In defence of cyclists

GaryIrv93

SleepDoc wrote: »

Take a deep breath and overtake when safe to do so.

Do you climb over old people walking more slowly than you on a crowded street?

(I don't drive) Even sitting in the passenger seat it can be annoying if you get stuck behind a cyclist for long. Sometimes you might never get a safe opportunity to overtake such as during rush hour. Not that you usually have to overtake, unless you're in that much of a hurry, but nobody likes waiting in fairness. No, I don't climb over slow elderly people on footpaths, as you are a lot more agile walking than driving / cycling, meaning you very easily go around people, even in crowded places. You also have more space on paths to pretty much do what you want, which is not the case with roads.

SleepDoc

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

(I don't drive) Even sitting in the passenger seat it can be annoying if you get stuck behind a cyclist for long. Sometimes you might never get a safe opportunity to overtake such as during rush hour. Not that you usually have to overtake, unless you're in that much of a hurry, but nobody likes waiting in fairness. No, I don't climb over slow elderly people on footpaths, as you are a lot more agile walking than driving / cycling, meaning you very easily go around people, even in crowded places. You also have more space on paths to pretty much do what you want, which is not the case with roads.

During rush hour in Dublin a car is more likely to be delaying a cyclist.

GaryIrv93

SleepDoc wrote: »

During rush hour in Dublin a car is more likely to be delaying a cyclist.

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes. Cars have to stay and wait. Using a bike tends to be slower, but huge amounts of time can be saved if you can still weave in and out of heavy traffic, and I'd assume there's usually enough space to do that.

hatrickpatrick

A solution to this problem would be for bikes to have registration numbers. That way if a cyclist breaks the lights at a pedestrian crossing, the Gardai can follow up on it even if they can't catch them at the time.
Would cyclists object to this, I wonder? The number of them who seem to think that red lights are just "guidelines" is astonishing.

As I said before in this thread, I have to watch my back every single day at the Dame Street / George's Street junction. A green man means absolutely nothing when there are cyclists on the loose...

SleepDoc

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes. Cars have to stay and wait. Using a bike tends to be slower, but huge amounts of time can be saved if you can still weave in and out of heavy traffic, and I'd assume there's usually enough space to do that.

Because the average speed of a car in rush hour traffic in Dublin city centre is less than that of a bicycle.

SleepDoc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A solution to this problem would be for bikes to have registration numbers. That way if a cyclist breaks the lights at a pedestrian crossing, the Gardai can follow up on it even if they can't catch them at the time.
Would cyclists object to this, I wonder? The number of them who seem to think that red lights are just "guidelines" is astonishing.

As I said before in this thread, I have to watch my back every single day at the Dame Street / George's Street junction. A green man means absolutely nothing when there are cyclists on the loose...

Just like the Gardai follow up on the incredibly high number of motorists who break the speed limit, barrell through traffic lights on amber and use their mobile phone while driving.

seamus

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes.

Because it's not always appropriate to hop off the bike and push it down the path.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A solution to this problem would be for bikes to have registration numbers. That way if a cyclist breaks the lights at a pedestrian crossing, the Gardai can follow up on it even if they can't catch them at the time.

And if the Gardai aren't policing the laws on red lights, what makes you think that they'll bother with laws on reg plates for bikes? Who do you think is most likely to put a reg plate on their bike - the guy who stops at red lights or the guy who doesn't?

Chips Lovell

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes. Cars have to stay and wait. Using a bike tends to be slower, but huge amounts of time can be saved if you can still weave in and out of heavy traffic, and I'd assume there's usually enough space to do that.

If you're arguing that there aren't any circumstances in which a cyclist can be held up by a motorist, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only a small fraction of roads would have off-road cycle paths next to them, many of which are unfit for purpose, by the government's own admission. The alternatives then are cycling on the footpath, which is illegal, or weaving through traffic, which is dangerous.

The point is that cyclists can be held up by motorists and visa versa.

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A solution to this problem would be for bikes to have registration numbers. That way if a cyclist breaks the lights at a pedestrian crossing, the Gardai can follow up on it even if they can't catch them at the time.
Would cyclists object to this, I wonder? The number of them who seem to think that red lights are just "guidelines" is astonishing.

