Finian McGrath and you Speedy Gonzales's.

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

As much as I agree with the thrust of your point, and that of the rest of your letter, I'm aware of one case in Dublin where a man was knocked down by a cyclist and suffered head injuries, from which he subsequently died.

I can't recall his name (and cannot find it via Google), but I heard the tragic story told by his daughter on the radio, as she asked for the cyclist to come forward. The father was crossing a one-way street at the time, and only looked the one way, and was struck by the cyclist going the wrong way.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54328452&postcount=96
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68489098&postcount=76
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/please-excuse-me-maam-but-im-here-to-rob-the-bank-25955670.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/cracking-up-25956300.html
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fouryear-term-is-increased-to-eight-by-court-26393783.html

?

dave_o_brien

Ah, crap...

buffalo wrote: »

As much as I agree with the thrust of your point, and that of the rest of your letter, I'm aware of one case in Dublin where a man was knocked down by a cyclist and suffered head injuries, from which he subsequently died.

I can't recall his name (and cannot find it via Google), but I heard the tragic story told by his daughter on the radio, as she asked for the cyclist to come forward. The father was crossing a one-way street at the time, and only looked the one way, and was struck by the cyclist going the wrong way.

Obviously, the number of deaths caused by incidents involving motor vehicles is still much, much higher, but we should remember that breaking the rules, even on a bike, can have fatal consequences.

NS77

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Dear Finian,



Thank you for your email on cyclists. My position is:
1. I did not say "all cyclists".
2. I have witnessed accidents on footpaths with children, complaints from senior citizens and disabled, people jumping red lights etc for many years. It is dangerous.
3. Bad behaviour from cyclists as well as motorists is wrong. That's what I said.
4. If my views save one life or prevent one accident, I'm satisfied with that.
5. Mutual respect between motorists and cyclists is all I want.

Kind regards,
Finian McGrath T.D. (IND)

He issued the same reply (word-for-word) to my email. Kinda surprised by the attitude of his response really.

Macy0161

I do wonder how many of the complaints he received about cycling on the footpath, were actually from people walking/ jogging on a cycle lane. I'm not convinced cyclists on footpaths is a significant issue.

DirkVoodoo

Macy0161 wrote: »

I do wonder how many of the complaints he received about cycling on the footpath, were actually from people walking/ jogging on a cycle lane. I'm not convinced cyclists on footpaths is a significant issue.

I've only once nearly been hit by a bike on a path as I came round the corner onto Camden street. My mum, an older lady now, has nearly been hit twice in recent weeks and would genuinely be fearful about getting knocked over and injuring herself. Other than children, there is no reason for an adult to cycle on the path. If they do, either dismount or at least slow down. I see some people tearing down footpaths.

Of course, my mum isn't stupid enough to say all cyclists ride on the footpath.

rollingscone

Macy0161 wrote: »

I do wonder how many of the complaints he received about cycling on the footpath, were actually from people walking/ jogging on a cycle lane. I'm not convinced cyclists on footpaths is a significant issue.

In the city centre at least a lot of adults with no good reason to. Do cycle on the footpath.

They're a minority but highly visible for the fact that they're impeding peds.

Looking at the meat of the poorly presented (insane amounts of agglomeration) the only significantly dangerous behaviour for cyclists is crossing lanes without clearway, including jumping off kerbs to rejoin traffic/undertaking hgvs and red light jumping.

Red Light jumping is the only one of those behaviours I see a lot of in Dublin.

Finian's generalisation of anecdotal evidence is cause for concern in a wider sense. Who knows what other more sinister bandwagons such an unreflexive man might jump on.

rp

rollingscone wrote: »

In the city centre at least a lot of adults with no good reason to. Do cycle on the footpath.

They're a minority but highly visible for the fact that they're impeding peds.

No condoning it, but people I've spoken to about it are genuinely scared to ride on the road, I don't know if that is a fear born out of experience or imagination. If I rode through town in the gutter, I'd expect a few scares. Hi-viz positioning is the key to a long life cycling in Dublin.

