Commute less than 8km? Why don't you cycle?

monument

Discovery wrote: »

If its 8km to work and another 8km back well then thats 10 miles. Hardly what one would call a short trek. That would be a similar distance to cycling from the city centre all the way out to Dunboyne in Co. Meath.

Discovery wrote: »

Lads read my post again. I am talking 8km in and another 8km out which is 16km and roughly the city centre to Dunboyne.

I'm not trying to be smart or anything, but what exactly is your point? Why exactly are you comparing the 8km with a trip more than twice as long?

StopNotWorking

I used to cycle to work/college. I went from baldoyle to darndale(not much). But in the 4 years I worked there I would not be able to count off both hands the amount of times I was knocked off my bike at the two roundabouts I had to cross.

No matter which way I tried to take them(pretend I was on foot and use the pathes or go on the road and signal with my arms). Either way I got into some really nasty falls. The worst being a time I was forced off the road by a van, he came up outside me and as we both went to take the turn off the roundabout he didn't give me enough space, I went into a curb, off the bike and wrapped myself stomach first around a traffic signpost.

I won't cycle again, I don't drive either. Public transport and walking is all I'll do from now on. Never again will I place any amount of trust in the morons that drive on Irish roads.

martin1016

I would really like to be able to cycle to work, used to cycle everywhere when in college and younger.

Sadly though I now have a 55km commute each way so its not an option. Having siad that I have considered cycling and using rail but our system here does not support that so no point in trying.

Lots of valid points mentioned in the thread and well done by the OP for starting it. I understand concerns about danger and I would think that it is the real factor that needs to be addressed. Many of the other reasons are excuses and thats fine, cycling should not be militantly enforced but should be facilitated in order to make it easy for those that want to try.

I am just teaching my 9 year old how to cycle on the roads, awareness, road position etc and will look into buying that cyclecraft book.

Cycling should be encouraged from school level, its a vicious circle. Parents don't let kids cycle as its percieved to be too dangerous yets its these same parents creating these dangers by dropping their kids to school.

So its a bit of a catch 22 situation - something needs to give first in order for a change to happen. I beileve Dempsey has admitted that teh cycle lanes as they have been implemeted have not been satsifactory. If they improve these, hopefully making them safer this will encourage more people out of cars and that shoudl have a knock on effect of makng other roads safer due to lower traffic volumes.

Also can anyone explain why there is such a problem with bring a bike onto a train at off peak times??

onimpulse

lukasbasic wrote: »

I do 30% of the time.
This is the 30% where the weather allows it.

I cycle every day... and the weather is fine a lot more than 30% of the time! It will often rain during the day - but I'm not on my bike at 2pm - honestly I could count the no of time I've actually gotten wet since Christmas it really is very little. You don't need the whole day to be dry you just need the half hour you're on your bike to be dry!

onimpulse

Discovery wrote: »

If its 8km to work and another 8km back well then thats 10 miles. Hardly what one would call a short trek. That would be a similar distance to cycling from the city centre all the way out to Dunboyne in Co. Meath.

It obviously depends on your level of fitness what you consider a long cycle but honestly if you consider 8km each way long - I think you've just proven you're totally unfit & really should consider cycling to try to do something about it.

A Dub in Glasgo

onimpulse wrote: »

It obviously depends on your level of fitness what you consider a long cycle but honestly if you consider 8km each way long - I think you've just proven you're totally unfit & really should consider cycling to try to do something about it.

Of course but then folk are told here that they should not need changing facilities or a shower after cycling to work. Some people need to realise that just because 1 person does not need to shower, everyone else does not need one.

monument

martin1016 wrote: »

Also can anyone explain why there is such a problem with bring a bike onto a train at off peak times??

The newly published National Cycle Policy paves the way for this (as well as trams and a trial of US-style front-of-bus racks for Dublin Bus). It's the first positive sign, and hopefully there'll be firm movement sooner than later.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course but then folk are told here that they should not need changing facilities or a shower after cycling to work. Some people need to realise that just because 1 person does not need to shower, everyone else does not need one.

Nobody is saying one glove fits all, and I don't think anybody is doubting the benefit of showers in workplaces. All that's been said it is possible if you take it easy to go without a shower for shorter distances (what's a shorter distance depends on the person), and it helps if you have your bag on the bicycle rather than your back.

onimpulse wrote: »

It obviously depends on your level of fitness what you consider a long cycle but honestly if you consider 8km each way long - I think you've just proven you're totally unfit & really should consider cycling to try to do something about it.

