many threads as you want with whataboutery, it doesn't change any facts.

magicbastarder · 30-05-2020 8:02pm

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user. The facts on this are clear and irrefutable.

probably should leave this lie, it's a nice weekend, but this is looking at the situation from one angle and missing the wider picture.
the 'reductio ad absurdum' response would be 'we don't need to take the sharks out of that swimming pool, because no one has been killed by a shark in it', and ignores the fact that people simply don't swim there because of the sharks.

one of the pieces of the puzzle of why ireland is so safe is because of the preponderance of the default to the car as the mode of transport*, where you have all the safety systems of modern cars.
it avoids the larger picture of 'what if we made cycling more attractive and popular', which might increase road deaths slightly but almost certainly have a greater counter effect of improved public health and fewer deaths as a result.

*e.g. more female secondary students drive to school than cycle.

micar · 30-05-2020 8:14pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

to expand on this further - cyclists cycling northbound on mobhi road, if they want to use the cycle lane, are directed to a pedestrian crossing near the bottom and transferred over the other side of the road onto an off-road cycle path:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3728366,-6.2658091,3a,75y,4.93h,80.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D1coPK7nFypg86JHFfk93LA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D121.00463%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

my assumption is that the council don't want people cycling on the road on the uphill stretch as they'd obviously be slow and holding up traffic/putting themselves in danger. it's a little odd as the cycle traffic then passes each other on the opposite side to normal - you're passing people going the opposite direction, but they're on your left (downhill cyclists remain on the road in the bus lane).

however, and this is where the fun starts; when you get to the home farm road junction, the bike path simply ceases:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3758677,-6.2647718,3a,75y,14.3h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA-dZetTcnPI3cHIs9eJV3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

by the council's own logic, presumably, they don't want cyclists on the road going uphill. yet halfway up mobhi road, the pretence at dealing with this is abandoned; it's not as if the hill has ended, or the road has gotten wider, they've simply abandoned the provision for uphill cyclists.
so a cyclist who has been on the cycle path now has two options - to use the road the council didn't want them on in the first place, or to continue on the path, but now they would be using it illegally.

in short, yes, many cyclists use the path, some when there's no need or benefit, but often cyclists use the path because the road simply hasn't been designed with them in mind.
it's an irritation when a cyclist is using a path when there's no need, of course. but that's only a small part of the story, if many cyclists have been conditioned to do so.

I have never crossed the road to use the cycle there. And I don't intend doing so.

I suppose the northbound cycle lane is place for kids cycling to the school and the GAA club. Never intended on cyclists going further.

When you get to the home farm road, I would then have to cross again as I cycle further up past DCU.

It's completely pointless for a 40 seconds cycle

Seth Brundle · 30-05-2020 8:29pm

SeanW wrote: »

The topic was lawbreaking cyclists. And the only counter seems to be "look, look, motorists, breaking speed limits in one of the safest countries in the world."

Why do you think some cyclists illegally use the footpath then?
My teenage son has started cycling on his own. I have informed him of his obligations under the law and how if he is using a footpath he must go in the knowledge that pedestrians have right of way and that whilst he may feel his overtaking speed is safe, a pedestrian may think otherwise.
I will at absolutely no point tell him to not use a footpath if he feels it is safer. He has seen enough of my videos showing how drivers have endangered me on a cycle to know how some dangerous drivers can be.

Hurrache · 30-05-2020 9:01pm

1 sheep2 wrote: »

The cycling lobby

Ha ha ha ha ha ha [deep breath] ha ha ha ha ha.

Repeat.

Hurrache · 30-05-2020 9:03pm

J_E wrote: »

Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.

Yeah, this is the stupidest thing we've seen, and probably will see, in this thread.

I know you're joking, but some people do think this is a justification.

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments