Dublin may see contra-flow cyclists

doozerie

blorg wrote:

Not easier, no, you have to get off the bike, walk it (avoiding being shinned by the pedals) and then get back on it when you are done. Nothing easier about that.

Good point, and one which I must remember the next time I encounter a car driving towards me against the flow of traffic - I mean, what else could the poor driver be expected to do, get out and push the car?

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

Good point, and one which I must remember the next time I encounter a car driving towards me against the flow of traffic - I mean, what else could the poor driver be expected to do, get out and push the car?

You asked if it would be easier to walk a bike than cycle, and the plain answer is, no, it is not easier. Why do we cycle at all rather than just pushing our bicycles everywhere if it is easier to push a bike rather than cycle it.

The context of all of this is making it legal for cyclists to cycle contra-flow, which would indeed make travelling around the city centre easier for them while still remaining within the law.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

You asked if it would be easier to walk a bike than cycle, and the plain answer is, no, it is not easier. Why do we cycle at all rather than just pushing our bicycles everywhere if it is easier to push a bike rather than cycle it.

The context of all of this is making it legal for cyclists to cycle contra-flow, which would indeed make travelling around the city centre easier for them while still remaining within the law.

No, I asked if it would have been easier to walk a bike the wrong way up a one-way street rather than cycle it. Your response suggests that you saw no issue with cycling the wrong way up a one-way street, making your reference to the legality of it entirely moot. This has nothing to do with the benefits, or otherwise, of contra-flow lanes, it has everything to do with whether cyclists choosing to ignore the rules of the road is acceptable.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

No, I asked if it would have been easier to walk a bike the wrong way up a one-way street rather than cycle it. Your response suggests that you saw no issue with cycling the wrong way up a one-way street, making your reference to the legality of it entirely moot. This has nothing to do with the benefits, or otherwise, of contra-flow lanes, it has everything to do with whether cyclists choosing to ignore the rules of the road is acceptable.

You asked "if it would have been easier to walk a bike the wrong way up a one-way street rather than cycle it."

The plain answer is no, it is easier to cycle it. Whether it is legal is another question entirely which you did not ask about and I did not comment on.

This thread is about making it legal to cycle contra-flow, to make journey by bicycle easier. If it is made legal to cycle a bike contra-flow what rule of the road is being broken?

To avoid any misunderstanding I wholeheartedly condemn Stark's cycling the wrong way up that street at this point in time. Bad Stark. :mad:

electrogrimey

Has there been any announcement as to when they're going to start rolling these in? (Pardon the pun :pac:)

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

You asked "if it would have been easier to walk a bike the wrong way up a one-way street rather than cycle it."

The plain answer is no, it is easier to cycle it. Whether it is legal is another question entirely which you did not ask about and I did not comment on.

Ah, I see that you are a stranger to "context". "Context" would be the post that I was responding to. You know, the one that I even quoted from. Like, the previous post before mine. Oh, never mind...

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

Ah, I see that you are a stranger to "context". "Context" would be the post that I was responding to. You know, the one that I even quoted from. Like, the previous post before mine. Oh, never mind...

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Not easier, no, you have to get off the bike, walk it (avoiding being shinned by the pedals) and then get back on it when you are done. Nothing easier about that.

It's become a bit easier since the invention of the freehub.

Victor

doozerie wrote: »

No, I asked if it would have been easier to walk a bike the wrong way up a one-way street rather than cycle it. Your response suggests that you saw no issue with cycling the wrong way up a one-way street, making your reference to the legality of it entirely moot. This has nothing to do with the benefits, or otherwise, of contra-flow lanes, it has everything to do with whether cyclists choosing to ignore the rules of the road is acceptable.

You do realise that by changing the law, it would then be legal?

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

It's become a bit easier since the invention of the freehub.

I wouldn't be using one of those new-fangled things in an urban environment.

doozerie

Victor wrote: »

You do realise that by changing the law, it would then be legal?