It wouldn't bother me, but I think it addresses the wrong problem. I've yet to hear of the Gardai failing to stop a cyclist when they want to. The issue is more that they aren't actively policing red light jumping rather than failing to catch the offenders. They have improved on this but as you know from walking around Dublin enough hasn't been done yet to encourage a change of mindset.

Augmerson

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Why's that? Cyclists if they're getting delayed can always use the less crowded footpath next to them which often also have the red spaces for bikes. Cars have to stay and wait. Using a bike tends to be slower, but huge amounts of time can be saved if you can still weave in and out of heavy traffic, and I'd assume there's usually enough space to do that.

Bikes aren't supposed to use the footpath though?

SunnyDub1

Was just about to start a thread on this before I came upon this ... had a quick glance through some of the posts but taught I should give my say!!

As a frequent driver in and out of the city (Dublin) each morning and evening in rush hour, I am safe to say that a law should be brought it against cyclists - they need to learn how to cycle their bike and most importantly learn the rules of the road .... Bloody sick of them.

It sickens me the fact that as a diver we have to get lessons to learn how to drive, learn the rules of the roads, do a test before we can even use the roads.
A cyclist puts on a hat and suddenly owns the road not having the slightest clue on - how to stop at a red light, given signal, which lanes to use, or any knowledge of the rules of the road.

have witnessed so many times a cyclist putting themselves and a driver at danger, from cutting in and out of lanes, appearing in front of a car just before a turn, not been able to decide what lane to use so they will just wiggle around on the bike on a busy road until they decide causing obstruction to everyone around them.
There is cycle lane for a reason - use it and stay in it
if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

Anyone using the main busy city center roads will have witnessed along with myself cyclist frequently breaking red lights, swinging in and out of lanes, swinging in front and behind cars, over taken other cyclists, given no signal, practically cycling over predestines when crossing the road.

A driver wouldn't get away with any of these so why should a cyclist ?

Pisses me right off that there is numerous amount of laws enforced against drivers but no law what so ever against cyclists. IMO they are just as much as a danger to the road as drunk drivers...

RANT OVER

ThisRegard

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

It sickens me the fact that as a diver we have to get lessons to learn how to drive, learn the rules of the roads, do a test before we can even use the roads.
A cyclist puts on a hat and suddenly owns the road not having the slightest clue on - how to stop at a red light, given signal, which lanes to use, or any knowledge of the rules of the road.

I'm a driver, 3 cars at home, passed my test first time around over 10 years, no accidents or points. But I am also a cyclist, 2 bikes at home. They're not mutually exclusive you know.

How's that for a mind fuck for you.

SleepDoc

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Was just about to start a thread on this before I came upon this ... had a quick glance through some of the posts but taught I should give my say!!

As a frequent driver in and out of the city (Dublin) each morning and evening in rush hour, I am safe to say that a law should be brought it against cyclists - they need to learn how to cycle their bike and most importantly learn the rules of the road .... Bloody sick of them.

It sickens me the fact that as a diver we have to get lessons to learn how to drive, learn the rules of the roads, do a test before we can even use the roads.
A cyclist puts on a hat and suddenly owns the road not having the slightest clue on - how to stop at a red light, given signal, which lanes to use, or any knowledge of the rules of the road.

have witnessed so many times a cyclist putting themselves and a driver at danger, from cutting in and out of lanes, appearing in front of a car just before a turn, not been able to decide what lane to use so they will just wiggle around on the bike on a busy road until they decide causing obstruction to everyone around them.
There is cycle lane for a reason - use it and stay in it
if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

Anyone using the main busy city center roads will have witnessed along with myself cyclist frequently breaking red lights, swinging in and out of lanes, swinging in front and behind cars, over taken other cyclists, given no signal, practically cycling over predestines when crossing the road.

A driver wouldn't get away with any of these so why should a cyclist ?

Pisses me right off that there is numerous amount of laws enforced against drivers but no law what so ever against cyclists. IMO they are just as much as a danger to the road as drunk drivers...

RANT OVER

LOL.

All of it.

seamus

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

It sickens me the fact that as a diver we have to get lessons to learn how to drive, learn the rules of the roads, do a test before we can even use the roads.

You might want to ask for your money back for those lessons, because going by your post you clearly don't understand the rules of the road properly yourself.

A straw poll on the cycling forum found that 80% of those have a licence, a car and drive on a regular basis.

The people who rant on about cyclists on the roads are the very ones who would be the first to break lights, cycle on paths, etc, if you put them on a bike tomorrow.

SunnyDub1

seamus wrote: »

A straw poll on the cycling forum found that 80% of those have a licence, a car and drive on a regular basis.

oh so everyone on that poll is everyone that does be on the roads today.. pfft :rolleyes:


Id say out of about (just for example) 500 cyclists using the roads each morning, about 100 (if even) of them probably use that forum, not every cyclist is Dublin is on the forum taken a poll hahah

nomdeboardie

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

... if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there. ...

:pac::pac::pac:
(This made my day - sad, but true)

Chips Lovell

While I'd agree with many of his points, there's a delicious irony in someone who complains about people not knowing the rules of the road and in the same breath demonstrates his own ignorance of them.

tiny_penguin

seamus wrote: »

You might want to ask for your money back for those lessons, because going by your post you clearly don't understand the rules of the road properly yourself.

A straw poll on the cycling forum found that 80% of those have a licence, a car and drive on a regular basis.

The people who rant on about cyclists on the roads are the very ones who would be the first to break lights, cycle on paths, etc, if you put them on a bike tomorrow.

I'm a driver but have driven on the roads in the past a lot. And while I do agree with the basic premise that there are bad drivers and bad cyclists and you only really notice the bad ones so complain about them - I do not think that holding a drivers licence does not make you qualified to cycle on the roads. I think to be able to cycle on the roads cyclist should complete some sort of cycle training course. While they aren't as deadly as a car - you can still injure yourself, other cyclist, pedestrians and cause car crashes down to unsafe cycling on the road. Being able to drive may make you more aware of the perspective of a driver while cycling (and vice versa) but there are still things that could be of huge value learned from taking a course like this.

In my primary school it was compulsory in 6th class that all student completed a course like this - and while I do not think completing this so many years ago makes me more qualified to cycle on the roads, but at the time it did teach me a huge amount about road safety and the rules of the road which I may not have learned for years.

This will probably never happen - and I concede that a huge number of cyclists make it their business to learn this off their own back - but I think it should be made compulsory.

CramCycle

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I do think that holding a drivers licence does not make you qualified to cycle on the roads.

I'd disagree on the basis that judging by the standards of driving in this country, holding a drivers license clearly does not help with the a typical drivers ability to drive in a safe and competent manner.

Personally I am no better for having past my test (first time, no marks), the only thing that has improved my driving is experience. I treat all drivers like they have little or less experience than me (wether its true or not) this way I have time and space to react in most situations.

The truth of the matter is, the problem is with the people, we are a nation of "it's everyone elses fault" not a nation of "oh sh*t, I made a mistake, I will learn from that".

tiny_penguin

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd disagree on the basis that judging by the standards of driving in this country, holding a drivers license clearly does not help with the a typical drivers ability to drive in a safe and competent manner.

Personally I am no better for having past my test (first time, no marks), the only thing that has improved my driving is experience. I treat all drivers like they have little or less experience than me (wether its true or not) this way I have time and space to react in most situations.

The truth of the matter is, the problem is with the people, we are a nation of "it's everyone elses fault" not a nation of "oh sh*t, I made a mistake, I will learn from that".

Sorry that was meant to say 'I do NOT think' will edit now.

hollypink

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

As a frequent driver in and out of the city (Dublin) each morning and evening in rush hour, I am safe to say that a law should be brought it against cyclists - they need to learn how to cycle their bike and most importantly learn the rules of the road .... Bloody sick of them.

I'd quite like if all motorists learned the rules of the road first - a car does a lot more damage than a bicycle (and I say that as a motorist!).

