Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

Regardless of injury and fatality stats apportioning blame on a particular group the bottom line is that all road users should be abiding by the current laws and uphold a level of courtesy to others on the road.

Motorists:
Stop speeding
Stop drink driving
Stop being on the phone while driving
etc.


It really should be quite easy.

Can I be so bold as to ask your own views (and more importantly) your own practice in relation to the advice above? Do you ever/often exceed the urban speed limit? Do you have take a call on the road or check a text message while stopped at the lights?

MJohnston

Steady on here, Roadhawk has at least 4 other posts to reply to before yours

prinzeugen

MJohnston wrote: »

First of all, there's no rule or law that says that a cyclist has to allow vehicles to pass them.

There is.. Its the same law that applies to anyone obstructing the flow of traffic. Suggest you read the Road Traffic Act..

galwaycyclist

prinzeugen wrote: »

There is.. Its the same law that applies to anyone obstructing the flow of traffic. Suggest you read the Road Traffic Act..

Suggest that you read the roads act. This contains a duty on road users to avoid injury and damage to property - including personal property.

Nobody is required to endanger themselves or their property to save someone else a few seconds getting to the next red traffic light.

Edit: Here I dug it out for you.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/67/enacted/en/html#sec67

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

It's nothing to do with that at all, you're making things up. I was simply restating the fact (the exact same one that you yourself stated), that cyclists are allowed to take any position within a traffic lane. I then went on to explain why a cyclist might want to adopt a position in the middle of a lane - nothing to do with "because i can", but "because I need to be safe in a very dangerous environment". Attributing it to selfishness is just bizarre.



It's pretty obvious to be honest - if this cyclist maintains his position at the side of the road, the driver behind him will continue to try and force past him, pushing him off the street, that much is clear when he finally does try and pass (at 17 seconds in). So, if the cyclist moves into the centre of the road, he has ensured that he is safer because the driver must use the outer traffic lane to properly and safely overtake him. The idea that a driver would then try and ram the bike off the road from behind is so unlikely and extreme that it's not really worth taking into account in most cases. Unfortunately this apparent member of the Gardai was one of those extreme cases.



You are displaying a dubious understanding of statistics. Vulnerability has no relationship to the statistics of road deaths. Vulnerability might in fact ACCOUNT FOR the low amount of road deaths, because it causes cyclists to take extreme amounts of care while cycling (conversely, a low amount of vulnerability causes drivers to take extreme risks, and causes more road deaths). If you don't think a soft, squishy cyclist is more vulnerable on a road than a metal wrapped driver, I don't know what to tell you, because you've gone insane.



Sorry, but this is classic victim blaming.



There are no lights on at all until after the driver attempts to accelerate up the arse of the cyclist. What you're seeing looks more like the automatic hazard warning lights coming on at 25 seconds in due to extreme braking (a feature built into most modern cars), as they're orange/yellow, and far from an emergency light. Regardless, they aren't on at all at the beginning.



It seems like you wonder that too much, rather than wondering why it is that cyclists have to resort to filming the antics of drivers.

I understand your point regarding lane position from the approach that if you feel a driver doesn't see you its best to make sure that he does. This cultures the same quality that you can label as awareness. Many feel that the only way to raise awareness and thus safety is to have more cyclists on the road...but on the other hand if there are segregated cycle lanes this kind of defeats the purpose.

Its not that obvious to me looking at the video that the cyclist was simply maintaining lane position. Yes the cyclist looks over his right shoulder whilst in a modest lane position only to find the car attempting to squeeze by however at this point the cyclist moves further to the middle of the lane and looks down at the distance between the car and him making sure that there is not enough room to pass whilst compromising his own safety. The car retracts and the driver becomes extremely irate and then the cyclist is fully in the center of the lane. Completely forced, no doubt about it.

I take you point on stats-it was worth a try though. Just for the record cyclists are ripped...not squishy

The lights that came on are emergency lights. They oscillate from left to right and are in the inside of the lens where as the indicator is on the outside of the lens. They can be triggered when pressing the horn...maybe he pressed it hoping for sound?

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Very interesting, and very unusual. I've checked a Garda squad car registration, and it does come up on motorcheck.ie

It might be a ministerial car or some undercover unit vehicle of some sort? Still odd though

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

It might be a ministerial car or some undercover unit vehicle of some sort? Still odd though

Might be, but I'm not aware of any provision in law for Gardai to drive unregistered vehicles or 'ghost plates'. Most Ministers own their own cars now, with only the Taoiseach, Min Justice, A/G and (maybe) Taniaste getting state cars - very odd.

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Can I be so bold as to ask your own views (and more importantly) your own practice in relation to the advice above? Do you ever/often exceed the urban speed limit? Do you have take a call on the road or check a text message while stopped at the lights?

That was more of an "ideal scenario" comment. I have daily interaction with many topics raised in this thread but my exact practice is not relevant. I dont usually break the urban speed limit although it is terribly annoying and unrealistically slow on some stretches. I have a hands free kit that also shows texts on a heads up display. Pretty neat so i dont need to break the law but dont put me down as a model citizen yet.

