Irish Times - Rag

Kav0777

Irish times article today about an Orwell wheeler (Paul O'Neil) taking on the Marmotte:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/alpine-trek-the-end-of-a-journey-only-a-bicycle-could-make-possible-1.1433796

Tombo2001

HivemindXX wrote: »

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).........

This attitude is despicable.

The point I made is that it is safer to drive cycle down an empty street, with no traffic on it, even if its going the wrong way down a one way street, than it is to cycle down a busy street with lots of traffic on it that is swerving from lane to lane and leaving no room for cyclists (which as you know.

In terms of traffic, I cycled via the t-junction this morning. Traffic was backed to the traffic lights at St Peters Road, which as you know is 150 yards back from the t-junction. At the point where the traffic divided into two lanes close to the t-junction, a truck moved into the left lane in front of me without indicating and proceeded to drive on to the footpath so that he could straighten the truck on the lane. I can not see how this is a safer environment than being on a parralel road 50 yards away that has not a single car driving on it.

Rather than describing my attitude as despicable, you might just explain why my viewpoint is wrong.

HivemindXX

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Rather than describing my attitude as despicable, you might just explain why my viewpoint is wrong.

It's very simple really. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which rules you follow and which you don't. That's the crux of the matter. That is the attitude which I find despicable.

In addition I'm willing to bet that 'safe' route is also more convenient for you. If you wanted to turn right at the T junction I'm guessing you'd be willing to brave the 'maelstrom' and suddenly safety wouldn't be such a big deal.

As I said before that junction is completely unremarkable. I suspect that the city is packed with situations in which you feel you are entitled to break the rules 'for safety reasons'.

High Nellie

Motorists are sold a dream.

Look at the advertising and the imagery conjured up: freedom; speed; youth; vibrancy; the wind blowing in your hair; a status symbol ....

And what do they get instead: frustration; stress; inertia; backed up in rows in their expensive metal boxes.

But what makes a small number so angry is that while they are struggling there in their stressed states they see the dream out through their windows in the form of cyclists. That's what makes a lot of them so angry. It's not the breaking of the law really. For example, between 50% and 70% of motorists admit to breaking the speed laws (depending between surveys). So 'most' motorists break the law regurlarly in a much more dangerous way than cyclists.

It's the freedom that gets to them, man ......

buffalo

High Nellie wrote: »

It's not the breaking of the law really. For example, between 50% and 70% of motorists admit to breaking the speed laws (depending between surveys). So 'most' motorists break the law regurlarly in a much more dangerous way than cyclists.

edit: I take it all back! Mis-read the post.

buffalo

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think you need to re-read his post, the subtly is in the grammar. His post makes allot of sense.

Missed that all important 'the', my mistake.

enas

In Paris (hardly the cyclist's nirvana, but still a step better than Ireland in some respects), they have made one-way streets two-way for cyclists in a quite systematic way (pretty much all 30 km/h streets, and other streets too by building a dedicated contraflow lane). On your typical 30km/h street, there's nothing more than an "except cyclists" sign added to the no entry sign in terms of infrastructure, except maybe with a bit of kerb-separated lane at the beginning of the street to make it more explicit.

For example, here you have a contraflow lane at the beginning of the street, but further down it becomes a regular lane, and just to simply disappear later on (with some painted signs as a reminder). Hardly an example of the best infrastructure, but this shows that it is possible for cyclists to cycle the "wrong" way on one-way streets. Note how narrow the street is. One of the cyclist or driver will probably have to stop to let the other pass (generally the driver will stop at the first empty spot). It certainly feels like cycling the wrong way on a typical Dublin (or Cork) one-way street, except there it's legal. And guess what, it just works.

Why would cyclists in this area use that street? Well the alternative is somewhat of a detour, it looks like that (nothing excessively scary, but quite similar to a typical Dublin busy city street), and mostly, brings you there, giving you the pleasure of negotiating this multilane roundabout (believe me, you have to try it once to fully appreciate the experience -- you will have two to three lanes of cars trying to exit the roundabout while you continue straight on).

On another subject, last time I've cycled in Paris, I also noticed the new little signs they added to some traffic lights, allowing cyclist to turn right (or straight at T-junctions) at all times, treating a red light as a yield (no streetview link, but here's a description). The benefit for cyclists is huge, in that you get to pass the junction separately from motorised traffic, in particular right-turning HGVs with their blind spots. Again, this works just fine, and has been generalised after a conclusive experimental phase.

Why am I saying all that? You asked for examples where breaking the rules makes sense from the point of view of the cyclist's security and comfort. I mentioned Paris precisely because it's not really advanced cycling-wise, so it makes the comparison with Dublin all the more relevant. Of course, the difference is that, in the examples I gave, it is legal for cyclists to do so. But instead of moaning that cyclists should never break the rules etc. etc., you might as well acknowledge that there are indeed illegal alternatives that are safer or more convenient to cyclists, and that we should think whether it really makes sense to keep them illegal. galwaycyclist's point about cycle lane mandatory use was an easy one, yet still illustrates perfectly the point, since I'm pretty sure you never adhered to that law. And no one explained to Tombo2001 why it doesn't make more sense to use the empty one-way back street instead of the busy junction. To me it makes perfect sense, and ideally, cyclists should be offered that option, with the peace of mind that legality has to offer.

enas

HivemindXX wrote: »

In addition I'm willing to bet that 'safe' route is also more convenient for you.

And what's wrong with that? Quite often safety and convenience go hand in hand. The whole point of making one-way streets available in both ways for cyclists is about offering a much more convenient alternative to cyclists in many cases.

droidus

HivemindXX wrote: »

It's very simple really. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which rules you follow and which you don't. That's the crux of the matter. That is the attitude which I find despicable.

Do you find jaywalkers 'despicable'? Im not trying to be confrontational, but every single person in this country who has ever crossed the road has broken the 'rules', and the majority do it every day.

TinyExplosions

droidus wrote: »

Do you find jaywalkers 'despicable'? Im not trying to be confrontational, but every single person in this country who has ever crossed the road has broken the 'rules', and the majority do it every day.

But to be fair, a jaywalking pedestrian doesn't attempt to justify it by saying it's safer...

droidus

Which means he has even less justification for his despicable actions?

Dermot Illogical

Are we talking safety or convenience here? The convenience argument I get, the safety one I don't. Attempts to link the two I find tenuous. In fact, they are quite often in direct conflict.

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

But to be fair, a jaywalking pedestrian doesn't attempt to justify it by saying it's safer...

When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.

Dermot Illogical

enas wrote: »

When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.

True, but sometimes at the expense of someone else's real safety.

enas

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

True, but sometimes at the expense of someone else's real safety.

When your own convenience is in contradiction with your own safety or someone else's safety, as you mention, there is something seriously wrong with how the environment is designed. Something has to be changed, and this is what we should be discussing about rather than assigning blame on this cyclist and this other cyclist.

I don't believe that happens too often though. And no, I don't believe that cycling a one-way street the wrong way is dangerous for anyone -- in Paris (as an example), they experimented it, they saw it works, they validated it, and that's it. I wish they did the same in Dublin or Cork. Furthermore, until it becomes legal, I won't morally blame those (of which I'm not) who do it any more than I used to blame those cyclists who illegally refused to use cycle lanes before the latest change in the law (of which I was).

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

When people talk about safety (in the context we're referring to), they really mean subjective or perceived safety (as in "it feels safer"). Subjective safety is really about comfort, just as convenience is. People like to do what's most comfortable.

Yes, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. While 'despicable' is strong word that I'd not use, I really don't accept the "it's safer to use the one way street the wrong way, so it's ok to do so argument". You can justify rule breaking in any way you like, but to come up with a bullshit 'saftey' reasoning gets my goat a little. 'Perceived Safety' is just another way of trying to justify a stance that is entirely about convenience.

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

Furthermore, until it becomes legal, I won't morally blame those (of which I'm not) who do it any more than I used to blame those cyclists who illegally refused to use cycle lanes before the latest change in the law (of which I was).

I have no problem with the fella cycling the wrong way on a one way street, I do have a problem with the attempt to justify it as safer!

dogsears

enas wrote: »

you might as well acknowledge that there are indeed illegal alternatives that are safer or more convenient to cyclists, and that we should think whether it really makes sense to keep them illegal.

That's fine but "safer" and "more convenient" aren't the same, though I suspect a lot of the excuse making based on "its safer" is really more about "its more convenient". And of course more convenient can quickly morph into "I couldn't be arsed doing it any other, even slightly less convenient way".

I don't buy the argument about safety at all, or at least the conclusion that being presented with a potentially unsafe situation blesses any rule breaking.