I think that's a bit unfair, the perception that distances are longer then they actual are / or take longer to travel could have little to do with fitness. For example, somebody could be using a gym and still have an incorrect perception of distances.

lostexpectation

ah the ol biased pole, that doens't give you proper options only insulting ones

monument

I want to avoid commenting on any person's cycling when I have not seen it first hand, but just as a general comment on cycling and roundabouts....

Roundabouts are a problem area for cyclists. It was noted in the National Cycle Policy, and while this may not mean much to cyclists who have to use them, it's the first time it has been really acknowledged.

Anyway, as I posted early:

you can find out how to “integrate with traffic, not fear it” by reading books such as Cyclecraft which teaches how to cycle in traffic (knowing how to cycle and how to cycle in urban areas are two vastly different things).

One of the main things Cyclecraft mentions throughout is taking the 'primary cycling position', otherwise known as 'taking the lane'. Simply cycling away from the kerb which discourages traffic from unsafely overtaking you. It goes against the way many inexperienced cyclists think cycling really close to the kerb is safer. It's not. Cycling a bit from the kerb and "taking the lane" where needed is one of the main way how cyclists manage to avoid crashes.

EDIT: For using this method in the context of roundabouts... when you are leaving the roundabout if you're cycling away from the edge of your exit road then it lessens the chances of cars dangerously overtaking you. If on the other hand you cycle close to the edge then motorists will more likely overtake you closely, increasing the danger of hitting you. It may take a bit of nerve to cycle defensively, but it does increasing safety.

lostexpectation wrote: »

ah the ol biased pole, that doens't give you proper options only insulting ones

How so? What's biased and insulting about it? And besides 'no showers at work' what's left out?

BostonB

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course but then folk are told here that they should not need changing facilities or a shower after cycling to work. Some people need to realise that just because 1 person does not need to shower, everyone else does not need one.

It's more a case of it's possible to have a good wash without a shower. It's not as enjoyable but it's definately not impossible. If you don't have a decent sink space, like in a accessable cubical then ok it might not be practical.

It's a bit of an art dressing for cycling tbh. I still haven't got it right. I tend to wear and carry too much. With experience I'm getting better.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maybe it just me then. I started cycling to work 4 years ago, I gave it up after 3 days because the 8 mile cycle into work resulted in me soaked from head to toe in sweat. There are no changing facilities or showers in my work and I tried to 'wash' in a communal urinal area. No thanks, I would rather extract my finger nails than leave my rail commute to cycle with no facilities at the work end. Not very hygienic.

BostonB

Like I said if you don't have even a sink and a place to change then its not practical.

docdolittle

Just wondering how many of you use paths and wear helmets when you cycle.. I never wore a helmet and had to cycle around the nass/longmile/Nangor roads with really bad drivers around :P

phasers

Basically every reason you put in the poll bar bringing the kids to school. My car is so much more comfortable and it doesn't cost me much to run it, why would I cycle? (Note, I exercise and don't care about the environment)

mikemac

onimpulse wrote: »

I cycle every day... and the weather is fine a lot more than 30% of the time! It will often rain during the day - but I'm not on my bike at 2pm - honestly I could count the no of time I've actually gotten wet since Christmas it really is very little. You don't need the whole day to be dry you just need the half hour you're on your bike to be dry!

Agreed. It doesn't rain as often as you think.
And if it does and even it's heavy, it's never so heavy you can't manage. With the exception of a few days last summer.

Quint

I can't imagine a " good wash at a sink" in work is going to tempt many people out of their cars.

BostonB

Quint wrote: »

I can't imagine a " good wash at a sink" in work is going to tempt many people out of their cars.

Is that some kind of anti logic? Do you tempt people into cars with gridlock etc?

I'd guess, the vast majority of people cycling don't need a wash. Under 25 mins journey most people aren't going to get sweaty. Its only if you are going longer or cycling fast do you start to sweat. I get far hotter on the train or bus tbh, with all the over crowding.

The vast majoity of people want to take the easy option. Thats the reality. For many its just not practical. Tbh I don't find it easy, but I enjoy the challenge. Its been far more enjoyable than I expected.

Quint

BostonB wrote: »

Is that some kind of anti logic? Do you tempt people into cars with gridlock etc?

I'd guess, the vast majority of people cycling don't need a wash. Under 25 mins journey most people aren't going to get sweaty. Its only if you are going longer or cycling fast do you start to sweat. I get far hotter on the train or bus tbh, with all the over crowding.

The vast majoity of people want to take the easy option. Thats the reality. For many its just not practical. Tbh I don't find it easy, but I enjoy the challenge. Its been far more enjoyable than I expected.

Well, most people that can cycle say showers are the main problem. I doubt the option of having a wash at a sink will be good enough. I'd definitely pick gridlock traffic ahead of it. But on my commute anyway it's still much faster to drive than cycle.

BostonB

Quint wrote: »

Well, most people that can cycle say showers are the main problem. I doubt the option of having a wash at a sink will be good enough. I'd definitely pick gridlock traffic ahead of it. But on my commute anyway it's still much faster to drive than cycle.

I think people are over stating the problem, trying to make an excuse. Most people don't need a shower. Some people just don't want to cycle. Thats fair enough. If they had a shower they still wouldn't cycle. We have a shower. Hardly anyone who cycles uses it, they simply don't need to.

Getting to work quicker isn't the only reason to cycle. Theres fitness, less stress, more consistent travel times. You don't have to avoid peak time/gridlock, you can leave when you want. Its cheaper. Its just a nice way to spend some time.

Theres equally valid reasons not to do it too.

markpb

BostonB wrote: »

You don't have to avoid peak time/gridlock, you can leave when you want. Its cheaper. Its just a nice way to spend some time.

This one is used a lot by people I know who drive - they can make it to work in 30 minutes if they leave early or late but it's not really being flexible - it's just moving your working hours to avoid traffic. My cycle consistently takes 30 minutes whether I leave at 7am or 8.55am so I can work whatever hours *I* want without having to worry about traffic.

BostonB

I drive some days and cycle other days. Theres definately (for me anyway) stress/pressure trying to beat/avoid the peak time and grid lock. Of course if you leave early/late you can avoid it in the car. Some days this suits, some days it doesn't.

Somedays especially in the heavy rain, very windy days (like recently) its nice to be in the car. Otherdays its nicer on the bike.

A Dub in Glasgo

BostonB wrote: »

I'd guess, the vast majority of people cycling don't need a wash. Under 25 mins journey most people aren't going to get sweaty. Its only if you are going longer or cycling fast do you start to sweat. I get far hotter on the train or bus tbh, with all the over crowding.

The vast majoity of people want to take the easy option. Thats the reality. For many its just not practical. Tbh I don't find it easy, but I enjoy the challenge. Its been far more enjoyable than I expected.

What evidence do you have about most of those cycling 8km do not need a wash and what evidence do you have about most of those who are not currently cycling do not need a wash after cycling 8km?

BostonB

Do I need evidence for a guess? I said under 25 mins not 8k. Besides its not a dry statistic, its depends on a whide range of factors. If your route is hilly or not, or even if its windy.

People watching. TBH you can tell from what people are wearing and what they are cycling. You know someone on a creaky rusted crock and wearing a smart suit, shoes hasn't cycled too far, and isn't planning on changing. As you get closer to the city center cyclists bikes and clothing changes. Further out the more serious they are. That includes people in old football/gym gear, puffing away on a mountain bike, miles away from anywhere or people in neon lycra. They are going to have to change. Its not rocket science.

I'm also going on the people in the office, people I know and my own horribly unfit state. You know its bad when joggers pass you on the hills, and you need a day(s) to recover.

dave.obrien

I cycle 16km to and another 16km from work. Every day. The weather is not really a hindrance, you dress appropriately and remain comfortable.

Hills? In Dublin? Where?! I commute from Cabinteely to the North Side of Dublin City, and have not come across anything more than a slope. Which is why I have a bike with gears.

There are not too many dangerous roads out there either, just some very ignorant road users. I'd like to make it clear that I am referring to obnoxious car drivers in particular, I find most taxi drivers and bus drivers great, and most HGV's are understandably restricted in their viewing, so avoid them. Having said that, as frustrated as I get with poor drivers, poor cyclists really get my wick up more than anything...

