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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

13468975

Comments

  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    i think they're there for his sake rather than yours.

    Yeah, sometimes I wish people just didn't reply to or even read my multiple quoted posts.

    ewc78 wrote: »
    How often are we talking here? 1 a week?
    1 a day? Every hour?
    No trams or railway crossings where I live so I wouldn't know.

    Maybe every month or two or sometimes every few weeks trams.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    micar wrote: »
    Not a shared cycle lane

    This, from the article, might explain that for you.


    "The pedestrian, a software engineer, was crossing the cycle lane from the pedestrian lane in order to exit the park."

    " I started to cross over. I don't remember a collision... the only memory I have is lying on the ground," he said.

    None of there occurred on a footpath..

    Are you reading a different article?
    A man in his 70s died in hospital on Wednesday after a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian on Monday evening on the N24 on Glenconnor Upper on Clonmel, according to Gardaí.

    Reporting yesterday, tipperarylive.ie said Clonmel Garda Station spokesperson confirmed this morning that the pedestrian, a Clonmel resident aged in his mid-70s, died at South Tipperary General Hospital.

    The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths.

    On Monday after the collision, Sean Brosnan at the Garda press office said: “Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for witnesses following a serious road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a pedestrian that occurred at approximately 6.35pm on Monday 6th January 2020 at the N24, Glenconnor Upper, Clonmel, County Tipperary.”

    He said: “A male pedestrian in his 70s was taken to South Tipperary General Hospital with serious head injuries and is currently in a critical condition. Forensic Collision Investigators have carried out a technical examination of the scene.”

    “Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for anyone with information in relation to this collision, particurly any road users who may have camera footage who were travelling in the area at the time, to come forward,” he added.

    Gardai said that anybody with information is asked to contact Clonmel Garda Station on 052 6177640, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    1 sheep2 wrote: »
    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.

    I've already warned somebody on the other side of the debate about cutting out nonsense. So, this is the last warning on this: Stop the name calling or action will be taken.

    -- moderator


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Are you reading a different article?

    Seriously, from the article you just quoted: "The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths"

    So his exact same point applies given there's no mention there of a footpath.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Hurrache wrote: »
    In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws.

    But I will say it's quite eye opening and pathetic that anyone gets involved in this thread to whinge about kids out having fun from the standpoint of a motorist (of which I'm one too)

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    monument wrote: »
    Seriously, from the article you just quoted: "The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths"

    So his exact same point applies given there's no mention there of a footpath.

    Which is what I said, there is no mention of how the collision happened or if it was on the road or in the [pictured] shared pedestrian/cycle lane, perhaps if someone could clarify if the picture is of the actual scene or just a generic N24 Google Maps shot it might help clarify things for the other poster.

    In fact if someone could actually point him towards the correct article he should be reading, then maybe it would also become clearer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,907 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Which, considering the basis of the topic is cars parked on footpaths and cyclists on footpaths I think Thelonius is just a tad incongruous in pointing out deaths so far this year.


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.

    I absolutely agree with you, the standard of debate and discussion in the C&T forum at times is more suited to AH.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,196 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    to prevent substantive discussion on the topic.
    what substantive discussion is possible, though?
    yes, many people cycle on the footpath and nothing is done about it, and if you ring the gardai, they won't send someone, and if they did, the cyclist would be a mile or two away by the time they arrived.

    and that's about it.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,304 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ewc78 wrote: »
    Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group?
    Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes?


    As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:

    Why be a prick? Honestly why the need?

    Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I?
    And your last sentence is just the height of prickness it really is.
    Do you honestly think cyclists, be them teenagers or adults should not be responsible for their own actions? Really?
    So rather than actually answer my questions you just resort to name calling and a bit of releasing what you actually said?
    Well done on being you! :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,879 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?
    This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

    And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

    Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

    But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

    Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

    There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

    However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

    And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.
    this was not my point. my point was that if alternative forms of transport are discouraged or considered too dangerous to undertake (pun unintended), that people will gravitate towards other modes of transport.
    hence my 'swimming in the shark infested pool' analogy from earlier in the thread.

    in short - it doesn't really matter how safe driving is if people have been forced off their bikes into cars; the topic here (and i know the topic is a little freeform) is how safe *cycling* is, not how safe *driving* is.
    Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Where are people even seeing all these footpaths that are suitable for cycling on? Footpaths are an even bigger joke than bike lanes in this country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Under what law

    The citizens advice website isn't clear

    Google it. Or search this thread, the exact law has been pointed out by several posters now, including quotes of the relevant text.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,011 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    SeanW wrote: »
    ...Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018....
    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).


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,994 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    "one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane.
    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    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.

    Your'd love me, I often cycle in the middle of the lane when going through cities or towns it's much safer for me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    ixoy wrote: »
    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?

