cycling on a pedestrian bridge

Chips Lovell

The quays are grand. I can't remember the last time there was a serious injury or fatality there.

tipparetops

Similar thing happened to me about a month ago.
I was walking on a river path about a month ago, it was only wide enough for 2 people to walk past each other.
A cyclist came flying along, saw me and just kept going. All I could do was brace myself and put my shoulder into him.
He went flying off the bike into the hedge.

I have seen him once since on that path, he got off the bicycle when we met.

buffalo

ebbsy wrote: »

East link bridge has a sign on it saying no cyclists.

Some people still have problems reading.

So cyclists aren't allowed on pedestrian bridges, nor are they allowed on vehicular bridges?

The signs on the Eastlink are advisory, cyclists are only requested to dismount.

Sheldons Brain

check_six wrote: »

Well there is a cycle track on the path on both sides of the bridge separated from the footpath by a strip of paint.

I think you've answered this yourself.

I can't see anything wrong with slowly wheeling across the bridge, but I'd say that, technically, you're supposed to dismount, though in some cycle track designs they have "Cyclists Dismount" signs all over the place, and they are absent here.

That would be because it isn't a cycle path and cyclists shouldn't be there at all so why put a sign telling them what to do.

Obviously, cycling like a scuttering gobsheen as described in the OP is strongly discouraged.

Quite. But less furious lawbreaking isn't right either.

buffalo

psinno wrote: »

You must have a tough time going through life deliberately misunderstanding people.

Forgive me - how do the cars get onto the footpath without driving on them? And where in Irish law does it say it's legal to drive onto the footpath for the purposes of parking there?

Samaris

Hah, he deserved all he got. It'd be nice to think your cyclist friend is reading the forum and feels like an idiot for it now.

Since you asked for anyone else's stories of cyclists behaving badly, well, here's one of my own, and I was the cyclist in this case. Mortally ashamed of it now, but I'll tell you, I got a hell of a fright when it happened.

Bad weather, it had been lashing down rain and my grip wasn't amazing. I had a bit too much speed, but I was aware of it and was just moving my grip to the brakes to start slowing for the T junction ahead. Some schoolkids were on the path by me, and out of my peripheral vision, I saw one of them dart suddenly towards me, with a yell, trying to startle me. Well, it succeeded. I knew there were primary schools around and what flitted through my head was that a small child had suddenly dashed in front of me. I yanked to the right away from them, rather than braking, because I knew braking wouldn't stop me hitting them if I did, and missed braking altogether, shooting out into the T junction right in front of a car, and scared the driver absolutely ****less, I reckon. She braked (fortunately, it was a steep hill up, so she wasn't moving fast), I shot in front of her and ended up on the other side of the road, shaking a bit from my near miss, whereupon she yelled at me, entirely justifiably! I was still processing what had happened and couldn't manage more than an incoherent gesture towards the kids, who presumably hadn't expected things to get quite that dramatic. Anyway, all was fine, bar everyone involved getting a fright.

In the very unlikely chance, Driver, that you're on boards, I'm really sorry about that!

Squatman

zerks wrote: »

You can fit the contents of a bottle of wine in one of those cups.Just sayin'.

Yes, its not unusual for cups to hold liquid, in fact some would argue, that this is their only purpose

seamus

ebbsy wrote: »

East link bridge has a sign on it saying no cyclists.

Some people still have problems reading.

That sign has no legal basis. It's a suggestion, not a requirement.

Fat Christy

Cyclists, the root of all evil. Whether I'm driving or walking, those b@stards just get on my nerves. When I see a cyclist my blood pressure starts rising.

Why in the name of god can you not obey a fcuking red light for fcuk sake!! Fcuk!!

I have encountered cnutish pedestrians and cnutish drivers but nothing, literally nothing can top cnutish cyclists. I seem to encounter cycling fcuks with a complete disregard for other road users more often than I encounter dickhead motorists and pedestrians. I am convinced the majority of cyclists are colour blind. The light is fcuking red, fcuking red you kant, red means stop.

When I am at a pedestrian crossing and the green light man comes on and I see a cyclist coming I will stand in the way of the cyclist until the light starts flashing orange. I will not move until the walking green man stops flashing. And I'm not even sorry!

Every time I see a cyclist stop at a red light and actually obey the rules of the road, I want to hug him/her. Go you, you know your colours, fair play!!

Red - Stop
Green - Go
Orange - GO, GO, GO, GO, You can make it.

Jeesh.

Timberrrrrrrr

endacl wrote: »

Of course it's pointless. The OP came on to vent, because his venty thread wasn't entertained on the cycling forum.

Or because it was closed after one reply.

desertcircus

Title is misleading. It's not about someone cycling on a pedestrian bridge, it's about someone being a complete twat on a pedestrian bridge.

There are signs specifying that cycling isn't allowed on the bridge, but nobody pays attention to them, because trying to ban bikes on a stepless footbridge that joins two bike lanes is unusually stupid even in a city where traffic planners design traffic light systems to stay on red unless a car is waiting at the junction, thereby requiring cyclists to break the red light.

tipparetops

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Or because it was closed after one reply.

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

desertcircus

tipparetops wrote: »

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

No, because that debate has been done to death and they're sick of it. Although feel free to keep telling yourself that you know more about cycling than cyclists do.

Chips Lovell

tipparetops wrote: »

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

Correct. We're terribly sore losers.

Timberrrrrrrr

desertcircus wrote: »

Title is misleading. It's not about someone cycling on a pedestrian bridge, it's about someone being a complete twat on a pedestrian bridge.

There are signs specifying that cycling isn't allowed on the bridge, but nobody pays attention to them, because trying to ban bikes on a stepless footbridge that joins two bike lanes is unusually stupid even in a city where traffic planners design traffic light systems to stay on red unless a car is waiting at the junction, thereby requiring cyclists to break the red light.

Except that it was a cyclist on a bike therefore the thread title isn't misleading.

ebbsy

tipparetops wrote: »

Similar thing happened to me about a month ago.
I was walking on a river path about a month ago, it was only wide enough for 2 people to walk past each other.
A cyclist came flying along, saw me and just kept going. All I could do was brace myself and put my shoulder into him.
He went flying off the bike into the hedge.

I have seen him once since on that path, he got off the bicycle when we met.

Typical Tipp fouling, id say the ref was'nt looking either.

tipparetops

desertcircus wrote: »

No, because that debate has been done to death and they're sick of it. Although feel free to keep telling yourself that you know more about cycling than cyclists do.

Prime Example of the standard cycling mod answer,
Cannot answer the question so deflect.

Canis Lupus

tipparetops wrote: »

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

OooooOOOOOooooooh

desertcircus

tipparetops wrote: »

Prime Example of the standard cycling mod answer,
Cannot answer the question so deflect.

I think you'll find that your original post didn't actually contain a question. But by all means continue thinking you've won whatever imaginary debate is happening in your head right now.

Fat Christy

tipparetops wrote: »

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

To be honest, people that cycle on a regular basis and do so competitively tend to be more considerate of other road users (Just an observation, no I don't have a link, piss off). It's the clowns cycling to work that have little or no experience of cycling and think they have a get out of jail free card when it comes to obeying the rules of the road that annoy me.

If you cycle and you obey the rules of the road, you are my friend.

Samaris

Mind you, in my time of being a cyclist, I have seen far more malevolent actions taken -towards- a cyclist than by them. Some do shoot red lights, that's true, and they shouldn't. I don't myself for a variety of reasons, top being it's illegal and inconsiderate! I use a heavier basic bike, not a racing bike, so even if I was inclined to try it, I don't tend to have the speed to risk trying to get through a junction before cars are crossing.

But the worst one was, and this is something that happened to me countless times on the Tramore-Waterford road, cycling in and out of work (sorry FatChristy, I am one of those!), was %^&*(ing LORRIES. I'm not a fast cyclist, see bike comment above, so I tend to be tight in to the left so people can pass me easily. But I don't know how many times a lorry has passed me as tightly as he can, up to and including swerving in a bit towards me, so I get caught in his backdraft. It makes the bike try to pull in towards the lorry, and it's fairly terrifying. And then they HONK, as if their damned road-Titanic isn't loud enough already, just to add to the scare. I don't know what the hell they're trying to prove, but some day, some asshole driver that likes doing that will get an unprepared cyclist who will lose control just enough to get sucked in against the lorry, and then it will all end in tears.