How can this be addressed? I guess a mix of enforcement, education and training.

seamus

Actually been seeing more cycling on the footpaths in recent months, but it's basically never the "speedy gonzales"es of Finian's fiction. It's nearly always a child on his way to school, or some guy in his 20s/30s on a wrecked MTB with his knees coming up to his ears. Very rarely are they speeding along or endangering pedestrians IMO.

Though I don't understand why they do it. They can barely move faster than walking pace.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54328452&postcount=96
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68489098&postcount=76
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/please-excuse-me-maam-but-im-here-to-rob-the-bank-25955670.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/cracking-up-25956300.html
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fouryear-term-is-increased-to-eight-by-court-26393783.html

?

Thanks for those, couldn't find the story anywhere. Despite the boards defence that the bike was being pushed and didn't touch the victim, I find it odd that he'd be convicted of reckless riding and cycling on the wrong side of the road if that were the case. I might try hunt down the court records.

rollingscone

rp wrote: »

No condoning it, but people I've spoken to about it are genuinely scared to ride on the road, I don't know if that is a fear born out of experience or imagination. If I rode through town in the gutter, I'd expect a few scares. Hi-viz positioning is the key to a long life cycling in Dublin.

How can this be addressed? I guess a mix of enforcement, education and training.

Legalise clotheslining them.

seamus

buffalo wrote: »

Thanks for those, couldn't find the story anywhere. Despite the boards defence that the bike was being pushed and didn't touch the victim, I find it odd that he'd be convicted of reckless riding and cycling on the wrong side of the road if that were the case. I might try hunt down the court records.

I've heard the story more typically told as the second; that the bike didn't touch the guy, he tripped as he stepped back out of the way. I'm not sure which is the correct one. I can't seem to find any news reports about the incident, just about his life afterwards.

The cyclist could of course still be done for reckless cycling whether he hit the pedestrian or not.

Pigeon Reaper

It shows how our perception of danger and risk is skewed.

This death occurred over 11 years ago and is still discussed. Meanwhile more pedestrians have died from lightning strikes and been killed by failing debris in Dublin never mind country wide. I do not condone cycling on footpaths and whilst annoying the data available shows it is not as lethal as people perceive it.

In the same time frame a few thousand have been killed by motor vehicles nationwide. A few hundred of these within Dublin(I'm merely using Dublin as this is roughly the same geographic location as this accident and has the highest bicycle use nationally) and of these dozens are pedestrian deaths. We can prove that lower speeds can avoid these deaths and yet only a very limited area has had these implemented.

In conclusion ignorant cycling is a pain but mostly none lethal to others. It does help avoid talking about the elephant in the room though.

what_traffic

Here is what ciarancannon

TD for East Galway and Minister for State

has just tweeted on this topic:
"
Finian McGrath's views on urban cyclists are shortsighted . Cities that give priority to cyclists simply thrive. http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=378 …
"

Link is for "Groningen, the car-free city for bikes"

buffalo

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

It shows how our perception of danger and risk is skewed.

This death occurred over 11 years ago and is still discussed. Meanwhile more pedestrians have died from lightning strikes and been killed by failing debris in Dublin never mind country wide. I do not condone cycling on footpaths and whilst annoying the data available shows it is not as lethal as people perceive it.

I don't think it's "still discussed" as such, just that we should be aware of it as a potential statistic. If we're going to put forward arguments as to why cycling is awesome, as we all know it is, we should be aware of the downsides that others will point out. As such, we should possibly compare the thousands of deaths to one, rather than zero.

Captain Havoc

I agree with Seamus, anyone I've seen cycling on the path has been slow. I think if you're not confident enough to cycle on the road then you shouldn't be on a bike. I notice from Kilkenny, even the slowest of cyclists only delay you by a few seconds and as a cyclists, motorists don't try and mow you down.

monkeybutter

seamus wrote: »

And they're all speeding, smug, lycra-wearing eco warriors, clipping the wing mirrors of all the cars in their way?

That's my point. Some cyclists break red lights. Some are eco hippies. Some (like most people here) cycle more quickly than others. A few are the type to deliberately clip wing mirrors, and some cycle the wrong way down the road.

It is plain incorrect to suggest that a large number of cyclists fit into all of these categories. That's my point - many motorists have this stereotype in which all (or most) cyclists fit into all of these categories. When most cyclists in fact, don't.