Huh? What does any possible future change in the law have to do with my taking issue with someone who stated that they willingly broke the current law?

They knowingly chose to illegally cycle the wrong way up a one-way street when they could have legally walked it - it's doubtful that anyone legally coming the other way would have been consoled by the argument that perhaps that stretch of road might be made contra-flow at some yet to be determined point in the future (if ever).

blorg

He cycled up it because it was easier to cycle up it. You asked if it would have been easier to get off and walk. Answer: no, it would not. You didn't ask if it would be more legal to get off and walk.

Andrew33

blorg wrote: »

He cycled up it because it was easier to cycle up it. You asked if it would have been easier to get off and walk. Answer: no, it would not. You didn't ask if it would be more legal to get off and walk.

Don't forget, you'd be taking up twice as much room while walking beside your cycle as you would while cycling it!;)

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

He cycled up it because it was easier to cycle up it. You asked if it would have been easier to get off and walk. Answer: no, it would not. You didn't ask if it would be more legal to get off and walk.

You clearly take your pedantry seriously, willfully stripping away context as you see fit to focus on individual words used rather than the intent behind them. Such commitment is commendable.

Incidentally, even taking the word "easier" as the focus of my post (which it wasn't) it is debatable whether cycling into oncoming traffic and avoiding being squashed is actually easier than walking your bike along the footpath.

Stark

doozerie wrote: »

Incidentally, even taking the word "easier" as the focus of my post (which it wasn't) it is debatable whether cycling into oncoming traffic and avoiding being squashed is actually easier than walking your bike along the footpath.

Where did I say I cycled into oncoming traffic? I cycled against the arrow, that particular piece of road is empty half the time and when someone does turn left onto it, you can see them well in advance and hop off the bike if needs be. You've as much risk of being squashed by crossing the road at that point.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

You clearly take your pedantry seriously, willfully stripping away context as you see fit to focus on individual words used rather than the intent behind them. Such commitment is commendable.

Incidentally, even taking the word "easier" as the focus of my post (which it wasn't) it is debatable whether cycling into oncoming traffic and avoiding being squashed is actually easier than walking your bike along the footpath.

Your comment was a short sentence in reply to Stark who said he cycled up a one way street:

doozerie wrote:

"Wouldn't walking have been an easier option?"

My apologies if I missed the volumes of subtext behind that sentence which you clearly think you conveyed... :rolleyes:

The context of this whole thread is that allowing cyclists to cycle contra-flow makes it easier for them to make journeys across the city. Dismounting regularly to walk your bike does NOT make your journey easier, no, and that is why cyclists in the main don't do it.

What about the signs that advise cyclists to dismount and use pedestrian crossings to negotiate junctions? Dismount to cross the East Link bridge? Dismount to get around roadworks? Dismount to get on and off many cycle lanes at junctions? To get around parked cars in cycle lanes? Do these things make a cyclist's journey "easier" in your view?

doozerie

Stark wrote: »

Where did I say I cycled into oncoming traffic? I cycled against the arrow, that particular piece of road is empty half the time and when someone does turn left onto it, you can see them well in advance and hop off the bike if needs be. You've as much risk of being squashed by crossing the road at that point.

"It looked safe to me" is a pretty poor excuse for breaking one of the most simple of the rules of the road. I have no doubt that the idiots that I sometimes encounter cycling the wrong way in the cycle track on Westland Row, for example, would adopt that same argument if I stopped long enough to ask them why they seemed to be trying to force me out into moving motorised traffic to avoid a head-on collision with them.

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

My apologies if I missed the volumes of subtext behind that sentence which you clearly think you conveyed... :rolleyes:

I included the context. It was in the portion of the post that I responded to i.e. "Eventually was easiest just to cycle the wrong way for 50m". I could have quoted their entire post but that would have seemed a bit like cutting the crust off a sandwich before handing it to someone - I tend to assume that people are not entirely helpless.

CramCycle

Sorry

niceonetom

For someone so keen on "context" advocating slavish and absolute adherence to rules simply because they're the rules seems a bit lacking in perspective. What about the context in which one way systems were first envisioned? what about the general idea behind them? I think it's fairly obvious that most one way systems make absolutely no sense for a road user less than 1m wide, and I think the original designers of these systems would acknowledge that.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

I included the context. It was in the portion of the post that I responded to i.e. "Eventually was easiest just to cycle the wrong way for 50m". I could have quoted their entire post but that would have seemed a bit like cutting the crust off a sandwich before handing it to someone - I tend to assume that people are not entirely helpless.

Was it not easiest to cycle the wrong way? Would making this legal not make cyclists' legal journeys "easier"? It works well across Europe, why not here?

Victor

doozerie wrote: »

You clearly take your pedantry seriously, willfully stripping away context as you see fit to focus on individual words used rather than the intent behind them. Such commitment is commendable.

Incidentally, even taking the word "easier" as the focus of my post (which it wasn't) it is debatable whether cycling into oncoming traffic and avoiding being squashed is actually easier than walking your bike along the footpath.

I'm sorry, modestly hypocritical of me but:

doozerie

niceonetom wrote:

For someone so keen on "context" advocating slavish and absolute adherence to rules simply because they're the rules seems a bit lacking in perspective. What about the context in which one way systems were first envisioned? what about the general idea behind them? I think it's fairly obvious that most one way systems make absolutely no sense for a road user less than 1m wide, and I think the original designers of these systems would acknowledge that.

Which brings this thread back to a much earlier point which is the victim mindset which some cyclists seem to believe gives them the right to ignore rules of the road which don't suit them, as and when they choose. I presume that you are happy, and expect even, to see other road users demonstrating "slavish and absolute adherence to rules"? For example, when you encounter pedestrians walking in cycle lanes in front of you, car drivers parked in cycle lanes ahead of you, car drivers driving in bus lanes, people blocking cycle lanes as they exit/enter a side street, cyclists coming straight at you on your side of the road or cycle track (be it a one-way street or two-way), etc., do you cheer them on for their reluctance to follow the rules? Or is it the case that when you see cars stopped at red lights, for example, that you feel sorry for their unwillingness to just force their way through the other road users that have a green light?

I don't adhere to the rules of the road because I enjoy my commute taking longer than it otherwise would, I adhere to them out of a sense of social responsibility (it's just as well that I don't adhere to them to earn respect here, as obviously I'd be sorely disappointed). My hope is that other road users will demonstrate the same sense of responsibility, and in fairness most do. However, there is clearly a significant number of people that believe that they have grievances which justify having no respect for the safety of others.

As to whether cyclists do have valid grievances, yes we do. I've mentioned a few in this thread already, such as poorly designed junctions and cycle tracks. But other road users also have valid grievances - motorbikers are not legally entitled to use bus lanes; in some places car drivers have lost the right to park outside their own houses as the road they live on has been designated as some kind of thoroughfare; pedestrians have lost footpath space to cycle lanes; pedestrians are obliged to wait for significant periods to get a green light as traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings; etc. It is understandable that affected people are pissed off about issues such as these, but fortunately the majority of them don't use them as justification for pissing on everyone else by deciding to ignore random bits of the rules of the road.

blorg

I'm not sure whether this indicates you are in favour of cyclists cycling contra-flow on one-way streets or not (what this entire thread is about.)

dub_skav

doozerie wrote: »

As to whether cyclists do have valid grievances, yes we do. I've mentioned a few in this thread already, such as poorly designed junctions and cycle tracks. But other road users also have valid grievances - motorbikers are not legally entitled to use bus lanes; in some places car drivers have lost the right to park outside their own houses as the road they live on has been designated as some kind of thoroughfare; pedestrians have lost footpath space to cycle lanes; pedestrians are obliged to wait for significant periods to get a green light as traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings; etc. It is understandable that affected people are pissed off about issues such as these, but fortunately the majority of them don't use them as justification for pissing on everyone else by deciding to ignore random bits of the rules of the road.

Motorbikers do (illegally) use bus lanes.
Car drivers often park (illegally) on footpaths outside their homes
Pedestrians (illegally) cross roads on red pedestrian signals

So it seems that lots of people (from all road user segments) ignore bits of the rules of the road when it suits them. I believe that the one debated in this thread - cycling the wrong way downa 1 way street - is probably one of the lesser crimes you have mentioned.

On topic, it is being discussed whether cyclists will be allowed to cycle contra flow (as in other cities).
It is not being discussed whether motorbikers can use bus lanes, residents can park illegally or pedestrians can jaywalk.

So you have taken umbrage with the one law that is actually up for review.

By the way, I do not condone law-breaking myself, but you seem to be getting fairly riled up over something which doesn't strike me as particularly bad.
You may be surprised to find that most of the users of this forum (many who have disagreed with you in this thread) are law abiding road users who stop on red and don't break traffic laws. It just appears that there is an issue with people jumping to conclusions, getting on high horses and of course there are many pedantry fans

doozerie

I find it interesting, if not a little depressing, that a cyclist advocating that cyclists follow the current rules of the road is derided and labelled as some sort of a crank on here. I'll bet that those that choose to ignore the rules of the road see no hypocrisy in criticising others that do so when it has a detrimental effect on them.

Now, where do I go to take part in the "oh, poor us, DCC hate us and victimise us with their one-way streets, traffic lights, and other anti-cyclist initiatives" group hug?...

monument

Anyway, back on topic...

Used these in Pairs:






Some had no physical separation, others did at the start of the road:



There were some tight squeezes, but the contra-flow worked just fine in low speed back streets as above. In most of the areas planned in Dublin the streets have more room.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

Icyclist advocating that cyclists follow the current rules of the road is derided and labelled as some sort of a crank on here. I'll bet that those that choose to ignore the rules of the road see no hypocrisy in criticising others that do so when it has a detrimental effect on them.

This thread is about changing the law to allow cyclists to cycle contra-flow. I don't think any applauded cycling wrong-way up streets now (indeed it is frequently condemned as "salmoning".)

You seemed to suggest that it was easier (not more legal) for a cyclist to dismount and walk instead of cycling up a one-way, which I disagreed with. It is always easier to cycle. It may not be legal to do so. The point of the change in the law is to allow cyclists make easier, legal journeys.

I'll ask again: are you pro- or against- changing the law to allow contra-flow cycling? You seem unable to answer that, which is the entire point of this thread.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

I find it interesting, if not a little depressing, that a cyclist advocating that cyclists follow the current rules of the road is derided and labelled as some sort of a crank on here.

"Here" is a discussion forum on the Internet. "Now" is Friday. What were you expecting?

doozerie

blorg wrote:

This thread is about changing the law to allow cyclists to cycle contra-flow. I don't think any applauded cycling wrong-way up streets now (indeed it is frequently condemned as "salmoning".)

You seemed to suggest that it was easier (not more legal) for a cyclist to dismount and walk instead of cycling up a one-way, which I disagreed with. It is always easier to cycle. It may not be legal to do so. The point of the change in the law is to allow cyclists make easier, legal journeys.

I'll ask again: are you pro- or against- changing the law to allow contra-flow cycling? You seem unable to answer that, which is the entire point of this thread.

As I've already stated in previous posts, I believe there are better uses right now for the money that would be spent on contra-flow lanes and I've given examples of where such money could be spent to make cyclists safer. As such, I am neither pro- nor anti- contra-flow lanes in themselves, I simply believe they are not the most deserving target of supposedly limited funding today.

As regards applauding cycling the wrong way up one-way streets, Stark seems to advocate just that. My taking issue with that statement in his post (which I did by posing a question whose wording seems to be considered somehow wildly controversial) was countered by various posts which, completely missing the point I was trying to make, seemed to have a problem with me questioning someone advocating this in the first place - examples include yours and niceonetom's.