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

What??? Where do you think they should cycle in that case

paddyandy

I saw 5 young fellahs racing down a busy Grafton Street and nobody stops them .What do we really care about ?????

ghostchant

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

Enlighten me, what's the reason?

facemelter

Bambi wrote: »

In the space of ten minutes today I counted three ignorant twats on bikes using a busy (and wet) footpath right in the city centre as their own private road.

Amount of cars spotted driving on footpath this week? Zero. Cyclists deffo have the highest ration of c**ts out there

how many bike do you see with massive spoilers and lights in the wheel arches ? how many bikes knock people over ? how many bikes get tickets ? I dont know either but far less than cars :rolleyes:

SunnyDub1

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

What??? Where do you think they should cycle in that case

A road where there is a cycle lane

facemelter

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

There is cycle lane for a reason - use it and stay in it
if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

So are you saying that a cyclist can only cycle on a road that has a cycle lane ? That makes no sense at all. That would mean that I could cycle on the N11 but not in the estates between the N11 and my house ?
good call :pac:

SunnyDub1

facemelter wrote: »

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

There is cycle lane for a reason - use it and stay in it
if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

So are you saying that a cyclist can only cycle on a road that has a cycle lane ? That makes no sense at all. That would mean that I could cycle on the N11 but not in the estates between the N11 and my house ?
good call :pac:

Nope , if you read my post correctly im talking about city centre roads - no mention of estate roads !

Tonyandthewhale

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

facemelter wrote: »

Nope , if you read my post correctly im talking about city centre roads - no mention of estate roads !

But the cycle-lanes, even in the city centre don't join up into a comprehensive network. Even on the same street they often start and stop or they'll be partly on road (legal) and partly off-road (whcih more often than not means incorrect sign-posts and designation, iffy whether or not they're legal, definitely dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians). How do you expect anyone to get anywhere on a bike in that case? You're just being ridiculous.

Dyr

facemelter wrote: »

how many bike do you see with massive spoilers and lights in the wheel arches ? how many bikes knock people over ? how many bikes get tickets ? I dont know either but far less than cars :rolleyes:

How many cyclists do you see sailing up footpaths? Lots, like the massive c**ts that they are

Knasher

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

learn the rules of the road ....

There is cycle lane for a reason - use it and stay in it
if there is no cycle lane then don't use the god dam road, theres a reason why there is no cycle lane there.

The rules of the road say that cyclists can use the road when there isn't a cycle lane. I learned this when I was studying for my driving license.

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Anyone using the main busy city center roads will have witnessed along with myself cyclist frequently breaking red lights, swinging in and out of lanes, swinging in front and behind cars, over taken other cyclists, given no signal, practically cycling over predestines when crossing the road.

A driver wouldn't get away with any of these so why should a cyclist ?

Aye I've see cyclists breaking red lights and I've seen them stopped for it. I've also seen drivers breaking red lights and getting away with it. I often see drivers who don't signal, over take other drivers (I don't know why you objected to that, but might as well say that I've seen drivers do it as well), etc. So I agree that some cyclists don't obey the rules of the road, but it is also true that some motorists don't obey them either. Seeing as you believe that is reason enough for all cyclists to be punished, I'll assume you also believe using the same reasoning, that all motorists should be punished and we should be all made to walk wherever we want to go.

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Pisses me right off that there is numerous amount of laws enforced against drivers but no law what so ever against cyclists.

That's just nonsense.

CdeC

I've always commuted by cycling and I am constantly suprised at the attitudes of Dubliners to cyclists. You get a lot of abuse, even though you are cycling where you are perfectly entitled to.
I must admit that I do break the odd red light but I always slow and check and usually go through at a very slow pace. I put it alongside a pedestrian crossing a road when there is no green man. If there's no traffic just go for it.
Cycling should be promoted in this country not hindered. It's good for the environment. It is healthy. It reduces stress. I makes the city nicer by reducing traffic.

hardCopy

I can't understand why any driver would have a problem with cyclists. Most cyclists own cars, so every cyclist you see in rush hour traffic means one less car queuing at the lights in front of you and less wear on the road. We're doing you a favour!

And to any driver who thinks that they pay for the road, Motor Tax doesn't come near covering the cost of providing roads, so all cyclists are paying for the road too through Income Tax and most likely through Motor Tax on their own unused car.

http://www.cartell.ie/2010/02/cartell-asks-where-does-our-motor-tax-go/

Relax and stop listening to Jeremy Clarkson.

Decuc500

facemelter wrote: »

how many bikes knock people over ? how many bikes get tickets ? I dont know either but far less than cars :rolleyes:

I've been hit by a bike while walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man (he came round a corner, I couldn't avoid him). I've also been clattered by a cyclist on a footpath. I also have to dodge cyclists on Grafton St every second day. Ok, there are idiots using every mode of transport (including pedestrians) but there's a reason why cyclists (in Dublin anyway where I'm from) have a bad reputation.

awec

Decuc500 wrote: »

I've been hit by a bike while walking across a pedestrian crossing on the green man (he came round a corner, I couldn't avoid him). I've also been clattered by a cyclist on a footpath. I also have to dodge cyclists on Grafton St every second day. Ok, there are idiots using every mode of transport (including pedestrians) but there's a reason why cyclists (in Dublin anyway where I'm from) have a bad reputation.

Grafton street?

Personally I would never cycle down Grafton street. It's hard enough to walk down it without having to weave in and out never mind being on a bike.

ghostchant

If I ever have a reason to go from one end of grafton st to the other with my bike I dismount, as it'd just be plain ignorant (not to mention stressful) to weave through everyone. Even then it's a pain trying to wheel the bike through the crowds.

Wasn't aware I was such a despised member of society until I read this thread! I wouldn't mind, only I've never run a red in my life or cycled on the path since I was a child.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A solution to this problem would be for bikes to have registration numbers. ..

Like this!

Stiffler2

Deleted User wrote: »

A damning indictment on the way licences are handed out and managed in this country.

17 years driving and still not a fcucking clue about the rules of the road.

Is it true the fine is only €450 for running over a cyclist causing death.
Or does this only kick in if you're a Guard ?

just wondering ?

Capt'n Midnight

Meauldsegosha wrote: »

I can't post a link as I'm on my phone but take a look at the RSA website they recommend helmets and hi viz jackets. If they are so useless why recommend them.

The dublinbikes website also tell users to check the RSA website.

it's to be seen to be doing something

also are the RSA or dublin bikes cyclists ?

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

Helmets should be required by law. Why do you think it's right that they are not?

I agree. Did you not see my post about requiring MOTORISTS to wear helmets. It's been show that something like 17% of head injuries / deaths in car collisions could be prevented if motorists wore crash helmets.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

Compulsion laws in other countries have reduced the number of people who cycle – and the more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes. What's more, cycling is such a healthy activity that people are far more likely to gain from it than otherwise. It's therefore important not to put anyone off.

Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.

Oh and if you have kids , make sure they do NOT wear cycling helmets when NOT on a bike. Children have been strangled when their helmets have got caught in bunk beds, playground equipment.

It's not known if the unproven benefits of children's helmets outweigh the proven risks.

GaryIrv93

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

If you're arguing that there aren't any circumstances in which a cyclist can be held up by a motorist, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. Only a small fraction of roads would have off-road cycle paths next to them, many of which are unfit for purpose, by the government's own admission. The alternatives then are cycling on the footpath, which is illegal, or weaving through traffic, which is dangerous.

The point is that cyclists can be held up by motorists and visa versa.

Fair point. Although I've been cycling for a good few years and never once had someone shout/throw abuse at me etc when cycling on footpaths, mainly I'd say because there's always enough room for both pedestrians and bikes to pass through each other without any hassle, at least in most of my area and around it. (there's also fairly few pedestrains and other cyclists) But there's also cycle paths away from the road parallel to almost every footpath to add to that room. If there's no cyclepath available, then as long as I don't inconvenience or endanger others on a footpath then I don't see the harm cycling there providing it's wide enough, I'm cycling at a safe speed, and if there's few pedestrians, because I refuse to cycle on roads. It's annoying also that when I cycle to school, there's often parents and kids who walk in 3/4/5 abreast and on to the cycle path, and therefore in my way, meaning I have to go around them and on to the muck and stones next to it which has on a few occasions punctured my tyres. It does my head in when people do that: walking on cylcepaths. That should also be illegal, if it's not already.