Also, lateness due to cycling or missing work due to injuries is a bit of an anomoly. Statistics show that cycling is the most efficient way of getting to where you want to be on time, and is quicker than a car through an urban environment by about 40%. Also, the health benefits of cycling mean a healthier, more productive employee. Time missing from work due to injury would be far outweighed by time missing from work due to the health implications of a non-active lifestyle.

I do understand where these concerns come from, I had them myself before i started commuting on my bike. Now that I do cycle, I realise that Dublin's pretty flat, it rains about 25% as much as I thought, car trips are terribly long, even bad drivers are predictable and I did need to lose that 2 stone!

Polar101

I gave it up when I got tired of fixing the bike.. too much glass / potholes etc. I liked the cycling, but hated the repairs. If I get a sudden burst of energy, I will take it up again.

petethedrummer

To anyone who thinks its dangerous, there are men and women in their 60s and beyond cycling around Dublin. HTFU.

white apples

"Taking the lane" works in making you safer but results in donkeys shouting abuse at you because you're slowing them down, not pleasant. Suffer it most mornings coming round college green.

johnnyc

I have a friend who is from belgium do any of you think it would be a good idea for cyclist to pay road tax (about 50 euro). this tax in belgium is invested in cycle lanes bike racks in cities and town.

tibor

johnnyc wrote: »

I have a friend who is from belgium do any of you think it would be a good idea for cyclist to pay road tax (about 50 euro). this tax in belgium is invested in cycle lanes bike racks in cities and town.

There is no road tax in Ireland. We do have a motor tax which goes into the general taxation pool and comes nowhere near the total costs of road construction/maintainance on an annual basis.

Taxing cycling further is a ludicrous idea. We're supposed to be encouraging it as a healthier, cheaper and more sustainable means of transport in an attempt to increase numbers, not discouraging people by adding extra cost.

seamus

johnnyc wrote: »

I have a friend who is from belgium do any of you think it would be a good idea for cyclist to pay road tax (about 50 euro). this tax in belgium is invested in cycle lanes bike racks in cities and town.

But they're on the other side of the see-saw. They have a large number of cyclists already.
I firmly believe that if you get people onto bikes, they'll enjoy it and generally won't go back. Once you have that, then it's very easy to convince people to hand over a nominal sum each year to maintain the cycling facilities.
But when you have a tiny proportion of the population who cycle, and a similarly tiny proportion of the population who don't hold the whole idea of cycling with complete and utter contempt, then asking that small minority to fund poor/non-existent facilities will simply discourage anyone new from joining in.

We should be paying people (through tax breaks) to cycle, not the other way around.

johnnyc

seamus wrote: »

We should be paying people (through tax breaks) to cycle, not the other way around.

ah they should be tax breaks for cyclist but asking people to cycle in dublin or cork city can be dangerous especially when u have to go through the m50 or the jack lynch tunnel. If there was a motor tax and that money was invested into cycle lanes this could turn peoples opinions about cycling to work, college or school.

Stark

Going through the M50 is both illegal and unnecessary. The Jack Lynch tunnel can probably be avoided in most cases as well.

seamus

johnnyc wrote: »

ah they should be tax breaks for cyclist but asking people to cycle in dublin or cork city can be dangerous especially when u have to go through the m50 or the jack lynch tunnel. If there was a motor tax and that money was invested into cycle lanes this could turn peoples opinions about cycling to work, college or school.

:eek: It's no doubt illegal to cycle in the Jack Lynch tunnel. It's definitely illegal to cycle on the M50. And you'd want your head checked if you tried either.

The benefit of cycling is that the direct routes which are otherwise useless in a car are fully usable on a bike. You only need to cross the M50, which is generally fine.

