Irish Times - Rag

droidus

Good response to Fintan and his ilk today: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/more-power-to-your-pedals-1.1429183

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Maybe you need to get out beyond the canals from time to time?

I cycle within and without the canals, and agree with Vlad. Breaking laws for "safety" reasons is a nonsense argument.

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Agreed but they really could have chosen a better picture to illustrate cycling to school than some mini - Boba fett lookalike.

On the bright side, nobody will use it as an excuse to write in about helmets... :P

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/on-your-bike-1.1432212 :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Maybe you need to get out beyond the canals from time to time?

I do. Four or five times a week.

galwaycyclist

Tombo2001 wrote: »

One point I never see mentioned in the financial times....

Safer cycling often means breaking the rules.

An example:

On my cycle to work, I cycle through Phibsboro. I go via Munster Street, which is a one way street. I cycle the wrong way down a one way street. Dozens of school kids on their way to St Vincents school do the same. I rarely pass a car on Munster St.

If I was to obey the rules, I would cycle down neighbouring Connaught St and be caught in the maelstrom of one car lane dividing into two car lanes with the customary four inches left on LHS for cyclists to squeeze through. In other words, I just would not cycle that way in rush hour, full stop. Its not safe.

Does the Irish Times propose sending all those school kids onto the busiest traffic junction in Phibsboro? So that the rules are to obeyed?

Yes one of the key arguments for providing 2-way cycling on one-way streets is to allow cyclists to avoid locations that are more risky or challenging.


There is a discussion here of the safety of contraflow cycling in Brussels with the finding that it has safety benefits.

http://www.velo-city2009.com/assets/files/paper-Dupriez-sub1.4.pdf

galwaycyclist

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

I cycle within and without the canals, and agree with Vlad. Breaking laws for "safety" reasons is a nonsense argument.

I see. So can we all take it that you are one of those cyclists who always used cycle tracks as well?

Chips Lovell

Qualitymark wrote: »

Would you think of doing a feature on the kind of facilities other cities have for cyclists, like Copenhagen and Amsterdam and so on

Please. God. No.

galwaycyclist

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I do. Four or five times a week.

Oh sorry please accept my apologies. Your comment indicated that you have a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy. I thought that perhaps the explanation was due to a somewhat sheltered existence on your part. Clearly I was mistaken.

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I see. So can we all take it that you are one of those cyclists who always used cycle tracks as well?

That was a stupid law. We don't count those ones. :pac:

Dermot Illogical

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I see. So can we all take it that you are one of those cyclists who always used cycle tracks as well?

LOL! Ya bollix! You know NOBODY used those things!

Good point though. Cheap, but good.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your comment indicated that you have a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy.

So someone who states that there is no need to cycle down one way streets or break the lights on safety grounds has "a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy"?

Dermot Illogical

buffalo wrote: »

Today's piece is much more balanced and encouraging: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/cycling-the-next-generation-1.1432167

1-2% of kids cycling to school? That's mad Ted. When I went to school it must have been 50% or so.

In the meantime we've had "You must wear <that which shall not be mentioned outside of it's own thread> because cycling is dangerous" drummed into us. The result has been impressive. Most cyclists do indeed wear <those which shall not be mentioned outside of it's own thread> now. Congrats to the advocates.

On the flip side we have lost an entire generation of cyclists because mammy and daddy won't let them out on bikes as it's "too dangerous".

Result!

Squidgy Black

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

1-2% of kids cycling to school? That's mad Ted. When I went to school it must have been 50% or so.

In the meantime we've had "You must wear <that which shall not be mentioned outside of it's own thread> because cycling is dangerous" drummed into us. The result has been impressive. Most cyclists do indeed wear <those which shall not be mentioned outside of it's own thread> now. Congrats to the advocates.

On the flip side we have lost an entire generation of cyclists because mammy and daddy won't let them out on bikes as it's "too dangerous".

Result!

I seriously doubt that only 1-2% of kids cycle to school. The school I went to in Marino on Griffith Avenue ended up having to build an extra bike shed last year as well as the two that already existed. I'd say about 250 students out of the 550 cycled, if not more.

buffalo

stetyrrell wrote: »

I seriously doubt that only 1-2% of kids cycle to school. The school I went to in Marino on Griffith Avenue ended up having to build an extra bike shed last year as well as the two that already existed. I'd say about 250 students out of the 550 cycled, if not more.

Have you surveyed the national population of school children on cycling recently? If not, it might be best not to extrapolate figures for the entire country from your local city school.

reprazant

droidus wrote: »

Good response to Fintan and his ilk today: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/more-power-to-your-pedals-1.1429183

That's a great article in fairness.

Tombo2001

reprazant wrote: »

That's a great article in fairness.

Thats the power of social media for ya

Dermot Illogical

stetyrrell wrote: »

I seriously doubt that only 1-2% of kids cycle to school. The school I went to in Marino on Griffith Avenue ended up having to build an extra bike shed last year as well as the two that already existed. I'd say about 250 students out of the 550 cycled, if not more.

The school my eldest goes to has 800-900 pupils or thereabouts. 6 spaces for bikes.

Lumen

reprazant wrote: »

That's a great article in fairness.

"An impatient driver had pulled directly out in front of me and forced me to break sharply"

Subeditor fail.

MrCreosote

The whole series (including FOT's piece) have been relentlessly negative.

I'm back in the country for the first time in 4 years and the huge number of cyclists on the streets and roads around the country is amazing (and I've not even been in Dublin yet). Seems to me that by simpy focussing on the negatives the IT is completely missing the zeitgeist, which is about the worst thing a newspaper could do. Despite the road conditions, weather, motorists and so on there's still been a massive increase in cyclist numbers- why the hell isn't the IT looking more into this? I'm not even sure that FOT's sub-Daily Mail ranting is going to have the desired effect of selling more papers, given that it has been done to death already.

(As an aside I've found the standard of driving to be far safer and more courteous here- drivers slowing down, giving loads of room or waiting patiently behind even on the open road. Possibly says more about the woeful standard of driving in NZ)

HivemindXX

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So someone who states that there is no need to cycle down one way streets or break the lights on safety grounds has "a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy"?

As far as I can see the "for safety reasons" excuse for breaking the rules seems to allow people to do what they want whenever they want. After all, only they are qualified to determine what is safe for them.

Tombo feels that completely unremarkable T junction in Phibsboro (which I used to cycle through on a regular basis, but thanks for assuming otherwise) is so unsafe to allow him to cycle down a one way street. Don't like the busy junction? Better go the wrong way down a one way street (conveniently avoiding a set of lights I might add).

Concerned that a car might hit you from behind at the lights? Better cycle through the red just to be safe.

Don't want to move up the inside of a large vehicle at the lights? The only option, for safety, is to hop up on the footpath and shoot up to the lights.

This is exactly the same rationale used by motorists who speed up when they see an amber light. Sure it wouldn't be safe to slow down. Perfectly reasonable in some circumstances but since everyone can just claim 'safety' as an excuse it become nothing more than a fig leaf to cover red light running.

This attitude is despicable. Made worse by Galwaycyclists insinuation that outside the canals is some sort of danger room where cyclists are routinely forced to break the rules. I cannot think of any situation where I have been forced to break the rules of the road for safety reasons. If it is not safe to filter through traffic I have the option of waiting behind them until it clears. If I find a junction too dangerous to navigate on a bike (which is very rare) I have the option of crossing as a pedestrian (which I don't consider outrageous) and planning a different route in future. If the road infrastructure is hostile towards cyclists, and a lot of it is, then campaigning to have it improved is the solution. If a junction is so dangerous as to be unnavigable for a cyclist then complain directly to the relevant authority. Using this as licence to do whatever you want, whenever you want under the veil of 'safety' is simply wrong.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

"An impatient driver had pulled directly out in front of me and forced me to break sharply"

Subeditor fail.

Likewise "a noted liberal on this paper showed decided right-wing leanings".

Squidgy Black

buffalo wrote: »

Have you surveyed the national population of school children on cycling recently? If not, it might be best not to extrapolate figures for the entire country from your local city school.

I'm not saying that every school has numbers like that, but I definitely would struggle to believe that there were so few cycling to school. 1% of the 800,000 or so children attending school is 8,000 kids. Surely around the country there's more than that cycling to school?

droidus

Judging by the number of insanely parked cars I have to get around when passing the 4 schools on my route in the morning - no.

galwaycyclist

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So someone who states that there is no need to cycle down one way streets or break the lights on safety grounds has "a limited understanding of cycling, cycling safety or cycling policy"?

Correct, in fact in my view it displays a profound ignorance of what is needed to get more people cycling. There are strong safety reasons for providing cyclists with exemptions from one-way street restrictions. The most obvious being that it allows cyclists to avoid more risky locations.

The safety issues with traffic lights are less direct. The main problem with expecting cyclists to stop at red in all circumstances is that it undermines respect for the law and undermines respect for situations where cyclists do need to stop for their own safety. Other countries have been making alternative arrangements for cyclists at traffic lights for decades.

The most important issue, for all of us, is safety in numbers, if we want to be safer ourselves we need to get more people cycling - legalising safe activities such as two-way cycling on one-way streets and sorting out the issue of cyclists at traffic signals are key components of any realistic policy to get more people cycling.

slideshow bob

stetyrrell wrote: »

I definitely would struggle to believe that there were so few cycling to school. 1% of the 800,000 or so children attending school is 8,000 kids. Surely around the country there's more than that cycling to school?

Actually there's less (6,592 secondary students in 2011). CSO published details on this here (pages 26-28):
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile10/Profile,10,Full,Document.pdf

For selected highlights:
http://cyclingindublin.com/2012/12/16/graphed-irish-students-hopping-from-bicycles-to-cars/

They don't mention national school children travelling by bike, but cycling is in 'other' and that's very low.

galwaycyclist

HivemindXX wrote: »

Made worse by Galwaycyclists insinuation that outside the canals is some sort of danger room where cyclists are routinely forced to break the rules.

It seems irony is lost on some people.

slideshow bob

buffalo wrote: »

Have you surveyed the national population of school children on cycling recently?

CSO did, and for the Dublin area we have:

Students at school or college aged between 13 and 18 years
Dublin City and suburbs

Bicycle 4,130
All means of travel 66,472

I'm not great at maths now the exams are over, but I reckon that's less than 50%. That makes Marino on Griffith Avenue an outliar if the majority on students are on bikes.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Correct, in fact in my view it displays a profound ignorance of what is needed to get more people cycling. There are strong safety reasons for providing cyclists with exemptions from one-way street restrictions. The most obvious being that it allows cyclists to avoid more risky locations.

Strong safety reasons? Riddle me this. Why are so many people capable of cycling safely around Dublin without finding the need to cycle the wrong way down one way streets? Are they completely (or profoundly ) ignorant of the danger they are putting themselves in? Why aren't we all getting killed to death on a weekly basis?

It's entirely possible to cycle safely around Dublin within the law.

AIR-AUSSIE

@ Vlad One of the most obvious ways I can think were a cyclist pretty much is forced to break the law would be junctions where the traffic lights are triggered by magnets or pressure plates.

On a road close to where I live (which isn't very busy with cars in the afternoon or evening) I'm left to either wait for a rare car to come along or break the lights at the junction when its safe to do. As my bike does not trigger the lights for me. Another example of this would be the lights at Johnny Foxes.

Kav0777

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

@ Vlad One of the most obvious ways I can think were a cyclist pretty much is forced to break the law would be junctions where the traffic lights are triggered by magnets or pressure plates.

On a road close to where I live (which isn't very busy with cars in the afternoon or evening) I'm left to either wait for a rare car to come along or break the lights at the junction when its safe to do. As my bike does not trigger the lights for me. Another example of this would be the lights at Johnny Foxes.

My old heaper winter training bike sets them off...