In fairness to motorists about the same percentage exist of both these types of cyclist and those who hold the view that the roads are plagued with them in the first place.

No point giving out about one generalization to just create another.

Grassey

Opinion piece in the indo referencing Mcgraths comments by Heather Boyle




http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/onesided-comments-simply-gloss-over-the-faults-of-drivers-29271106.html

Iwannahurl

Indo-cartoon.jpg

rollingscone

Interesting contrast of bad behaviours by both cyclists and motorists on my way home this evening.

1. RS is stopped at Red Light, trendy guy on Single Speed who RS passed earlier passes through the light, but stops in the junction, sort of trackstanding but sort of not (I don't think it counts if you have to roll around for about five metres side to side) then before the light turns takes his chance and crosses (and is promptly overtaken again by RS).

2. Five mintues later, RS is stopped at a crossing light along the canal cycle path at Portobello Bridge. A woman in a car emerges the wrong way from the one way street in front of the old Portobello College building and proceeds to drive through the Green man (her red) at the Pedestrian crossing.

One is the subject of populist vilification, when it is primarily just wankerish, the other is flagrant disregard for the rules of the road designed to control their killing machine and stop it killing anyone.

But the really important distinction is that the first idiot with his Bono glasses will use the second miscreant's behaviour to justify his being a tool on the bike. Same thing with the manchildren riding on the footpath.

buffalo

Was reading a McGrath-inspired piece in the Sunday Times, that purported to be 'balanced', but really was anything but. One guy (Mike McKillen of Dublin Cycling Campaign) in favour, and even then he thinks breaking red lights and going the wrong way up one-way streets is okay, and calls motorists 'plonkers'. That's going to do the cycling community some favours.

A breadth of people mentioned in anti-cycling side, or maybe anti-cyclist is more precise, as many claim to think cycling is great. Some of my best friends...

But the stand-out part is Mr George Hook. We all know how aul' George is on the radio, but he goes above and beyond in this piece - cyclists caused the economic collapse and recession, not to mention political and judicial corruption! When he was a child, he was "routinely sanctioned by the gardaí for cycling three abreast and not having a light". The came a generation who were always "cycling through red lights", and "were led to believe the rules didn't apply to them". Then those people became "bankers or lawyers or politicians, they reckoned regulations didn't apply to them."

That's a set of real quotes.

el tel

Anyone who in favours motorists over cyclists and uses the "cyclists breaking red lights" matra is a ****. In my experience it's a rare car journey where I don't see a motorist scoot past a red light (let alone an amber light, which also means 'stop'; these too are routinely ignored).

hardCopy

buffalo wrote: »

Was reading a McGrath-inspired piece in the Sunday Times, that purported to be 'balanced', but really was anything but. One guy (Mike McKillen of Dublin Cycling Campaign) in favour, and even then he thinks breaking red lights and going the wrong way up one-way streets is okay, and calls motorists 'plonkers'. That's going to do the cycling community some favours.

A breadth of people mentioned in anti-cycling side, or maybe anti-cyclist is more precise, as many claim to think cycling is great. Some of my best friends...

But the stand-out part is Mr George Hook. We all know how aul' George is on the radio, but he goes above and beyond in this piece - cyclists caused the economic collapse and recession, not to mention political and judicial corruption! When he was a child, he was "routinely sanctioned by the gardaí for cycling three abreast and not having a light". The came a generation who "cycling through red lights", and "were led to believe the rules didn't apply to them". Then those people became "bankers or lawyers or politicians, they reckoned regulations didn't apply to them."

That's a set of real quotes.

George is famed for his ridiculous theories about rugby but when it comes to cyclists the man loses all power of logical thought.

I text in every so often and challenge him to commute by bike for one day, I've even offered to sponsor a charity of his choice. He never reads out the texts, and they'll read any half formed rant on that show.

buffalo

Nicely put together ...whoever is responsible for that site. :pac:

edit: sorry about the size

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

Was reading a McGrath-inspired piece in the Sunday Times, that purported to be 'balanced', but really was anything but. One guy (Mike McKillen of Dublin Cycling Campaign) in favour, and even then he thinks breaking red lights and going the wrong way up one-way streets is okay, and calls motorists 'plonkers'. That's going to do the cycling community some favours.

<snip>

That's a set of real quotes.

Since you're naming an individual here, can you supply the full quotes in context please?

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Since you're naming an individual here, can you supply the full quotes in context please?

No, the paper's at home and I'm in work. If you're hinting that he said that it's okay to do it safely, then please do so. Breaking the law is still breaking the law.

oldyouth

I'm posting here from the perspective of a motorist. I haven't cycled for at least 10 years.

The only point I want to make is that the rules of the road are there to give some degree of certainty, so that road users know what eachother is supposed to be doing in any given situation.

Cyclists should (at present) adhere to the same rules as motorists. It is not for any individual to decide what is 'OK' for them to do on the road/path. How can either party second guess what way the other is going to do at junctions etc? Yes, I know we should all expect the unexpected but there is no need to increase the risk with additional uncertainty

Having said that, I would be open to having special rules that allow cyclists do things that motorists can't, if it is agreed that they are practical and safe. There are obvious situations where it would be safe for a bike to proceed, but not a car. However, as a motorist, I would need to be aware of these exceptions, just as I need to be aware of other regulations when I take my car on the road

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

No, the paper's at home and I'm in work. If you're hinting that he said that it's okay to do it safely, then please do so. Breaking the law is still breaking the law.

I'm not hinting at anything. I didn't see the article, and you haven't provided a link or complete quotes, so I can't comment on what he may or may not have said (assuming he was quoted fully and accurately in the report).

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

One guy (Mike McKillen of Dublin Cycling Campaign) in favour, and even then he thinks breaking red lights and going the wrong way up one-way streets is okay,

I haven't seen the piece so I am not sure if it is the journalist who is being disingenuous or you.

But just to clarify the situation for you. It is the joint position of Cyclist.ie and its constituent groups that cyclists should be provided with exemptions from one-way street restrictions and red lights in defined circumstances. i.e. there are easily identified situations where these things should be legal.

Saying something should be legal is not the same thing as saying its ok to break the law.

Chips Lovell

buffalo wrote: »

One guy (Mike McKillen of Dublin Cycling Campaign) in favour, and even then he thinks breaking red lights and going the wrong way up one-way streets is okay, and calls motorists 'plonkers'. That's going to do the cycling community some favours.

Aye, he didn't do any of us any favours alright. It's disappointing that they picked him as a representative of cyclists, because his views are not in line with any cyclist I know. He even came out with the old line that cyclists get on motorists nerves because of "envy".

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

But just to clarify the situation for you. It is the joint position of Cyclist.ie and its constituent groups that cyclists should be provided with exemptions from one-way street restrictions and red lights in defined circumstances. i.e. there are easily identified situations where these things should be legal.

I hope you fail miserably to achieve either. A large number of cyclist are utterly clueless regarding their own safety, and the safety of others. They need to be reined in, not let loose.
A 3 month clampdown of RLJs, salmon and footpad cyclers with bikes seized on failure to produce ID should do the trick.

JRant

I have had some dealings with McGrath as I live fairly close to him. While he is a decent bloke I found his attitude towards cyclists as being completely dismissive.

There are 3 schools in close proximity to each other and I raised the issue of people parking in the cycle lanes around the schools while collecting their kids. This forces the kids who do cycle to either move out into the middle of the road or as happens most use the footpath. His reaction to me was "sure where do you want the parents to park?". When I pointed out that it was illegal to park there he just tried to fob me off again.

So yes a sense of balance is important in any debate but unfortunately Mr McGrath brings neither sense or balance to this one.

CramCycle

JRant wrote: »

So yes a sense of balance is important in any debate but unfortunately Mr McGrath brings neither sense or balance to this one.

To be fair to McGrath he does balance things fairly well, he says just enough to keep enough people to vote him in happy and fobs off everyone else, a tricky skill.

seamus

Yeah, McKillen's a clever guy but unfortunately his contribution to most debates ends up being, "Yeah cyclists break the rules, but they can't do much damage, so it's not that big a deal."

It's a valid point, but not that relevant. The source of friction is as oldyouth points out - that road users prefer a driving environment with predictability and certainty. Rule-breaking by cyclists disrupts that predictability and makes other road users nervous and annoyed.