Yes, cycle facilities need improvement, but asking existing cyclists to pay for it will both discourage new entrants and cause people to go, "To hell with this" and jack it in. In addition, the 2006 census showed that just 36,000 people in the entire country cycled to work. At €50 per head, that would bring in just €1.8 million, which would be barely enough to construct and maintain two short (i.e. out to the M50) high-quality cycles lanes in Dublin. If even that.

johnnyc

i know that the m50 & jack lynch is illegal to cycle on but if your living in areas where the local roads filter onto the motorways then u left with little alternative then driving to work,school, recreational or college

johnnyc

seamus wrote: »

:eek:
Yes, cycle facilities need improvement, but asking existing cyclists to pay for it will both discourage new entrants and cause people to go, "To hell with this" and jack it in. In addition, the 2006 census showed that just 36,000 people in the entire country cycled to work. At €50 per head, that would bring in just €1.8 million, which would be barely enough to construct and maintain two short (i.e. out to the M50) high-quality cycles lanes in Dublin. If even that.

whats the total cycling population recreational and work related? how much would this bring in....

seamus

johnnyc wrote: »

whats the total cycling population recreational and work related? how much would this bring in....

Well there's the question. I would imagine that most "recreational" cyclists would also commute on a bicycle, so the question isn't all that useful.

In addition, if someone was told, "If you want to use that bike, you'll need to pay €50 a year", and they used the bike twice last year, they'll bin it. And what about children? Would kids bikes need to be taxed too? Can you see anyone going to the trouble of teaching their kids to ride a bike and then paying €50/year for them to use the bike?

Another thing it misses is that if the cost is meant to reflect the individual cyclist's cost to the environment and the state, then either the "tax" amount would need to drop drastically or car tax would need to sky rocket. Cos if the tax on a 1,000cc car is only €172, then you're saying that 3 cyclists have the same impact on the environment and the roads as a Nissan Micra. Which is blatantly incorrect.

i know that the m50 & jack lynch is illegal to cycle on but if your living in areas where the local roads filter onto the motorways then u left with little alternative then driving to work,school, recreational or college

Very, very few local roads end at the motorway in any part of the country. Most carry on over it.

johnnyc

seamus wrote: »

In addition, if someone was told, "If you want to use that bike, you'll need to pay €50 a year", and they used the bike twice last year, they'll bin it. And what about children? Would kids bikes need to be taxed too? Can you see anyone going to the trouble of teaching their kids to ride a bike and then paying €50/year for them to use the bike?

But they do that in belgium [similar population] it works. for the 50 euro a year cycle lanes will be maintained, constructed racks would be provided for town, cities and you will avoid trucks and cars in over congested roads. In belgium anybody who has a bike pays. Its typical of the irish attitude that we should be paid to cycle and that all these cycle lanes, racks will come from somewhere?

seamus wrote: »

Another thing it misses is that if the cost is meant to reflect the individual cyclist's cost to the environment and the state, then either the "tax" amount would need to drop drastically or car tax would need to sky rocket. Cos if the tax on a 1,000cc car is only €172, then you're saying that 3 cyclists have the same impact on the environment and the roads as a Nissan Micra. Which is blatantly incorrect.

Very, very few local roads end at the motorway in any part of the country. Most carry on over it.

Look yes the cyclist has a positive input into road congestion, environment.... but to make cycling more appealing to the masses people dont want to worry about trucks, cars....so the construction of cycle lanes would enrich people who like cycling as a pastime or people who cycle to work.

seamus

johnnyc wrote: »

But they do that in belgium [similar population] it works.

Have you got a link for this? I can't find any evidence for such a tax in Belgium. Instead, there's an actual mileage rate that cyclists can claim from their employer for cycling to work.

Its typical of the irish attitude that we should be paid to cycle and that all these cycle lanes, racks will come from somewhere?

Yes, they will come from the exact same place that all these roads and car parks come from.

but to make cycling more appealing to the masses people dont want to worry about trucks, cars....so the construction of cycle lanes would enrich people who like cycling as a pastime or people who cycle to work.

That cycling is dangerous is only a perception, and no amount of cycle lanes will reduce that perception because ultimately they'll need to run parallel or across roads for a good deal of their journey. Research has shown consistently that more cycling == safer cycling, regardless of the number of cycle lanes.

johnnyc

seamus wrote: »

Have you got a link for this? I can't find any evidence for such a tax in Belgium. Instead, there's an actual mileage rate that cyclists can claim from their employer for cycling to work.

http://www.velo-city2009.com/partners-and-actors/history-cycling-associations.html


In Flanders, the cycling movement was divided into small urban groups who, for example in Antwerp, worked to have road tax for bicycles lifted (FoFo).

seamus wrote: »

Yes, they will come from the exact same place that all these roads and car parks come from.