And a squashed cyclist.

tipparetops

desertcircus wrote: »

I think you'll find that your original post didn't actually contain a question. But by all means continue thinking you've won whatever imaginary debate is happening in your head right now.

thank you, i will.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No ban and fair enough to the mod if that's not allowed then am ok with that. As I say i am a cyclist, pedestrian and a driver and see dickish behaviour from all three but what pissed me off this morning most was the fact the guy thought everyone else was to blame but him.

Just out of interest, you say your a cyclist..? Can you show us anywhere in your 6000+ posts where you even remotely reference it...

Seems to me to be some sort of agenda here..

anncoates

But, but, motorists.

desertcircus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Except that it was a cyclist on a bike therefore the thread title isn't misleading.

If exactly the same thing had happened except with a pedestrian who didn't look where he was going, would the thread be about how pedestrians behave, or would it be about that one weirdo who wasn't looking where he was going?

Timberrrrrrrr

tipparetops wrote: »

the mods on cycling will only allow debate on certain subjects as long as they and their cronies are winning the debate.
Bring up a subject like safety equipment/dangerous cyclists you get a ban.
Why? Because they cannot win that debate.

Actually the mod was very courteous and explained his position.

check_six

ebbsy wrote: »

East link bridge has a sign on it saying no cyclists.
Some people still have problems reading.

buffalo wrote: »

So cyclists aren't allowed on pedestrian bridges, nor are they allowed on vehicular bridges?

The signs on the Eastlink are advisory, cyclists are only requested to dismount.

seamus wrote: »

That sign has no legal basis. It's a suggestion, not a requirement.

I still can't believe that there is a sign there suggesting cyclists should walk over the East Link Bridge. I'd never spotted it before. Although, on the south side of the bridge it is on the wrong side of the road, think it's the same on the north side too.

Sheldons Brain

desertcircus wrote: »

Title is misleading. It's not about someone cycling on a pedestrian bridge, it's about someone being a complete twat on a pedestrian bridge.

There are signs specifying that cycling isn't allowed on the bridge, but nobody pays attention to them, because trying to ban bikes on a stepless footbridge that joins two bike lanes is unusually stupid even in a city where traffic planners design traffic light systems to stay on red unless a car is waiting at the junction, thereby requiring cyclists to break the red light.

This bridge joins two roads, should motorbikes therefore use it? Should they put in steps and hinder wheelchairs etc just to stop hooligans from cycling across the bridge?

If a cyclist wishes to cross the river nobody objects to them wheeling the bike over the bridge, which might add 30 seconds to their journey.



But all we get is the usual, "we will do what we want, fu©k the rest of you".

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

Just out of interest, you say your a cyclist..? Can you show us anywhere in your 6000+ posts where you even remotely reference it...

Seems to me to be some sort of agenda here..

I have mentioned several times that sometimes I drive to work sometimes I get the train and sometimes I cycle. Feel free to search my posts, i'm not doing your homework for you :rolleyes:

buffalo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

But all we get is the usual, "we will do what we want, fu©k the rest of you".

When the bridge was originally planned and designed, it was to have cycle lanes. Only at some point the council or builders omitted the cycle lanes - "we will do what we want, **** the cyclists". So you have an entire infrastructure around the bridge that funnels cyclists toward it, and there's a Dublin Bikes station at the south end.

I normally push my bike across it, but it's understandable why people feel they should cycle over it. Not that it excuses the behaviour of the wanker in the OP.

SpaceTime

There are definitely a few vigilantes with cameras going around the place.

I had a recent incident where I was turning right, across a cycle lane which was completely empty and a pedestrian walked out in front of me, so I had to stop and my rear wheels were still in the cycle lane.

This guy with a camera started yelling my registration number out to himself and hurling abuse at me and banging on the car windows!

So, I rolled down the window and asked why he was hitting my car.

He gave me a tirade of abuse and bad language. My passenger (an old lady) was absolutely horrified and wanted to go to the Gardai about it, but sure what can you do?!

Driving and cycling in an urban area with narrow roads will not result in absolutely perfect rule following at all times. If you can't allow some give and take and adapt to situations as you see them, you're going to have a bad accident.

I also had a recent one where I was walking along the pavement and stepped slightly to my right and heard screeching brakes and "watch where you're going you dopey c**t" yelled at me!

I don't actually mind cyclists going slowly and carefully on the pavement, but you've absolutely no right to be cycling up at pedestrians like that!

Chris_Heilong

Cyclists are a rouge element on our roads that need to be regulated before someone gets killed, will someone please think of the Children.

Timberrrrrrrr

desertcircus wrote: »

If exactly the same thing had happened except with a pedestrian who didn't look where he was going, would the thread be about how pedestrians behave, or would it be about that one weirdo who wasn't looking where he was going?

Well a pedestrian walking fast wouldn't really have the option to injure a small child in a buggy the way a grown man moving fast on a bike would

not yet

Fat Christy wrote: »

To be honest, people that cycle on a regular basis and do so competitively tend to be more considerate of other road users (Just an observation, no I don't have a link, piss off). It's the clowns cycling to work that have little or no experience of cycling and think they have a get out of jail free card when it comes to obeying the rules of the road that annoy me.

If you cycle and you obey the rules of the road, you are my friend.

I'm sure the guys who obey the rules of the road will be only to happy to hear they can be your friend.....

fed up sick and tired

I think the difference between prick cyclists as opposed to prick car drivers or prick pedestrians, or even prick public transport drivers, is the superiority complex of so many cyclists. The bicycle is so right-on, a fashion item, a lifestyle where it was once a utilitarian mode of transport, the clothing is ridiculously expensive and everywhere must therefore become a catwalk.

There is bunch from Nenagh who take the whole width of the road as they go up and around the Birdhill roundabout, and delight in it. Marshals and flashing ambers. Peloton my arse.

Which is not to say that provision for urban cyclists is anything less than a disgrace. But that's a different issue. I admit that I don't use my bike to commute, nor live in an urban area.

not yet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have mentioned several times that sometimes I drive to work sometimes I get the train and sometimes I cycle. Feel free to search my posts, i'm not doing your homework for you :rolleyes:

I see..

What makes you think I have any interest trawling through the rubbish you post..

Timberrrrrrrr

not yet wrote: »

I see..

What makes you think I have any interest trawling through the rubbish you post..

Well you must read everything i post if you can claim you have never seen me mention that I cycle in over 6000 posts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Apathy? Fake outrage?

The guy could have seriously injured 3 people including a small child in a buggy.

You think i should feel sorry for this guy?

Not sorry enough to hold off on the coffee. Priorities clearly in the right order.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

question for both motorists and cyclists here,

on the N11 between stillorgan and UCD there are a few turns, over the last few weeks a few signs went up on the road at this junction in particular

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.303329,-6.208263,3a,75y,320.91h,80.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spi5yzNoNn8djxwglAVPtUw!2e0

the sign shows the junction layout and it says to cars turning left from the main road to give way to cyclists continuing straight.

surely this cannot be correct as cyclists are not supposed to overtake on the inside anyway ? what is the official standing on this ?

also these signs are cardboard cut outs anyway so have no official grounds. (they also get spun around by wind so are no longer visible)

Stillhouette

An open letter on the Internet will surely tell that nasty cyclist what's what.

Sheldons Brain

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

I think the difference between prick cyclists as opposed to prick car drivers or prick pedestrians, or even prick public transport drivers, is the superiority complex of so many cyclists. The bicycle is so right-on, a fashion item, a lifestyle where it was once a utilitarian mode of transport, the clothing is ridiculously expensive and everywhere must therefore become a catwalk.

There is a sense of righteousness emanating from cyclists, that they are superior and the end justifies the means, that would shame a 1950s Bishop.

Timberrrrrrrr

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not sorry enough to hold off on the coffee. Priorities clearly in the right order.

So you're more bothered that i was relatively uninjured and went back for another coffee? :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble reading these posts in the glare from my immaculate, oiled legs.

Plasid

yawn...

Prick on a bike, prick in a car, bus, taxi, on foot, with a dog, a child... so many pricks its a sausage fest...