I've never yet approached a set of traffic lights on red and been faced with a situation of such imminent threat to life or limb that my only option was to cruise on through (and then do the same at the next set, and the next). I'm not saying there aren't dangers, but in my experience the answer is generally to slow right down, hang back, stop well short of the light if necessary. Exceptionally the answer might be to creep past the light, or round the corner, but to breeze on through, consistently, even past other cyclists who are stopped (how can they possibly survive:eek:), well lets not pretend that's about safety of any kind.

As for convenience, I think its a perfectly valid reason for exceptions to be made. No reason why rules of the road should entirely ignore convenience. So lobby your representatives, present the experience from other countries, gather support from others, challenge candidates at election times etc. But at the moment, living as we do in a world where we share the roads with others, we need to respect the rules and abide by them, whether we agree with them or not. Abiding by rules you might not agree with, (and you might be right) is what living in an orderly society is all about.

MrCreosote

enas wrote: »

On another subject, last time I've cycled in Paris, I also noticed the new little signs they added to some traffic lights, allowing cyclist to turn right (or straight at T-junctions) at all times, treating a red light as a yield (no streetview link, but here's a The benefit for cyclists is huge, in that you get to pass the junction separately from motorised traffic, in particular right-turning HGVs with their blind spots. Again, this works just fine, and has been generalised after a conclusive experimental phase.

The sooner traffic lights are made into yield signs for cyclists in Ireland the better. It's quicker, safer, better for both motorists and cyclists and would just formalise what a lot of cyclists already do (like the mandatory cycle lane law)

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

'Perceived Safety' is just another way of trying to justify a stance that is entirely about convenience.

May I ask again, what is wrong with convenience? You use that word as if it is the absolute sin. Isn't encouraging cycling all about making it more convenient (than it currently is, than driving currently is)? Perceived safety isn't a way to justify convenience. Rather, perceived safety and convenience are two aspects of comfort in general, i.e. how comfortable it is to cycle.

People want to do what's most comfortable to them. Until cycling is made more comfortable, people will either not cycle (that's what most people end up doing), or find their own ways to make it more comfortable, even when that's illegal (by cycling the wrong way, by cycling on a footpath, by avoiding a cycle lane when that was illegal). Since that's obviously not satisfactory, we should discuss about making comfortable cycling the legal option, rather than spending our energy criticising the illegal cyclist. We're missing the big picture otherwise.

Now, I realise I'm not contradicting you, and I agree that as long as it is illegal to cycle the wrong way, people shouldn't do it. I don't do it. But let me ask you a question. Are you saying that cycling the wrong way is very dangerous, and so is morally highly condemnable, despite experimental evidence that shows that's it's really safe? Were you condemning cycling outside cycle lanes when they were mandatory? And if the answers are yes and no (as I suspect), what's the difference between the two?

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

May I ask again, what is wrong with convenience? You use that word as if it is the absolute sin. Isn't encouraging cycling all about making it more convenient (than it currently is, than driving currently is)? Perceived safety isn't a way to justify convenience. Rather, perceived safety and convenience are two aspects of comfort in general, i.e. how comfortable it is to cycle.

Nothing is wrong with convenience at all, I never said there was anything wrong with it.

enas wrote: »

People want to do what's most comfortable to them. Until cycling is made more comfortable, people will either not cycle (that's what most people end up doing), or find their own ways to make it more comfortable, even when that's illegal (by cycling the wrong way, by cycling on a footpath, by avoiding a cycle lane when that was illegal). Since that's obviously not satisfactory, we should discuss about making comfortable cycling the legal option, rather than spending our energy criticising the illegal cyclist. We're missing the big picture otherwise.

People doing what's most comfortable for them isn't an excuse for rule breaking though, and that's my point. I'm not criticising people for breaking the law, I'm criticising the excuse that 'it's safer to do it' when it clearly isn't. It's the attempted justification that gets me, not the 'offence'

enas wrote: »

Now, I realise I'm not contradicting you, and I agree that as long as it is illegal to cycle the wrong way, people shouldn't do it. I don't do it. But let me ask you a question. Are you saying that cycling the wrong way is very dangerous, and so is morally highly condemnable, despite experimental evidence that shows that's it's really safe? Were you condemning cycling outside cycle lanes when they were mandatory? And if the answers are yes and no (as I suspect), what's the difference between the two?

Cycling the wrong way on a one way street isn't particularly dangerous (obviously depending on circumstance, but I'm speaking in general terms here), but then neither is cycling on the the footpath, or turning left on a red light, or any number of other illegal things.

The laws as they stand are (a lot of the time) not based on safety -indeed some of the rules we have fly in the face of safety, but then it's not up to us to decide what is the law and what isn't (let's take that as a given and not get into politics over it). That doesn't mean you should break them as you see fit, and if somebody wants to call you out on that and say it's wrong, then you should be perfectly entitled.

Once more, I'm not giving out about the behaviour -indeed I quite often break the rules when I'm out and about, but I don't justify it by saying it's safer to do it, I do it cos I'm lazy (usually).

Once more, to be very clear, I'm complaining about the silly justification, not the act itself.

manwithaplan

I have never broken a red light or cycled the wrong way down a one-way street because it was safer. I have often done so because it was quicker. I (mostly) don't do it any more but that's neither here nor there. By all means facilitate our desire to get around faster but don't pretend we are endangered by stopping at lights and taking a few circuitous routes.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Clearly many people do feel the need to use one-way streets in both directions otherwise we wouldn't be hearing complaints and sneers from people such as yourself.

Whether they feel the need or desire to is beside the point. As I said, its perfectly possible to cycle safely within in the law. The fact that so many people can do it means that those who don't are either mistaken or making excuses for cycling like a dick.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Why have cycling levels stayed so low in this country at a time of high unemployment and record fuel prices?

Cycling numbers in Dublin have only gone and doubled in the past eight years.

Qualitymark

Another piece The Irish Times could run would be one on bicycle theft - research done for yiz:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226324&page=74

(boards.ie's Stolen Bikes Thread, now on its 74th page), and some interview subjects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXF6H_ahDhc

("Undercover police arrest criminals")

With all the scolding of cyclists about going through red lights, cycling on pavements, etc, it might be useful to formally go after bicycle thieves and break this profitable industry that introduces youngsters to crime.

enas

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's the attempted justification that gets me, not the 'offence'

Point taken.

However, in defence of the "it's because it's safer" justification, I was making the point that, even if not explicitly stated, I believe/suspect that what people really mean to say is "it feels safer", which I argued is similar to saying "it is more convenient", as they both eventually amount to "it is more comfortable". I think this is how you should interpret the justification, which then becomes more understandable, in my opinion.

TinyExplosions

enas wrote: »

Point taken.

However, in defence of the "it's because it's safer" justification, I was making the point that, even if not explicitly stated, I believe/suspect that what people really mean to say is "it feels safer", which I argued is similar to saying "it is more convenient", as they both eventually amount to "it is more comfortable". I think this is how you should interpret the justification, which then becomes more understandable, in my opinion.

And that's grand, we have a differing of opinion on that! I think the whole debate is really about this -we have one side arguing the (in my view correct) interpretation of safety as being something that stops you from coming to harm, and the other point which is using it to mean lazy (or convenient, comfortable, whatever you want to use -use any of em, but don't use safety!)

Tombo2001

HivemindXX wrote: »

It's very simple really. You don't get to arbitrarily decide which rules you follow and which you don't. That's the crux of the matter. That is the attitude which I find despicable.

In addition I'm willing to bet that 'safe' route is also more convenient for you. If you wanted to turn right at the T junction I'm guessing you'd be willing to brave the 'maelstrom' and suddenly safety wouldn't be such a big deal.

As I said before that junction is completely unremarkable. I suspect that the city is packed with situations in which you feel you are entitled to break the rules 'for safety reasons'.

Look......this internet thing of answering a question that wasnt asked.....

I never claimed that I am entitled to break the rules. Why are you refuting my right to so when I never said I could.

My point is that the one way street is safer. Please tell me why its not? There is no other debate here. Each time you've referenced me, you are referencing points that I did not make! What sort of discussion is that?

TinyExplosions

Tombo2001 wrote: »

My point is that the one way street is safer. Please tell me why its not? There is no other debate here. Each time you've referenced me, you are referencing points that I did not make! What sort of discussion is that?

How is using a one way street the wrong way safer than using the road in the correct manner? It's been said a number of times that the piece of road you refer to is perfectly safe as it is, so there's no need to use an alternate route.

Jawgap

MrCreosote wrote: »

The sooner traffic lights are made into yield signs for cyclists in Ireland the better. It's quicker, safer, better for both motorists and cyclists and would just formalise what a lot of cyclists already do (like the mandatory cycle lane law)

God noooooo........

Irish people are congenitally incapable of applying some of the much famed 'cop on' to such situations. there would be absolute mayhem and significant numbers of people injured. Unless laws are clear, unambiguous and precise they will not work in Ireland because we have no concept of the 'common good.'

Such rules in other countries work well for one very important reason - they are in countries other than Ireland. Try the same things here and most people's sense of self-righteous entitlement will kick in leading to chaos.

Tombo2001

TinyExplosions wrote: »

How is using a one way street the wrong way safer than using the road in the correct manner?

I've already explained it.....Feel free to read my previous posts.

And please note I did not say that cycling one way streets is safer.

I said that in this particular instance it is safer.

Jawgap

Qualitymark wrote: »

Another piece The Irish Times could run would be one on bicycle theft - research done for yiz:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226324&page=74

(boards.ie's Stolen Bikes Thread, now on its 74th page), and some interview subjects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXF6H_ahDhc

("Undercover police arrest criminals")

With all the scolding of cyclists about going through red lights, cycling on pavements, etc, it might be useful to formally go after bicycle thieves and break this profitable industry that introduces youngsters to crime.

An article discussing the best way to lock and secure bikes would be better for all concerned - it's a totally preventable crime.

TinyExplosions

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I've already explained it.....Feel free to read my previous posts.

The only post in which you 'explain' it is:

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The point I made is that it is safer to drive cycle down an empty street, with no traffic on it, even if its going the wrong way down a one way street, than it is to cycle down a busy street with lots of traffic on it that is swerving from lane to lane and leaving no room for cyclists...

This is where we disagree using the roads as they are designed to be used is (in my opinion) safer than using them incorrectly. Therefore it is safer to use the correct side of the road rather than the wrong way up a one way street. There is nothing dangerous about the road you are avoiding, so you are really just using 'safety' as another word for 'convenient'.

galwaycyclist

TinyExplosions wrote: »

How is using a one way street the wrong way safer than using the road in the correct manner? It's been said a number of times that the piece of road you refer to is perfectly safe as it is, so there's no need to use an alternate route.

One reason is because of the way the parked cars are facing. So if cycling contraflow on a one-way street the parked cars will be facing you. So if someone opens a door in front of you, the tendency is for you to glance off it and push it back in. You are also more likely to stay on the bike.

If the cars are facing the direction you are travelling, and a door is opened, the tendency is to project you out into the traffic lane and also take you off the bike.

Raam

The arguments for breaking laws for safer cycling are just laughable. Keep going chaps, it's great lunchtime reading.

galwaycyclist

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I've already explained it.....Feel free to read my previous posts.

And please note I did not say that cycling one way streets is safer.

I said that in this particular instance it is safer.

Yes there is a curious amount of straw men around this thread isnt there? You might think some people are losing the argument and getting increasingly desperate.

Tombo2001

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The only post in which you 'explain' it is:



This is where we disagree using the roads as they are designed to be used is (in my opinion) safer than using them incorrectly. Therefore it is safer to use the correct side of the road rather than the wrong way up a one way street. There is nothing dangerous about the road you are avoiding, so you are really just using 'safety' as another word for 'convenient'.

Condescending quotation marks on the way I 'explain' it.......a classy touch.

I also wrote this

"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?"


and this.....


"The point I made is that it is safer to drive cycle down an empty street, with no traffic on it, even if its going the wrong way down a one way street, than it is to cycle down a busy street with lots of traffic on it that is swerving from lane to lane and leaving no room for cyclists (which as you know.

In terms of traffic, I cycled via the t-junction this morning. Traffic was backed to the traffic lights at St Peters Road, which as you know is 150 yards back from the t-junction. At the point where the traffic divided into two lanes close to the t-junction, a truck moved into the left lane in front of me without indicating and proceeded to drive on to the footpath so that he could straighten the truck on the lane. I can not see how this is a safer environment than being on a parralel road 50 yards away that has not a single car driving on it.

Rather than describing my attitude as despicable, you might just explain why my viewpoint is wrong."



I've described a situation I faced this morning which was distinctly less safe that cycling down an empty one way street.

Would I describe it explicitly as dangerous? Well I certainly wouldnt want a 12 year old in that situation.

Convenience doesnt come into the equation because the busier route has one turn, while the quieter has two, therefore there is no particular time saving.

It is safer, thats the only reason to take it.

Ole Rodrigo

It was pointed out quite well on another thread that the rules of the road are there, essentially, so that road users know what to expect from other road users.

Going against traffic on a one way road is against the rules and therefore against road users expectations, and this makes it - along with all other behaviour that is against the rules - inherently unsafe.

If it were deemed to be an improvement in traffic infrastructure and subsequently allowed under the rules, then it could well be a safe option.

TinyExplosions

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Condescending quotation marks on the way I 'explain' it.......a classy touch.

Your second quote above was the one I quoted, your first wasn't an explanation, it was the initial post from which you were asked to justify your stance.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a matter of opinion -I simply do not see it as safer to use Munster Street, it's more convenient for sure, and easier, but not safer.

dogsears

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If the cars are facing the direction you are travelling, and a door is opened, the tendency is to project you out into the traffic lane and also take you off the bike.

Huh? Do car doors open inwards or something if the cars are facing away from the direction you're travelling?

Lumen

ror_74 wrote: »

It was pointed out quite well on another thread that the rules of the road are there, essentially, so that road users know what to expect from other road users.

Going against traffic on a one way road is against the rules and therefore against road users expectations, and this makes it - along with all other behaviour that is against the rules - inherently unsafe.

It is, however, somewhat of a circular argument.

If we can't change things for fear of surprising people, then we won't ever change anything.

galwaycyclist

TinyExplosions wrote: »

The only post in which you 'explain' it is:



This is where we disagree using the roads as they are designed to be used is (in my opinion) safer than using them incorrectly. Therefore it is safer to use the correct side of the road rather than the wrong way up a one way street. There is nothing dangerous about the road you are avoiding, so you are really just using 'safety' as another word for 'convenient'.

Most roads were designed to be two-way. Making them one-way for cars is usually a traffic management issue rather than a design issue. Contraflow cycling usually involves cycling on the correct side of the road.

Nothing "dangerous" is your subjective, and so far unsupported, opinion - can you provide facts to support your opinion? e.g. Volume of traffic, speed of traffic, number of turning vehicles encountered, number of HGVs or commercial vehicles using the road and so on?

galwaycyclist

ror_74 wrote: »

It was pointed out quite well on another thread that the rules of the road are there, essentially, so that road users know what to expect from other road users.

Going against traffic on a one way road is against the rules and therefore against road users expectations, and this makes it - along with all other behaviour that is against the rules - inherently unsafe.

If it were deemed to be an improvement in traffic infrastructure and subsequently allowed under the rules, then it could well be a safe option.

In many cases one-way streets were two-way long before they were one-way, so anybody using them expected to meet cyclists coming from both directions. In many cases, cyclists just ignored the restriction being applied and continued to use the road as they always have.

So users should still expect to meet cyclists coming both ways because they are meeting cyclists coming both ways.

So in many cases, restoring two-way use (as a legal concept) is adapting the rules to match the expectations that most users should still have.

manwithaplan

Tombo2001 wrote: »

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.

It is safe if you wait behind traffic and don't try to "squeeze through". You have essentially made a argument based on speed/convenience (which is absolutely fine of course!).

Tombo2001

manwithaplan wrote: »

It is safe if you wait behind traffic and don't try to "squeeze through". You have essentially made a argument based on speed/convenience (which is absolutely fine of course!).

Wrong, I described a situation this morning where a truck switched into the left lane without indicating, driving up on the footpath in the process.

That forced me to brake suddenly. If I had held my line, and assumed that the driver was following the rules.....that would have been me goosed. The point here being that the assumption you are making is that at a busy junction, if I hold my line in the traffic I will be ok......not if the drivers around me behave like that.

On a road with zero traffic, i dont have to worry about bad driver behaviour.

On a road with lots of traffic, I do have to worry about it. Ergo it is less safe.

Chips Lovell

Justifying going the wrong way down a one way street simply because you can do this in some instances in other countries is somewhat tenuous, because in one instance you have motorists who are expecting cyclists coming the other way and in the other they aren't.

Changing some one way streets to allow contra-flow cycling, would add some convenience, but it's hardly a priority. As it is, a bike is by far the quickest way to get around Dublin.

Either way, it's beside the point. You don't need to go the wrong way down a one way street on safety grounds. It's possible to cycle safely in Dublin without having to resort to this.

I get a bit weary with assertions that such laws should be freely ignored by cyclists as it smacks of the sense of entitlement that gives the rest of us a bad name.

Ole Rodrigo

Lumen wrote: »

It is, however, somewhat of a circular argument.

If we can't change things for fear of surprising people, then we won't ever change anything.

Yes, but the question then is do you affect change by breaking the law until it is changed or do you do it by other means. It is slightly pedantic I know, but I do agree its not unsafe to cycle in Dublin, or any other urban center in Ireland within the current ROTR. I would, however, sympathize with anyone starting off - and this is part of the point I think galwaycyclist and tombo are making - because it takes experience to do it comfortably and to get some enjoyment out if it. Getting to that stage could well be a barrier to more people on the uptake, although there has been such an increase, there is room for more.

With all of the cyclist bashing that been going on, is it not more important than ever to stick to the rules?

galwaycyclist

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I get a bit weary with assertions that such laws should be freely ignored by cyclists as it smacks of the sense of entitlement that gives the rest of us a bad name.

You see here you go again with more of these straw man arguments. Point out anywhere in this thread where anyone has said that any laws should be "freely ignored".

If you were to have the courtesy to stick to the arguments presented I suspect it would be less weary for everybody.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

I did when the cycle track was in a usable condition, many of them are filled with potholes, obstacles, broken glass, pedestrians. This is one of the few times in this thread where safety is arguable.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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.

Based on the posts you are referring to I could think the same of yourself in this regard.

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.

At NS level it was 3 in my school in a school of 400. At secondary school level it was zero. In the countryside, it is llikely that you will have little or none of the students within a close distance of the school.
Outside of a city or town it is unlikely to have anything over 0.5% cycling to school.

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.

Why are they risky, surely the issue is driver education and observance rather than infrastructure?

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.

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./QUOTE]

HivemindXX wrote: »

As far as I know if the lights fail to change you are allowed to proceed with caution.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I have never come across any legislation to this effect.

Stalled signal, according to a member of AGS, it can be treated as a Stop sign, and you may proceed with caution. There was a thread on here about it before but I can't find it. I think the only issue was the question of timing, how long is a light red before it can be considered stalled. For closure in your local area, contact your local superintendent and ask what is the relevant legislation or what he would consider appropriate action as you would not want to break the law.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

One reason is because of the way the parked cars are facing. So if cycling contraflow on a one-way street the parked cars will be facing you. So if someone opens a door in front of you, the tendency is for you to glance off it and push it back in. You are also more likely to stay on the bike.

If the cars are facing the direction you are travelling, and a door is opened, the tendency is to project you out into the traffic lane and also take you off the bike.

So what you are saying is that cyclists should not travel on two way streets? Personally, I think you should just cycle out of the range of doors where possible.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In many cases one-way streets were two-way long before they were one-way, so anybody using them expected to meet cyclists coming from both directions. In many cases, cyclists just ignored the restriction being applied and continued to use the road as they always have.

Really, not in areas I have been cycling with one way streets.

enas

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I get a bit weary with assertions that such laws should be freely ignored by cyclists as it smacks of the sense of entitlement that gives the rest of us a bad name.

It's funny but not cycling on a cycle lane is still felt by many a motorist as exactly the same. And it didn't help that the law was against cyclists in this instance too until fairly recently.

Still, I don't justify breaking the law at your convenience. But I do claim indeed that the law should be changed to exempt cyclists from one-way restrictions. Mentioning other countries is merely a way to add weight to my argument, to show that it's something perfectly reasonable and that I'm not an old ranter who's lost it. And while, again, I don't condone rule breaking, I do understand those cyclists who are not patient enough to wait until the law is thus changed. Now tell me, you never cycled outside cycle lanes until the repeal of the law did you?

galwaycyclist

ror_74 wrote: »

With all of the cyclist bashing that been going on, is it not more important than ever to stick to the rules?

Yes this is a fair point but the problem is that in Ireland our officialdom does not do the whole "adapt the rules to changing situation" thing very well.

The analogy I draw is with the law on contraception in this country. The state jumped through hoops trying to keep it illegal. Some campaigners tried to get the law/situation changed against trenchant opposition from established interests - there is a clear parallel here with the one-way street situation.

In the meantime the rest of the population made up their own minds and just got on with life - finding Irish solutions to an Irish problem. Eventually the situation got so ludicrous that the state had to give in. Asking the general population to wait 20-30 years for the Irish state to catch up with the rest of the world just wasn't going to happen - life is way too short.