As said before, I never use roads while cycling, even when there's a cyclepath, mainly due to drivers often not leaving enough room, and also because I've barely avoided an accident on them multiple times. I'm talking about the cyclepaths that are off the kerbs. Once for example, cycling through tallaght, I used on of those cyclepaths, and turned a corner. When I did that, the path got narrower and narrower until it ended completely, and this was still on there road - there was no ramp that led up to the path when it ended. I was then deliberately squeezed into the kerb by some cnut in a car who almost hit me, and I could see that he had plently of room on the other side even though he was turning the corner as I was doing. :mad: So I then had to get off the bike, and lift it onto the footpath. Illegal to cycle there maybe, but that road was too dangerous to cycle on.

hardCopy

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Fair point. Although I've been cycling for a good few years and never once had someone shout/throw abuse at me etc when cycling on footpaths, mainly I'd say because there's always enough room for both pedestrians and bikes to pass through each other without any hassle, at least in most of my area and around it. (there's also fairly few pedestrains and other cyclists) But there's also cycle paths away from the road parallel to almost every footpath to add to that room. As long as I don't inconvenience or endanger others on a footpath then I don't see the harm cycling there providing it's wide enough, because I refuse to cycle on roads. It's annoying also that when I cycle to school, there's usually parents and kids who walk in 3/4/5 abreast and on to the cycle path, meaning I have to go around them and on to the muck and stones next to it which has on a few occasions punctured my tyres. It does my head in when people do that: walking on cylcepaths. That should also be illegal.

As said before, I never use roads while cycling, even when there's a cyclepath, mainly due to drivers often not leaving enough room, and also because I've barely avoided an accident on them multiple times. I'm talking about the cyclepaths that are off the kerbs. Once for example, cycling through tallaght, I used on of those cyclepaths, and turned a corner. When i did that, the path got narrower and narrower until it ended completely, and this was still on there road - there was no ramp that led up to the path when it ended. I was then deliberately squeezed into the kerb by some cnut in a car who almost hit me, and I could see that he had plently of room on the other side even though he was turning the corner as I was doing. :mad: So I then had to get off the bike, and lift it onto the footpath. Illegal to cycle there maybe, but that road was too dangerous to cycle on.

I really can't see why you'd need to cycle on the path, if you feel you're being squashed then you're probably too close to the kerb, move out a couple of feet, that way at least if someone does come too close you have room to move in.

Darkglasses

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Fair point. Although I've been cycling for a good few years and never once had someone shout/throw abuse at me etc when cycling on footpaths, mainly I'd say because there's always enough room for both pedestrians and bikes to pass through each other without any hassle, at least in most of my area and around it. (there's also fairly few pedestrains and other cyclists) But there's also cycle paths away from the road parallel to almost every footpath to add to that room. If there's no cyclepath available, then as long as I don't inconvenience or endanger others on a footpath then I don't see the harm cycling there providing it's wide enough, I'm cycling at a safe speed, and if there's few pedestrians, because I refuse to cycle on roads. It's annoying also that when I cycle to school, there's often parents and kids who walk in 3/4/5 abreast and on to the cycle path, and therefore in my way, meaning I have to go around them and on to the muck and stones next to it which has on a few occasions punctured my tyres. It does my head in when people do that: walking on cylcepaths. That should also be illegal, if it's not already.

As said before, I never use roads while cycling, even when there's a cyclepath, mainly due to drivers often not leaving enough room, and also because I've barely avoided an accident on them multiple times. I'm talking about the cyclepaths that are off the kerbs. Once for example, cycling through tallaght, I used on of those cyclepaths, and turned a corner. When I did that, the path got narrower and narrower until it ended completely, and this was still on there road - there was no ramp that led up to the path when it ended. I was then deliberately squeezed into the kerb by some cnut in a car who almost hit me, and I could see that he had plently of room on the other side even though he was turning the corner as I was doing. :mad: So I then had to get off the bike, and lift it onto the footpath. Illegal to cycle there maybe, but that road was too dangerous to cycle on.