    Nope, just a ****/entitled driver who doesn't know the rules of the road - or really terrible observation. I've experienced the same as a pedestrian crossing a road in town, with a cyclist insisting the lights meant he could cycle through a pedestrian crossing on a pedestrian green light. I suspect just poor observation in that case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,011 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    ixoy wrote: »
    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?
    Carelessness and lack of knowledge on the driver's part. He had a 'straight ahead' only green arrow which he assumed meant he was good to go. He should have waited for either a full green or a right turn green. It's a frequent problem at some junctions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    SeanW wrote: »
    This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

    And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

    Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

    But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

    Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

    There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

    However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

    And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.

    Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.

    What should be the target of road deaths is zero.

    How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?

    Why when I go out cycling should I feel so at risk because of other road users?

    Why should anyone who is caught using their phone while driving be allowed behind the wheel again?

    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    One thing that 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    liamog wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭BeardySi


    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...


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Maybe we could do what they do in Denmark and have cycling lanes at a different level to both the road and the footpath.

    I think that would be a good idea, but no doubt it would be rejected here as a trip hazard.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,196 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    ixoy wrote: »
    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?
    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.
    too many people on autopilot and not paying enough attention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Rogerrabit


    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 about


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,946 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    liamog wrote: »
    I think that would be a good idea, but no doubt it would be rejected here as a trip hazard.

    Why?

    We already have the road and footpath at separate levels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,879 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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).
    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.
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    What should be the target of road deaths is zero.
    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?
    How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?
    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.
    Why when I go out cycling should I feel so at risk because of other road users?
    Are all the motorists driving like they're out to get you?
    Why should anyone who is caught using their phone while driving be allowed behind the wheel again?
    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.
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.


    BeardySi wrote: »
    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...
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    SeanW wrote: »
    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.

    That's a show of power from the cycling lobby against the poor downtrodden motorist. Better watch your back, they won't like being exposed.


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    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 that


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Rogerrabit


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Rogerrabit


    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.....


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    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 kerb


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    It generally is unless isn't. the cyclists are making an effort not to and hug the kerb

    FYP


  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Rogerrabit


    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 dummy


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Rogerrabit wrote: »
    The tablets you are taking are affecting your brain dummy

    Cut it out.

    -- moderator


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,478 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    SeanW wrote: »
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,462 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    ewc78 wrote: »
    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...
    Which recent cyclists deaths are down to the fault of the cyclist?
    1 sheep2 wrote: »
    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.
    Universally cautious? Have you ever seen a van driver or truck driver pulling up to load or unload?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    1 sheep2 wrote: »
    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.
    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?
    SeanW wrote: »
    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?
    SeanW wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    ewc78 wrote: »
    30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.
    How slightly? If it's 20 seconds, do you think that's OK?
    ewc78 wrote: »
    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.
    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?

    Spook_ie wrote: »
    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.
    What post in particular argued that cars parked on footpaths were relative to 18 people being killed on the road?
    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.
    No discussion has been prevented. Discuss away.
    SeanW wrote: »
    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.
    Factually incorrect, yet again;


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-5-000-on-the-spot-fines-issued-to-cyclists-1.3977141
    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.
    Congratulations ,when did you get your Masters degree in epidemiology?
    It generally is unless the cyclists are making an effort not to and hugging the kerb
    Cyclists don't hold up traffic. Cyclists ARE traffic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    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.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,304 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    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 kerb
    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Had a lovely run in the cycle lane tonight.


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    J_E wrote: »
    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 piss


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    ewc78 wrote: »
    Had a lovely run in the cycle lane tonight.

    A large sock of batteries is too good for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,879 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.
    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.
    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.
    Are you claiming that one or more of the parties may have acted on purpose?
    Maybe we should move on from red light jumping to look at, ooh let's say' speeding by motorists.
    Oh, I don't know, but here's a crazy idea:
    MAYBE YOU SHOULD START YOUR OWN SODDING THREAD.
    I pointed out that you're strawmanning - argueing against a position that was never made. No-one was making international comparisons but you.
    You were ****ting on Irish motorists. I provided context. Yes, you consider context, data and evidence to be irrelevant, but that's just you.
    The standard that I hold Irish motorists to is the standard of not killing two or three people each week.
    Which is not only provably impossible, but the data shows that Irish motorists are actually relatively good at not killing people.
    All the research from the RSA shows the major causes of deaths to be down to lawbreaking - speeding, drink driving, phone use.
    Yet you focus solely on speed?
    So maybe if we start actually enforcing traffic laws, maybe we'd have fewer deaths? Do you think?
    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.

    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%"
    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.
    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.

    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.


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    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 empty


  • Posts: 5,369 [Deleted User]


    J_E wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,304 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    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
    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!
    As for cyclists using the path, this is a minority and in my experience tends to be children.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement