Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

I may be completely wrong on this

You're absolutely right about that.

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

You're absolutely right about that.

Oh really???

Read the first paragraph.....

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

Oh really???

Read the first paragraph.....

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

I have two cars and eight bikes. Get off my roads.

CramCycle

AK-Photography wrote: »

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!

I'll get the HSE to cough up the money that they would have wasted on me if I wasn't a cyclist, should be far more than the amount of motor tax I would have paid :pac:

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

I have two cars and eight bikes. Get off my roads.

That post makes no sense!!! Not only are you side stepping the fact that you were mistaken when you said that I was wrong, but how does having 2 cars and 8 bike make the roads yours??? We all know taxi drivers own the roads :pac:.

Anyway it's simply my opinion that cyclist should have to pay some sort of tax or annual fee in order to use the roads... And in relation to the topic of the thread, I see a lot more cyclist than motorists run red lights and so on and so forth

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking.

Well, kind of.

It's actually a perfect demonstration of why running a red is not a good idea. I bet that cyclist probably thought that there was no big deal in running reds so long as you looked around while you did it.

I was also partially curious about the incident itself. I'm continually amazed (though no longer surprised) about the amount of pedestrians who fearlessly step into the road at pedestrian crossings when cyclists are coming through (and have a green light!). Even when I have the green man, I wouldn't dream of crossing without checking both directions (even on a one-way road).

No I may be completely wrong on this, but doesn't the revenue generated from Motor/Road/Car Tax, as it's know, go towards the development and maintenance of roads?? Which cyclists use... If that is the case the case then there should be some sort of tax for cyclists. There is on everything else!!!

We worked out here before that for every €1 in tax paid by a motorist, the taxpayers have to add another €1.50 to the pot to subsidise transport costs.

It costs the country money for you to drive your car. Cough up, please.

droidus

And despite what the CI website says, motor tax is not ringfenced. Transport is paid for out of the general tax pot, to which motorists contribute.

So why should we subsidise your motoring habit?

Pay up you scrounger (rabble rabble)

Antomus Prime

seamus wrote: »

It costs the country money for you to drive your car. Cough up, please.

This isnt debate about motorist not wanting to pay tax.... I have no problem paying taxes

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

Lumen

AK-Photography wrote: »

This isnt debate about motorist not wanting to pay tax....

This isn't a debate about cyclists paying tax either. You're trying to make it one.

Antomus Prime

Lumen wrote: »

This isn't a debate about cyclists paying tax either. You're trying to make it one.

I'm actually not, Look at post #106, second paragraph..... other people her just keep reverting back to that. I've given my opinion on the topic of the thread

HivemindXX

AK-Photography wrote: »

Anyway it's simply my opinion that cyclist should have to pay some sort of tax or annual fee in order to use the roads...

Roads are paid for out of the general tax pool, in to which I pay far more than the average amount of tax. It's simply my opinion that I should have more rights to use the road than people who pay less tax than me. I will of course give way to people who pay more than me on production of their P60.

Don't get me started on children and old people. Do you realise pensioners pay hardly any tax at all and still get to use the roads? Children pay no tax whatsoever yet they still can use pedestrian crossings, forcing ME, a taxpayer, to stop.

Outrageous. Someone call Joe Duffy for me, I'm too incensed to work the phone.

Antomus Prime

This is getting off topic, I made my comments on the topic of the thread also on another topic mentioned mid thread. All this general tax pool, pensioners tax, blah blah is pointless talk. IMO

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

HGVs cannot move sideways like crabs.

This I know, but a HGV isn't always lined up perfectly parallel to the roadside either. And the roadside isn't always perfectly straight. Moving off alongside a HGV/Bus and expecting the gap you're in to remain consistent seems a bit optimistic to me.

Lumen

RT66 wrote: »

This I know, but a HGV isn't always lined up perfectly parallel to the roadside either. And the roadside isn't always perfectly straight. Moving off alongside a HGV/Bus and expecting the gap you're in to remain consistent seems a bit optimistic to me.

Which is why I suggested staying put. :pac:

doozerie

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

Easy solution here, you can have all the cycle lanes back, and those traffic lights too. You'll find that many cyclists never even asked for them. They are a bit like junk mail, you go about your usual business and suddenly notice there's a help of these rubbish things just piling up supposedly addressed to you but you never requested them and you certainly don't want them.

CramCycle

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years, and the traffic lights that have been upgraded with cycle red & green lights? were they all supplied free of charge for the country??? No.... They weren't.

But they aren't useful and they were never wanted or needed in most cases, it was clearly someone who doesn't cycle wasting the tax money that I have paid into, year in and year out for 15 years. Oddly enough in relation to the title of this thread, the poor state of these "mandatory" lanes are what force alot of cyclists to break the law (poor quality, illegal signage, nio signage etc. etc.)

Dermot Illogical

AK-Photography wrote: »

And what about all the cycle lanes that have been built over the last few years

Indeed, where would motorists park without them?
:rolleyes:

Magic Beans

If we avoid the extreme examples of stupidity the average cyclist is no better nor worse at keeping or breaking the law than is the average motorist. So no I don't think cyclists are public enemy no. 1 but I do think that many cyclists are their own worst enemy. Simply because they refuse to acknowledge their fragility and try to enforce notions of "rights" when dealing with cars. Car drivers don't attempt to exercise the same "rights" when dealing with trucks. Why? Because they know that the big metal box will hurt them. Many cyclists need to realise this and be more realistic on the roads.

Antomus Prime

Magic Beans wrote: »

If we avoid the extreme examples of stupidity the average cyclist is no better nor worse at keeping or breaking the law than is the average motorist. So no I don't think cyclists are public enemy no. 1 but I do think that many cyclists are their own worst enemy. Simply because they refuse to acknowledge their fragility and try to enforce notions of "rights" when dealing with cars. Car drivers don't attempt to exercise the same "rights" when dealing with trucks. Why? Because they know that the big metal box will hurt them. Many cyclists need to realise this and be more realistic on the roads.

Totally agree with this, i never agreed that cyclists are public enemy number 1, but as i said i do see alot more careless cyclists than i don motorists, now that doesnt mean at all that there aren't s**t load of both.

CramCycle

^^^^ CONFUSED

What do you mean by "notion of rights"? Do we not actually have any?

And when did the presence of a larger vehicle on the road negate the legal entitlement of a driver of a smaller vehicle to be there?

Antomus Prime

CramCycle wrote: »

^^^^ CONFUSED

What do you mean by "notion of rights"? Do we not actually have any?

And when did the presence of a larger vehicle on the road negate the legal entitlement of a driver of a smaller vehicle to be there?

I think youre getting the point wrong there, i dont think he/she was emplying that when a larger vehicle is on the road you lose the right to be there, more that a level of common sense kicks in to be extra careful... Thats what I got from it anyway

Magic Beans

CramCycle wrote: »

^^^^ CONFUSED

What do you mean by "notion of rights"? Do we not actually have any?

And when did the presence of a larger vehicle on the road negate the legal entitlement of a driver of a smaller vehicle to be there?

This is exactly the point I'm making. Arguing about legal entitlements when your only concern should be staying alive.

monument

monument wrote: »

Urban cycling is quite different than long distance cycling on a racer.



Cyclecraft -- based on the UK National Cycle Training Standard and endorsed by their Department of Transport -- states that road positioning is one primary things that urban cyclists should learn. It says to normally take up position away from the kerb and where needed "take the lane". Our Department of Transport also issued advice to cyclists last year to keep well away from the kerb.




It's very clear from this that you do not cycle in urban areas. While many drivers are great, you have to allow for the poorer and poorest ones.




Cyclists do not force motorists to do any such thing, if a motorist moves out "far too close" to imcomming traffic that's the choice and fault of the motorist alone. No road users -- including cyclists -- can blame others for their wrong doings.



It is illegal to cycle on footpaths.



One of the pillars of our road traffic laws is that all road uses have the right to use the road.



Bull****. Footpaths are for people walking, cyclists belong on cycle paths or on roads.

Only yesterday i cycled from bakers corner in deansgrange to supervalue killiney, one of the most dangerous narrow roads you will see in dublin, especially the part closest to the garda station.
No one was on the path so i cycled on the path so as to give car drivers all the room they need. I dont care if thats breaking the law, it was the safest thing for me to do on the bike, are you that stupid that you will follow the law blindly even in situations it puts you in danger.The main problem is not the car drivers its clueless cyclists with no cop on and a sense of road entitlement.

coolbeans

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

Only yesterday i cycled from bakers corner in deansgrange to supervalue killiney, one of the most dangerous narrow roads you will see in dublin, especially the part closest to the garda station.
No one was on the path so i cycled on the path so as to give car drivers all the room they need. I dont care if thats breaking the law, it was the safest thing for me to do on the bike, are you that stupid that you will follow the law blindly even in situations it puts you in danger.The main problem is not the car drivers its clueless cyclists with no cop on and a sense of road entitlement.

Ah will you pull the other one! If you have to cycle on the footpath there I'd suggest that you are not a very competent cyclist. I've cycled that spot many times as I lived up the road and had no problems. Cycling is not dangerous despite your greatest efforts to portray it as so; however now that I think of it if you consider every driver to be as road ignorant as yourself (evidence being your previous post) I can see where you are coming from.
And yes, I have a massive sense of road entitlement because I AM ENTITLED TO BE ON THE ROAD, I know, I know, I'm a bit funny, a bit radical that way. You can call me Maverick.

Lumen

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

Only yesterday i cycled from bakers corner in deansgrange to supervalue killiney, one of the most dangerous narrow roads you will see in dublin, especially the part closest to the garda station.
No one was on the path so i cycled on the path so as to give car drivers all the room they need. I dont care if thats breaking the law, it was the safest thing for me to do on the bike, are you that stupid that you will follow the law blindly even in situations it puts you in danger.The main problem is not the car drivers its clueless cyclists with no cop on and a sense of road entitlement.

If you learned to ride your bike properly you wouldn't need to use the footpath.

Calling people stupid for using the road is, er, ironic.

coolbeans

q

CramCycle

Magic Beans wrote: »

This is exactly the point I'm making. Arguing about legal entitlements when your only concern should be staying alive.

I'm not arguing about it, it's a fact that I am allowed to be there. My chances of staying alive should not be reduced because people do not like my road position or how I behave so long as these things ae in line with common sense and the law. What would you have me do on my bike that I do not already do that would increase my chances of staying alive?

Staying alive is one of my issues, I accomplish this through observation and correcting my position/speed/style etc. to deal with this.

I have never seen a car behave differently when a lorry is around unless there is something to worry about. I observe other cyclists as much as I do cars/buses/lorries (the only collision I have had in recent memory was when a cyclist pulled in on me before he fully overtook). Everyone on the road has the ability to kill you or someone else regardless of vechicle size so I treat everyone as potential threats but I use reasonable risk to determine what to do and I manage to do it without breaking the law oddly enough.

Dermot Illogical

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

No one was on the path so i cycled on the path so as to give car drivers all the room they need. I dont care if thats breaking the law, it was the safest thing for me to do on the bike, are you that stupid that you will follow the law blindly even in situations it puts you in danger.The main problem is not the car drivers its clueless cyclists with no cop on and a sense of road entitlement.

A sense of road entitlement? Brilliant coming from someone whose own sense of entitlement allows them take over pedestrian space. The law, and common sense, dictate that you must cycle on the road. Not that you're entitled, but you must. Your own actions are incredibly stupid, yet you think others are clueless? It will only take something appearing out of a driveway to enlighten you.
Why not just learn to cycle properly and worry a bit less about giving car drivers "all the room they need"?

coolbeans

coolbeans wrote: »

Ah will you pull the other one! If you have to cycle on the footpath there I'd suggest that you are not a very competent cyclist. I've cycled that spot many times as I lived up the road and had no problems. Cycling is not dangerous despite your greatest efforts to portray it as so; however now that I think of it if you consider every driver to be as road ignorant as yourself (evidence being your previous post) I can see where you are coming from.
And yes, I have a massive sense of road entitlement because I AM ENTITLED TO BE ON THE ROAD, I know, I know, I'm a bit funny, a bit radical that way. You can call me Maverick.

I have spent half my life doing downhill and road racing, I assure you I am an extremely good cyclist.

I agree I could have easily cycled on the road, I could have even taken up the whole lane as others on here have suggested but I realise that would be stupid and ignorant of me.
Why would i hold up cars and maybe put myself in a dangerous position when I can just hop up the path if there is no people on it and cycle along it until any traffic ease off.

I will agree there are ignorant drivers and cyclists around but you don't need a licence to cycle a bike and imo you see alot more dangerous behaviour from general cyclists than car users.

Lumen wrote: »

If you learned to ride your bike properly you wouldn't need to use the footpath.

Calling people stupid for using the road is, er, ironic.

I would be pretty confident I can handle a bike alot more assuredly than you, downhill esp tends to give you a good sense of control.

monument

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I have spent half my life doing downhill and road racing, I assure you I am an extremely good cyclist.

Road racing and going downhill have little to do with urban cycling.

Because you cycle on the footpath you are not an extremely good cyclist --You are a very poor, ill-mannered, non-respectful, selfish and unlawful cyclist.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I agree I could have easily cycled on the road, I could have even taken up the whole lane as others on here have suggested but I realise that would be stupid and ignorant of me.

Cycling on the footpath is one of the most stupid and ignorant things a cyclist can do.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

Why would i hold up cars and maybe put myself in a dangerous position when I can just hop up the path if there is no people on it and cycle along it until any traffic ease off.

Because cycling on the footpath is dangerous, ill-mannered, and illegal.

If you think you're putting your self in more danger by cycling on the road you need to get cycling training. You also need to stop doing silly and dangerous things like cycling close to the kerb.

If you feel the need to use the footpath please get off your bike and stop being so selfish. Cycling on the footpath puts yourself and others in danger.

And no, I'm not buying the nonsense argument about "empty footpaths" -- you're not allowed on the footpath at anytime.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I will agree there are ignorant drivers and cyclists around but you don't need a licence to cycle a bike and imo you see alot more dangerous behaviour from general cyclists than car users.

If you needed a licence the first thing they would tell you is you can't cycle on the footpath.

As somebody who has no respect for other road uses' space (ie the footpath) it's more than ironic that you're making generalisation about cyclists. You really need a mirror -- by your own admission of cycling on footpaths, you're the one who is ignorant and who acts dangerously.

AK-Photography wrote: »

First of all the answers in your poll are absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!

Read the thread. The poll is a bit of messing. Please relax.

AK-Photography wrote: »

If nothing more I would think that due to the higher risk factor of cycling a bike on a busy road, cyclist should take even more care to cycle safe and signal when appropriate, and obey the lights.

Using your logic: Motorists should take more care than anybody else due to their ability to easily and quickly kill each other, their passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.

tomasrojo

Kenny Steep Advisor, I don't think your skills acquired during competitive cycling are all that relevant. Commuting by bike requires only a modest amount of speed, coordination and "sense of control". Common sense, lane position and being able to read traffic are more important.

I've never cycled the road you mention, so I can't comment on whether it's as dangerous as you say. On the other hand, I can't recall any occasions in the last decade or two when I felt I had to use the footpath rather than the road.

-Chris-

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've never cycled the road you mention, so I can't comment on whether it's as dangerous as you say. On the other hand, I can't recall any occasions in the last decade or two when I felt I had to use the footpath rather than the road.

This is it here:
Linky

It's a narrow-ish road, but nothing crazy.

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I would be pretty confident I can handle a bike alot more assuredly than you

I love it when people say things like this. It always goes well...

seamus

Kenny Steep Advisor, pull the other one.

You're trying to tell us that a downhll MTBer and road racer is content to pootle along a narrow path at 15km/h to get where they're going?

I call shenanigans on multiple parts of your story tbh. You couldn't possibly be someone with road racing experience and yet be afraid to cycle down a slightly narrow road. That road is not narrow. This road is narrow

Chips Lovell

+1. I don't believe you.

CramCycle

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I would be pretty confident I can handle a bike alot more assuredly than you, downhill esp tends to give you a good sense of control.

Oh, it's on, SAFETY RACE, observers on the path every 10 metres for the stretch of road previously mentioned, -1 for every idiotic or illegal thing done, person who stays at 0 wins.

seamus wrote: »

slightly narrow road. That road is not narrow. This road is narrow

Unfortunately competent cyclists are not safe on that road as there is no footpad to jump up on as soon as they feel uncomfortable :pac::pac::pac:

coolbeans

I think it's pretty clear that Goose is talking ****e.

Lumen

coolbeans wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that Goose is talking ****e.

Well I think he's dreamy.

Holyboy

Well I used to cycle the road goose is talking about when I lived out that way and never felt the need to use the footpath,i never felt in mortal danger any time either! Ive only been knocked off my bike once,it was my own fault and I was TEN,my poor little emmelle cub got crushed as did my heart:)

doozerie

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

I agree I could have easily cycled on the road, I could have even taken up the whole lane as others on here have suggested but I realise that would be stupid and ignorant of me.

Indeed, I always get off the bike and stand on the pavement whenever a car comes up behind me that I fear might be delayed by even a second by my unforgivable presence on the road. In the car I do likewise, driving onto the pavement immediately if I spot a larger vehicle behind me - people sometimes stare at me and make a fuss, out of stupidity and ignorance no doubt.

In fact, when walking on the pavement I always step aside too when I spot a larger person walking behind me. Sure I'm only overflowing with common sense and basic good manners.

jaqian

Kenny Steep Advisor wrote: »

No one was on the path so i cycled on the path so as to give car drivers all the room they need. I dont care if thats breaking the law, it was the safest thing for me to do on the bike, are you that stupid that you will follow the law blindly even in situations it puts you in danger.

You're putting pedestrians at risk and letting cars get away with intimidating cyclists. ALL cyclists should be on the road, its only by drivers becoming used to us that they will be educated. You are pandering to their bad behaviour.

The main problem is not the car drivers its clueless cyclists with no cop on and a sense of road by entitlement.

What a stupid statement to make, of course we are entitled to use the road.

smeedyova

I lived in a German city for several years where cyclists always have priority over cars. One-way bicycle paths on each side of EVERY road, bicycle traffic lights, etc. Perfect. Nobody would dare to park on a bicycle path (not possible in most cases because bike paths are totally separate from the roads). Anyway, if somebody in Germany did dare to park on a bicycle path they would be heckled to within an inch of their life by cyclists. Now I don't understand why cyclists in Dublin put up with drivers parking on the so-called bike paths here. Walking along the Rathmines road the other day I saw that that the bike path each side was used as a car park and cyclists just went around them. Why put up with this??? I told one driver to move his car and he just laughed at me...Crazy. I won't cycle here. It's nuts that cyclists are expected to share a strip of the road with taxis and buses...

jaqian

@smeedyova that sounds like bicycle heaven. The problem here is that at certain times some of the bicycle lanes ARE parking spaces and most of the lanes ARE to be shared with cars because the lanes are so narrow.

Rob

CramCycle

smeedyova wrote: »

Why put up with this???

Because its easy done and hardly a massive inconvenience possibly?!?

Handy tip if you have problems with having to get out of the bike lane: Personally, I indicate and observe the surrounding traffic which seems to solve alot of problems.

smeedyova

Cramcycle: you're obviously not used to proper bicycle paths if you think it's okay, safe and acceptable for cyclists to weave in and out of traffic like that. A cyclist in Germany would be stopped by the police for cycling near traffic because it's so dangerous and here we're expected to! The situation here will never become safe or pleasant if people allow car drivers to park in the cycle path, which are very dangerous anyway...The problem here is that so few people have experience of how it should be so they think that a half foot wide strip of red beside a bus is acceptable.

Here is an image of a typical bike path there, note that it is totally separated from traffic by the kerb:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whetzky/3927543904/

seamus

smeedyova wrote: »

Here is an image of a typical bike path there, note that it is totally separated from traffic by the kerb:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whetzky/3927543904/

Yes, but how is it separated from the pedestrians?

You have to give it to motorists - they tend to travel in straight lines and watch what they're doing. Can't say the same for peds.

Anyway, if somebody in Germany did dare to park on a bicycle path they would be heckled to within an inch of their life by cyclists. Now I don't understand why cyclists in Dublin put up with drivers parking on the so-called bike paths here.

Because there's no point in heckling an empty car
99% of the parked vehicles I pass in cycle lanes are empty. What am I supposed to do? Stop and wait for him to come out? Ring traffic services and hang around for an hour while they come?

There's also the issue that many cycles lanes - such as part of Rathmines - have a dotted line, which makes it legal for cars to park in them. Yeah. So it's kind of hard to take cycle lanes seriously when nobody else does. Not even the people who design them.

blorg

@smeedyova- it is a different system and culture in Germany. You should get used to the culture in Ireland if you want to cycle there safely. A cyclist clearly signalling their intention to overtake and checking behind them to see that the course is clear is not "weave[ing] in and out of traffic" as you put it. It is called overtaking, like any other vehicle.

I have cycled across Germany (and Austria) and to be honest the cycle paths píssed me off no end; they are difficult to cycle on at speed because of substantial slow cyclist and pedestrian congestion with inadaquate space for overtaking and I much prefer to cycle on the road, where there is always room to overtake. You will find most cyclists in Ireland (and the UK) prefer it this way. I'd say about 50% of roadies out training in Germany seemed to agree also, and used the road over the path.

Although German paths are far superior to Irish ones they still suffer, as do almost all paths, from the problem of cyclists having to yield to traffic frequently at intersections. I don't like to stop for every minor road and was nearly creamed by a van coming out of a minor road on one occasion somewhere along the Danube. Wikipedia cites increased bike-car collisions from using paths vs the road in many countries, including Germany, although it doesn't give a figure. It quotes a four-fold increase in collisions for Denmark which I imagine is similar.

I have no problem with quality cycle paths as long as they are not compulsory. Then cyclists not in any hurry can pootle along them stopping at every junction, while those who actually want to get somewhere at a reasonable speed can use the road.

EDIT: This graphic illustrates the problem with segregated facilities and junctions (from here)



EDIT2: Found this from the Baden-Württemburg section of the German Cycling Federation proposing that future cycle paths be of the non-segregated type, on streets, to avoid the junction problem and keep cyclists in motorists' field of view.

tomasrojo

Didn't a German cyclist win a lengthy legal battle to make a lot of cycle lanes non-compulsory? A lot of them don't meet national standards, but still get signposted in such a way that makes them compulsory. Something like that anyway. I wish I had a link.

EDIT:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6411/Federal-Court-backs-cyclistss-rights-in-Germany.aspx

galwaycyclist

blorg wrote: »

Although German paths are far superior to Irish ones they still suffer, as do almost all paths, from the problem of cyclists having to yield to traffic frequently at intersections. I don't like to stop for every minor road and was nearly creamed by a van coming out of a minor road on one occasion somewhere along the Danube. Wikipedia cites increased bike-car collisions from using paths vs the road in many countries, including Germany, although it doesn't give a figure. It quotes a four-fold increase in collisions for Denmark which I imagine is similar.

From memory the Germans have found that cyclists who use cycle paths are twice as likely to be in a collision with turning lorries. Two German cities that are noted for their cycle path systems are Munster and Freiburg. (Both cities also have impressive cycling levels.) However, according to our colleagues in the German equivalent of Cyclist.ie - the ADFC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Fahrrad Club), both these cities have highest cycling accident rates in their respective German Lander or Regions. This does not make sense as cycling risk should go down as more people cycle - the safety in numbers effect. As I understand it, the finger of suspicion points at the (roadside) cycle paths.

smeedyova

Cycled in Germany for many many years without any problems. Never once came across anybody other than bicycle couriers who complained about the slow speed. Also, cycling on roads is, in most places, illegal. If you think that Irish cycle paths are adequate then fine, but you clearly don't know anything about Germany if you think that there are anything more than cycling minor issues. I usually cycled 7km one way to from home to work. I had to stop at two junctions each with bicycle traffic lights, at no point was I ever even close to traffic, people cycle one-way so there is no danger of colliding, pedestrians stick to their path and cyclists to theirs. The only person I know who ever had an accident was cycling on the tram tracks instead of the provided bicycle path. Please stick to what you know.

CramCycle

smeedyova wrote: »

Cramcycle: you're obviously not used to proper bicycle paths if you think it's okay, safe and acceptable for cyclists to weave in and out of traffic like that. A cyclist in Germany would be stopped by the police for cycling near traffic because it's so dangerous and here we're expected to! The situation here will never become safe or pleasant if people allow car drivers to park in the cycle path, which are very dangerous anyway...The problem here is that so few people have experience of how it should be so they think that a half foot wide strip of red beside a bus is acceptable.

Here is an image of a typical bike path there, note that it is totally separated from traffic by the kerb:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whetzky/3927543904/

I spent awhile in Berlin and it's not really feasible to compare the two systems. I personally didn't like the bike paths as in some parts of the city you were stopping every couple of metres and there were a few reported deaths were cyclists had lost the will to observe (my opinion from the news stories, although the news blamed them for being fixed gear bikes) and ploughed into pedestrians.

My point is that the system in Ireland with all it's flaws can often be overcome with common sense. I did not say to weave in and out of traffic. I suggested you indicate and merge with the lane of traffic beside you, the same as any other vehicle would have to do when they come across an obstruction.

Also I don't think the bicycle lanes in Ireland are acceptable either but that is more from my viewpoint that bicycle lanes are unnecessary in almost every situation (there are a few situations where contra flow lanes would make sense but that's another issue).

Also on point of the thread, cyclists aren't the number one enemy, a minority of tools in/on/without various vehicles with a lack of common sense and decency are the enemy.