Yes but if we go by your way of thinking we will be waiting along time until all the roads, trains and bus have been fixed first. The government at the moment is more concerned about giving people a tax incentive to cycle instead of making it safe, have supervised cycle lanes. Have u cycled into town and theres little or no secure(video camered) bike racks. This money could be used for the future development

seamus wrote: »

That cycling is dangerous is only a perception, and no amount of cycle lanes will reduce that perception because ultimately they'll need to run parallel or across roads for a good deal of their journey. Research has shown consistently that more cycling == safer cycling, regardless of the number of cycle lanes.

You are informed person seamus but if we had the bike road tax, this could be used to educate cyclist about cycling safety in schools... But the use of cycle lanes & a safety attitude can reduce the chances of serious injuries (and a good helmet).

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

But they do that in belgium [similar population] it works. for the 50 euro a year cycle lanes will be maintained, constructed racks would be provided for town, cities and you will avoid trucks and cars in over congested roads.

This blog post at copenhagenize.com seems to somewhat contradict what you're claiming:

"I spent four days at the Velo-city 2009 conference in Brussels last week, as a guest of the City of Copenhagen. It was a wonderful time spent at the world's largest conference dedicated to bicycle culture. 700 delegates from all over the world. Right off the bat, I'll say that I dubbed Brussels Velo-****ty. What a crap city to cycle in. Dismal. I've rarely seen a Northern[ish] European city so overrun by cars. But they know it, I guess. As the Brussels Mobility Minister Pascal Smet said..."

Maybe you meant other parts of Belgium, bar it's capital? Or do you have a strange idea of what "it works" means?

johnnyc wrote: »

The government at the moment is more concerned about giving people a tax incentive to cycle instead of making it safe

Cycling is safe. Why do you think it is not?

In any case the fasted, most proven and undisputed way to make cycling safer is under the theory of safety in numbers -- thus increasing the numbers of people cycling increases safety.

johnnyc wrote: »

Have u cycled into town and theres little or no secure(video camered) bike racks. This money could be used for the future development

Yes, I do. I lock my bicycle in the city centre all the time. I'm not saying bike theft is not a problem, but it is not one which is stopping most people from taking up cycling.

johnnyc wrote: »

You are informed person seamus but if we had the bike road tax, this could be used to educate cyclist about cycling safety in schools... But the use of cycle lanes & a safety attitude can reduce the chances of serious injuries (and a good helmet).

There is no such thing as "road tax" in Ireland. And motor tax is now linked to emissions. Bicycles give off zero emissions -- in fact, cycling uses less energy than walking... So are we going to tax walking before we see improvements in footpaths?

The Irish government seems have a better idea of why to invest in cycling than you do. So, here's a few reasons: Less traffic, less congestion, less air pollution, less noise pollution, a healthier population. Cycling can help some of the largest problems we are facing, such as reducing the numbers of people overweight and obese, and reducing the country's emissions. Furthermore, making towns and cities more liveable and enjoyable can have knock on benefits for trade and tourism. So investment pays for its self.

markopantelic

lol at the irish weather exuses, as i said on another thread here that copenhagen has just as bad weather and cycling is over 30%

monument

markopantelic wrote: »

lol at the irish weather exuses, as i said on another thread here that copenhagen has just as bad weather and cycling is over 30%

It's even more than 30% of commuters, from treehugger.com:

Both Copenhagen and Amsterdam can be proud of their impressive cycling statistics and ongoing investment in infrastructure. Copenhagen claims 36 percent of its commuters bike to work every morning. Amsterdam gives a slightly different and still impressive figure - 55 % of journeys to jobs less than 7.5 kilometers are done on two-wheeled, no emission vehicles, and 60 percent of inner city trips are bike trips. Now, according to the Dutch Bike Council, Amsterdammers have a new statistic to be proud of.

Amsterdam's rain fall is also higher than Dublin's. I can't find quick data at hand, but if you compare Dublin to De Bilt (near Amsterdam) on the BBC website you'll find Dublin on average has a lower rain fall and fewer wet days.

markopantelic

Very true, in fact I think the only difference between Amsterdam and Dublin is probably they get hotter days but the weather is pretty alike.

johnnyc

monument wrote: »

Cycling is safe. Why do you think it is not?

In any case the fasted, most proven and undisputed way to make cycling safer is under the theory of safety in numbers -- thus increasing the numbers of people cycling increases safety.