As a cyclist I'm begging you, stop cycling on the footpath, you're giving us all a bad name. It is not safe to cycle on them, it is not legal and it isn't considerate. Improve your cycle-craft, road position, etc. and cycling on the road is about as safe as you can be. There's plenty of Youtube videos from people like Cyclegaz and Cyclingmikey if you want a P.O.V. of how to cycle really well.

GaryIrv93

hardCopy wrote: »

I really can't see why you'd need to cycle on the path, if you feel you're being squashed then you're probably too close to the kerb, move out a couple of feet, that way at least if someone does come too close you have room to move in.

At first I was far out enough from the kerb (still inside the red path) to suit both myself and anyone else driving past. But the car I mentioned then drove into the path deliberately and therefore I was forced to squeeze in to avoid getting hit - the path was getting narrower and narrower. The driver was squeezing me in even before turning the corner, which was where the cyclepah ended. Here I'll try and link it: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.285793,-6.36577&spn=0.000681,0.001746&z=20&vpsrc=6 Now do you see the corner on the right? There's a cyclepath just behind it, which as you can see get's very narrow and then ends. Before it ended I was already being pushed in by the motorist. I couldn't see the end of it until I was only a few meters away from it - I assumed that it continued on around the corner. If I'd known it was there, then I wouldn't have used it in the first place.

hardCopy

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

At first I was far out enough from the kerb (still inside the red path) to suit both myself and anyone else driving past. But the car I mentioned then drove into the path deliberately and therefore I was forced to squeeze in to avoid getting hit - the path was getting narrower and narrower. The driver was squeezing me in even before turning the corner, which was where the cyclepah ended. Here I'll try and link it: http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.285793,-6.36577&spn=0.000681,0.001746&z=20&vpsrc=6 Now do you see the corner on the right? There's a cyclepath just behind it, which as you can see get's very narrow and then ends. Before it ended I was already being pushed in by the motorist. I couldn't see the end of it until I was only a few meters away from it - I assumed that it continued on around the corner. If I'd known it was there, then I wouldn't have used it in the first place.

It's an awful design, the stretch of road leading up to it is narrower than a car and the fork further back has left turning cars swapping lanes with bikes going straight.

But I'd still see it as a reason to use the road rather than the path. Apart from the danger of the path, it'd just be so slow dodging buggies and dogs and people.

My experience of cycling on the road is that even though some drivers can be ignorant and cut you up they won't be brazen enough to drive straight through you from behind, if you take the lane they'll have to change lanes to overtake safely.

GaryIrv93

Darkglasses wrote: »

As a cyclist I'm begging you, stop cycling on the footpath, you're giving us all a bad name. It is not safe to cycle on them, it is not legal and it isn't considerate. Improve your cycle-craft, road position, etc. and cycling on the road is about as safe as you can be. There's plenty of Youtube videos from people like Cyclegaz and Cyclingmikey if you want a P.O.V. of how to cycle really well.

Thanks, that's very considerate of you to accuse me of giving all cyclists a bad name. From reading through the thread, cyclists on roads appear to get a worse name and reputation, and even though I've seen my fair share of both bad cyclists and bad motorists, I never generalise by saying they're all bad. Also, I rarely cycle on footpaths, and whenever I have, I've never inconvieniced anyone nor had I the slightest intention to - I do so to ensure my own safety, as I mentioned before I've had quite a few near accidents with cars on cyclepaths that are on the road. And again, I usually have a cyclepath (away from the road) that I can use safely. I don't see it inconsiderate or unsafe to cycle on a FP as long there as there's very few pedestrains, and if you cycle slowly to ensure everyone's safety, which I do. I'm getting the impression that you think I always cycle at crazy speeds, always on footpaths, crashing into people and driving them off the path etc. Please,

GaryIrv93

hardCopy wrote: »

But I'd still see it as a reason to use the road rather than the path. Apart from the danger of the path, it'd just be so slow dodging buggies and dogs and people.