ThisRegard

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

with bikes seized on failure to produce ID should do the trick.

There's no requirement to carry ID so that won't work at all.

Dermot Illogical

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, McKillen's a clever guy but unfortunately his contribution to most debates ends up being, "Yeah cyclists break the rules, but they can't do much damage, so it's not that big a deal."

I'm sitting here with only one usable thumb at the moment, and muscle damage to my left leg from a gobsh1te on a bike breaking the rules about 5 weeks ago.
My previous time to come off the bike was when I was hit by a genius, also a cyclist, who decided to do a u-turn on a 1-way street. Didn't hear an engine so didn't bother looking before he swerved sharply.
I think cyclists can do enough damage for people to care about it.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, McKillen's a clever guy but unfortunately his contribution to most debates ends up being, "Yeah cyclists break the rules, but they can't do much damage, so it's not that big a deal."

It's a valid point, but not that relevant. The source of friction is as oldyouth points out - that road users prefer a driving environment with predictability and certainty. Rule-breaking by cyclists disrupts that predictability and makes other road users nervous and annoyed.

I like order on the roads, whether on the part of pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

Clearly, however, cyclists and pedestrians pose much lower risk overall in terms of serious casualties due to misbehaviour.

An obvious example is the Dublin Bikes scheme. This has led to a surge of the number of people cycling, many of whom, to paraphrase Cllr Mannix Flynn, look like they've never even been up on a rocking horse.

Yet road fatalities in Dublin City have fallen by 70% in recent years.

Rule breaking by motorists has much greater potential for death and serious injury, and therefore that's where the major focus should be in terms of law enforcement and preventative strategies.

Dermot Illogical

ThisRegard wrote: »

There's no requirement to carry ID so that won't work at all.

There isn't, but there is a garda power to take the bike until one is produced if an offence has been committed. So that would work. In fact, it already does.

Chips Lovell

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

There isn't, but there is a garda power to take the bike until one is produced if an offence has been committed. So that would work. In fact, it already does.

AFAIK, that law has been on the book for years.

Dermot Illogical

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

AFAIK, that law has been on the book for years.

It has.
Road Traffic Act, 1961.

108.—A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of having been concerned or involved in a collision or other event in a public place causing injury to person or property, the name and address of such person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may take the cycle, by force if necessary, and retain it until such time as he is satisfied as to the identity of such person.

rp

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Clearly, however, cyclists and pedestrians pose much lower risk overall in terms of serious casualties due to misbehaviour.

Maybe fines for road traffic infractions should be calculated from the kinetic energy involved?

galwaycyclist

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I hope you fail miserably to achieve either. A large number of cyclist are utterly clueless regarding their own safety, and the safety of others. They need to be reined in, not let loose.
A 3 month clampdown of RLJs, salmon and footpad cyclers with bikes seized on failure to produce ID should do the trick.

The problem is that there is a large segment of the population who will not obey laws that make no sense to them and clearly do not involve issues of safety. Or that in some cases, are more dangerous to obey. Imposing one-way street restrictions on cyclists is one of these issues.

If you want people to respect the law then the law has to respect their needs. Designing and regulating around the perceived needs of one group (motorists) and then expecting pedestrians and cyclists to play along is not going to work.

The situation with traffic law in this country is in many ways similar to the situation we had with the law on contraception in the 1970s and 1980s. Making it illegal to use contraception suited one particular group but everybody else just had to get on with life and found ways to do so. The law eventually became a running joke. That's what happens with laws that don't make sense.

mcgratheoin

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I hope you fail miserably to achieve either. A large number of cyclist are utterly clueless regarding their own safety, and the safety of others. They need to be reined in, not let loose.
A 3 month clampdown of RLJs, salmon and footpad cyclers with bikes seized on failure to produce ID should do the trick.

Just wondering, in the grand scheme of road offences, where do you think the Gardai should be focusing their ever dwindling resources. As a leisure cyclist and car commuter (too long to cycle) - I'd much rather see a 3 month clampdown on cars RLJ (of which I see lots every day), mobile phone usage by drivers, cars stopping in yellow boxes, blocking junctions and speeding in urban areas than having the Gardai going after bikes.