I differ if you look at the number of deaths reference below
http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html

Give me proof that cycle over the last 10 years has become safer.

monument wrote: »

Yes, I do. I lock my bicycle in the city centre all the time. I'm not saying bike theft is not a problem, but it is not one which is stopping most people from taking up cycling.

But its safer to park your car in a multi storey carpark....Most cities and town theres not enough bike racks and theres a problem with theft. Lets look at most schools for example have they enough racks for children and the answer is 99% no

monument wrote: »

There is no such thing as "road tax" in Ireland. And motor tax is now linked to emissions. Bicycles give off zero emissions -- in fact, cycling uses less energy than walking... So are we going to tax walking before we see improvements in footpaths?

The Irish government seems have a better idea of why to invest in cycling than you do. So, here's a few reasons: Less traffic, less congestion, less air pollution, less noise pollution, a healthier population. Cycling can help some of the largest problems we are facing, such as reducing the numbers of people overweight and obese, and reducing the country's emissions. Furthermore, making towns and cities more liveable and enjoyable can have knock on benefits for trade and tourism. So investment pays for its self.

road tax i mean motor tax. Would u keep to the point about taxing walking i am not on about emissions from bike....but it cost money to maintain cycle lanes, racks and trails. look it works in belgium and other countries.

I live in Brussels, and cycling here is like suicide. It's even worse than Dublin. The drivers here are lunatics, have no respect for anyone else on the road, can't park, and there are no proper cycle lanes in most of the city. I don't cycle because it's too dangerous, mostly. Some of the cities in Flanders such as Leuven are really cyclist friendly and a pleasure to cycle in.

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

I differ if you look at the number of deaths reference below
http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html

Give me proof that cycle over the last 10 years has become safer.

Try looking at the full stats rather than some website with what looks to be very incomplete data.

johnnyc wrote: »

But its safer to park your car in a multi storey carpark....Most cities and town theres not enough bike racks and theres a problem with theft. Lets look at most schools for example have they enough racks for children and the answer is 99% no

Yes, I do. I lock my bicycle in the city centre all the time. I'm not saying bike theft is not a problem, but it is not one which is stopping most people from taking up cycling. [ie the topic of this thread]

johnnyc wrote: »

road tax i mean motor tax. Would u keep to the point about taxing walking i am not on about emissions from bike....but it cost money to maintain cycle lanes, racks and trails. look it works in belgium and other countries.

First -- For all new cars motor tax is based on emissions (and for older cars it is based on engine size. It is not based on how much roads and motorways cost to build, nor does motor tax pay for the cost of such.

Second -- It does not seem to work so well in Belgium since I've linked to another site saying Belgium's capital is not cycling friendly and another poster has said the same.

johnnyc

monument wrote: »

Try looking at the full stats rather than some website with what looks to be very incomplete data.

ah the data looks up to date excluding the year 2009....tell me do you believe that any mother would leave there child cycle to school in dublin or cork city with the traffic on the roads?

statss

i sold my car when i moved to rathgar and after getting a job in town and now I cycle into work on baggot street most days, and i have to say, it's one of the best decisions i've ever made. Granted it's only a short cycle 10-15 minutes, but the difference to my health, both mental and physical is unreal. O love cycling. Can be quite scary at times and if it's raining I'll just walk but on dry days nothing beats it.

Rawr

johnnyc wrote: »

road tax i mean motor tax. Would u keep to the point about taxing walking i am not on about emissions from bike....but it cost money to maintain cycle lanes, racks and trails. look it works in belgium and other countries.

I gotta agree with Monument is saying here johnnyc.

If you need to tax Cyclists for constructing and maintaining cycle tracks, then that very same logic could be used to claim that walking must be taxed also. If someone wished to walk from A to B, that person would inevitably be using different elements of road infrastructure (paths, crossings, the road itself), all of which also needs to be built and maintained.

Sarn

QBC all the way in to work. Door to door 25 - 35 min (including 10 min walk to bus stop) to travel 7 km.

Pros:
No need for a shower when I get in, can listen to music, rain isn't a problem with an umbrella, bus is warm in Winter, always get a seat, can switch off on the way in, safe, easier to go for a few pints after work, no effort required.

Cons:
Reduced exercise, bus fare.