I just see it much safer to use footpaths over roads. Roads are just too dangerous IMO, as near accidents have happened to me numerous times. That particular path beside the narrowing cycle lane happens to have very few pedestrians for some reason, so it's usually very safe to use. Much safer than the cycle lane I think. Thre's one of those cycle lanes near my estate - It's first on the road, and then turns the corner and ends, but conveniently enough: it has a little concrete ramp to bring you on to the path next to the road, which also happens to have both a cycle lane and a footpath, which are plentiful around my area.

N64

I live on a busy road (not mentioning which one:p) and a guard I was talking to said that he actually would be OK with a cyclist using the footpath instead of the road because its so dangerous! He would otherwise pull you over if you were cycling on a footpath anywhere else though.

Corkfeen

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

Thanks, that's very considerate of you to accuse me of giving all cyclists a bad name. From reading through the thread, cyclists on roads appear to get a worse name and reputation, and even though I've seen my fair share of both bad cyclists and bad motorists, I never generalise by saying they're all bad. Also, I rarely cycle on footpaths, and whenever I have, I've never inconvieniced anyone nor had I the slightest intention to - I do so to ensure my own safety, as I mentioned before I've had quite a few near accidents with cars on cyclepaths that are on the road. And again, I usually have a cyclepath (away from the road) that I can use safely. I don't see it inconsiderate or unsafe to cycle on a FP as long there as there's very few pedestrains, and if you cycle slowly to ensure everyone's safety, which I do. I'm getting the impression that you think I always cycle at crazy speeds, always on footpaths, crashing into people and driving them off the path etc. Please,

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths, It annoys the hell out of me whenever I see a person doing it. I cycle on roads; don't break red lights, signal when needed, don't cycle on pathways and maintain a speed in the high thirties for the most part. Cycle lanes are awful quality in this country so there's only one that I'd ever contemplate using, the rest of the time I use the road. Pathways are for pedestrians and the speed you're going isn't the issue..

hardCopy

GaryIrv93 wrote: »

I just see it much safer to use footpaths over roads. Roads are just too dangerous IMO, as near accidents have happened to me numerous times. That particular path beside the narrowing cycle lane happens to have very few pedestrians for some reason, so it's usually very safe to use. Much safer than the cycle lane I think. Thre's one of those cycle lanes near my estate - It's first on the road, and then turns the corner and ends, but conveniently enough: it has a little concrete ramp to bring you on to the path next to the road, which also happens to have both a cycle lane and a footpath, which are plentiful around my area.

It can be hard enough to avoid other peds when running on the path, I don't see how you could do so safely on a bike.

I've cycled all over the city and in bigger cities than this and haven't felt the need to use the path. The road can be intimidating at first but when you get used to it and learn to anticipate other road users it's fine.

Give it another chance before you hit a pram coming around the corner.

Corkfeen

hardCopy, I think one of the main reasons that there are people who think it's okay to cycle on roads is because of a lack of knowledge. The vast majority of people who do it, don't even know that it is against the law.

GaryIrv93

Corkfeen wrote: »

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths, It annoys the hell out of me whenever I see a person doing it. I cycle on roads; don't break red lights, signal when needed, don't cycle on pathways and maintain a speed in the high thirties for the most part. Cycle lanes are awful quality in this country so there's only one that I'd ever contemplate using, the rest of the time I use the road. Pathways are for pedestrians and the speed you're going isn't the issue..

So you're a safe cyclist, - so am I, even more so when it comes to cycling on paths. As I said earlier, I don't like using them and I take extra caution when I do. Usually though, as I also said: I nearly always have a proper cyclepath to use. The speed is part of the issue though - at high speeds you get much less time to react to something, which is why I cycle much slower on footpaths when I do cycle on one. Would it annoy you more if I cycled on the road, keeping you at a slow speed, even though legal, or would you annoy you more if you saw me cycling on a footpath for a few moments only, and out of your way, and letting you go at your desired speed, and being as safe as possible for myself and pedestrains? Being safe as you possibly can wherever you are cycling is the main thing. How much does it really matter anyway if there's few/no other peds on the footpath? It might be illegal to cycle there, but you're hardly inconvieniencing anyone if there's few to no-one else using the path,