These rant posts serve nothing only a handful of personal agendas against the most relevant prick from above. The only reason we have this behaviour, day in and day out is a complete lack of any enforcement so we continue with our Irish "sure its only the craic" way and there will be a new prick tomorrow...

Look at the new camera watching the cars breaking the red over the luas line, maybe that will have an effect on car users at that single junction but the other pricks need enforcement too.

Sheldons Brain

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

question for both motorists and cyclists here,

on the N11 between stillorgan and UCD there are a few turns, over the last few weeks a few signs went up on the road at this junction in particular

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.303329,-6.208263,3a,75y,320.91h,80.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spi5yzNoNn8djxwglAVPtUw!2e0

the sign shows the junction layout and it says to cars turning left from the main road to give way to cyclists continuing straight.

surely this cannot be correct as cyclists are not supposed to overtake on the inside anyway ? what is the official standing on this ?

also these signs are cardboard cut outs anyway so have no official grounds. (they also get spun around by wind so are no longer visible)

In general you cannot turn across a lane, but in this case many other cases you have the ridiculous situation where a straight ahead cycle lane is to the left of a left tuning lane!!!

check_six

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

question for both motorists and cyclists here,

on the N11 between stillorgan and UCD there are a few turns, over the last few weeks a few signs went up on the road at this junction in particular

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.303329,-6.208263,3a,75y,320.91h,80.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1spi5yzNoNn8djxwglAVPtUw!2e0

the sign shows the junction layout and it says to cars turning left from the main road to give way to cyclists continuing straight.

surely this cannot be correct as cyclists are not supposed to overtake on the inside anyway ? what is the official standing on this ?

also these signs are cardboard cut outs anyway so have no official grounds. (they also get spun around by wind so are no longer visible)

The signs are probably just a reminder of the regular rules of the road. If you are crossing another lane you must give way to traffic already in that lane. This is just standard practice.

However, you can see where the confusion would arise at this junction. The cycle track layout is particularly bad as the cyclist approaching the junction gets hidden behind a bus stop just before they are dumped into the edge of the left turning lane. This means that the cyclist is even more invisible than usual coming to the most dangerous part of any cycle track, a road junction.

Some road engineers will fudge the design by placing a yield sign for cyclists continuing straight on, but this is just perverse. Imagine the same set up for a car where the car has to yield to other vehicles that may or may not cut across its path. In this junction they try to give the bike normal priority, but the fact they hide the cyclist at the critical moment I would guess has caused a lot of near misses here.

My own instinct is to avoid the cycle track here altogether as it is too dangerous, cardboard sign or not. Also, based on your question, it may not be clear in some car driver's heads who has priority here based on the poor layout. I blame the road engineers for the inconsistent and contradictory layouts all over this stretch of road.

ThinkProgress

I agree many d*cks on every mode of transport.

Pound for pound however, there seem to be more of them riding bikes for some reason?

Some of them shout at you for entering a cycle lane, even if you literally HAVE to in order to go in the direction you need to go! lol

Just my experience!

Gwynplaine

Clothesline, Hulk Hogan style.

Grandpa Hassan

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I agree many d*cks on every mode of transport.

Pound for pound however, there seem to be more of them riding bikes for some reason?

Some of them shout at you for entering a cycle lane, even if you literally HAVE to in order to go in the direction you need to go! lol

Just my experience!

I disagree that they are bigger d*cks than other road users. I think that the bad behaviour of drivers (parking up on the kerb, using mobile phones which driving, accelerating to make the red and then running it) is so ingrained that it has become normal and not noticed any more. And that surely is the ultimate arrogance.....that a driver no longer even feels the need to defend the actions, as they are perceived as normal acceptable behaviour. Therefore cyclists stand out more.

I mean, I am a cyclist and I commute on my bike, and I know that I have on occasion done all of those things whilst driving. If anyone on here slagging cyclists say that they have not, then they are lying.

(I guarantee that someone comes on now saying that they never do any of those things. But they are lying)

--LOS--

For the posters who find themselves generalising all cyclists, would you watch this video, it's an Australian video but still very relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Td8zLMWU4Y