As oldyouth says, it's the unpredictability of road users that grates the most. As a driver I need to know that a cyclist won't ride out across me, that a car on a roundabout will indicate where it's going (rarely happens) and that a pedestrian won't step out in front of me. As a cyclist I want to know that a car won't randomly stop and open a door in the cycle lane and that a pedestrian won't decide to push a buggy into the cycle lane to get around somebody else, while as a pedestrian I need to know that if I step onto a pedestrian crossing I won't be run down by a car or a bike. All of these are valid requests yet as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver, all of the above have happened to me. (nearly run down rather than actually). Singling one section of road users out for special treatment does nothing to improve safety on our roads.

On that note, it's a sad reflection on our society when enforcing the law can be described as "special treatment"

Iwannahurl

rp wrote: »

Maybe fines for road traffic infractions should be calculated from the kinetic energy involved?

Unfair to cyclists with a high BMI, of which there are many...

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The law eventually became a running joke. That's what happens with laws that don't make sense.

It also happens with laws that are just not enforced.

Personally I think the "common sense" approach is a bit of a minefield. Many motorists defend as "common sense" behaviour that I regard as obnoxious, and which also happens to be illegal. Unfortunately, when it's almost never enforced, then it's the person who objects who is seen as being out of order.

Public policy needs to be clear, and it must be based on well-defined values, eg cycling is safe, healthy and sustainable and will be prioritised.

Dermot Illogical

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Just wondering, in the grand scheme of road offences, where do you think the Gardai should be focusing their ever dwindling resources. As a leisure cyclist and car commuter (too long to cycle) - I'd much rather see a 3 month clampdown on cars RLJ (of which I see lots every day), mobile phone usage by drivers, cars stopping in yellow boxes, blocking junctions and speeding in urban areas than having the Gardai going after bikes.

I'd be happy to see a clampdown on all offences at junctions tbh. It doesn't have to single out cyclists.
However... we are now at a stage where so many cyclists break laws that new entrants to cycling don't realise those laws exist. It does need a little bit of special treatment to remind everyone that we actually do have laws.

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The problem is that there is a large segment of the population who will not obey laws that make no sense to them and clearly do not involve issues of safety. Or that in some cases, are more dangerous to obey. Imposing one-way street restrictions on cyclists is one of these issues.

No. The problem is that a large segment of the population will do as they choose as long as nobody calls them out on it. A little bit of enforcement would correct that very quickly.

1-way street restrictions dangerous? Really? It's a pain for the lazier types having to go the long way around, but hardly dangerous. Or perhaps you mean that it's dangerous when they ignore the 1-way restriction and head nonchalantly into oncoming traffic?

seamus

Not entirely sure how one-way streets are more dangerous for cyclists. Sure, they involve slightly longer routes, which over millions of trips may slightly increase the hazard. But I'm fairly confident that riding against the flow of traffic is statistically many times more hazardous.

galwaycyclist

seamus wrote: »

Not entirely sure how one-way streets are more dangerous for cyclists. Sure, they involve slightly longer routes, which over millions of trips may slightly increase the hazard. But I'm fairly confident that riding against the flow of traffic is statistically many times more hazardous.

Evidence please?

JRant

The amount of people walking or driving around with their heads stuck into their smartphones is a far bigger concern that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves.

Walk through Dublin city centre and your much more likely to be hit by another pedestrian with their heads in their phones than a cyclist on the footpath.

Same goes for cycling, the amount of people who just step out onto the road while checking their latest status update is frightening.

rollingscone

One thing I'd like to see encouraged among cyclists is signalling.

Because:
1. It greatly increases predictability (in grown up cyclng countries like Denmark people routinely signal when stopping).
2. It reminds cyclists that they are grown ups and have to play by the RoTR.
3. It reminds Motorists that cyclists are actual grown up human beings who are also obeying the rules of the road - therefore marginalising and de-normalising aberrant behaviour by some cyclists.

So why can't we have the same sort of resources that are being poured in to encouraging helmet wearing and misapplication of the actual benefits of hi-vis put into encouraging us all to signal turns, stops, permission to pass and lane indications (I'm sure I look like a tool, but I always signal my intended lane, even if it's straight on).