RobertFoster

Deedsie wrote: »

Why don't Dublin bus, Coach buses, Emergency vehicles and Taxi operators have dash cams fitted?

If I was a professional driver I would definitely have one installed

Dublin Bus has 9 or 10 cameras (depending on the bus type) on each bus, including a forward facing one (like a dash cam). The footage is used by the company and given to the Gardaí if they request it. I don't think it'd make it to Youtube for the rest of us though.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

I understand your point regarding lane position from the approach that if you feel a driver doesn't see you its best to make sure that he does. This cultures the same quality that you can label as awareness. Many feel that the only way to raise awareness and thus safety is to have more cyclists on the road...but on the other hand if there are segregated cycle lanes this kind of defeats the purpose.

Sorry, but this reads as gibberish!

Its not that obvious to me looking at the video that the cyclist was simply maintaining lane position. Yes the cyclist looks over his right shoulder whilst in a modest lane position only to find the car attempting to squeeze by however at this point the cyclist moves further to the middle of the lane and looks down at the distance between the car and him making sure that there is not enough room to pass whilst compromising his own safety. The car retracts and the driver becomes extremely irate and then the cyclist is fully in the center of the lane. Completely forced, no doubt about it.

I didn't say that the cyclist maintained his lane position, you didn't actually read my post - "if this cyclist maintains his position at the side of the road, the driver behind him will continue to try and force past him, pushing him off the street, that much is clear when he finally does try and pass (at 17 seconds in). So, if the cyclist moves into the centre of the road, he has ensured that he is safer because the driver must use the outer traffic lane to properly and safely overtake him."

So, no, you're wrong to say he's compromising his safety in general (of course, in this specific case, he was because the driver was a nutjob who then tried to ram him from behind!)

I take you point on stats-it was worth a try though. Just for the record cyclists are ripped...not squishy

Trust me, under the wheels of an 'irate driver', we're very squishy indeed. And I'm very far from ripped, unfortunately.

The lights that came on are emergency lights. They oscillate from left to right and are in the inside of the lens where as the indicator is on the outside of the lens. They can be triggered when pressing the horn...maybe he pressed it hoping for sound?

Again, point was that they weren't on at the beginning, the lights didn't come on until AFTER the driver had tried his 'ramming' procedure.

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

That was more of an "ideal scenario" comment. I have daily interaction with many topics raised in this thread but my exact practice is not relevant. I dont usually break the urban speed limit although it is terribly annoying and unrealistically slow on some stretches. I have a hands free kit that also shows texts on a heads up display. Pretty neat so i dont need to break the law but dont put me down as a model citizen yet.

Sure, I'm not a model citizen either. But you get my point, I'm sure - which is the hypocrisy of drivers who frequently break the speed limit or worse complaining about cyclists to jump red lights.

Banjoxed

prinzeugen wrote: »

There is.. Its the same law that applies to anyone obstructing the flow of traffic. Suggest you read the Road Traffic Act..

The classic case is the tractor driver who caused a 7km tailback. The charge was obstructing traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126

I would be surprised if one or two cyclists controlling the traffic lane would be done likewise. Apart from the practicality of any "ban" cyclists are rarely blocking the road long enough to cause such a massive tailback...

Carawaystick

But in this case, the cars in the non bus lane are holding up people, not the cyclist

magicbastarder

Banjoxed wrote: »

The classic case is the tractor driver who caused a 7km tailback. The charge was obstructing traffic.

i call bollocks on this - i.e. the claim about the size of the tailback.
a 7km tailback with 80-100 vehicles in it implies one vehicle every 80m. at 20km/h?
just looking out my window, i'm watching cars drive past at about 50kph, and there's maybe 3 car lengths between them, so maybe 20m per car.

magicbastarder

actually, i do have a vague memory of this, that the garda in question says he travelled 7km between arriving at the back to reaching the front of the queue, which was taken as gospel that this meant the queue was 7km long. and this is the standard of logic being applied in the courts.

cdebru

Banjoxed wrote: »

The classic case is the tractor driver who caused a 7km tailback. The charge was obstructing traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126

I would be surprised if one or two cyclists controlling the traffic lane would be done likewise. Apart from the practicality of any "ban" cyclists are rarely blocking the road long enough to cause such a massive tailback...

The most important 3 words in that article are Judge Mary Devins, enough said.

prinzeugen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Suggest that you read the roads act. This contains a duty on road users to avoid injury and damage to property - including personal property.

Nobody is required to endanger themselves or their property to save someone else a few seconds getting to the next red traffic light.

Edit: Here I dug it out for you.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/67/enacted/en/html#sec67

Maybe you should share that with cyclists that remove wing mirrors from cars and in my case a motorbike.

prinzeugen

Banjoxed wrote: »

The classic case is the tractor driver who caused a 7km tailback. The charge was obstructing traffic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126

I would be surprised if one or two cyclists controlling the traffic lane would be done likewise. Apart from the practicality of any "ban" cyclists are rarely blocking the road long enough to cause such a massive tailback...

Try looking at the tailbacks heading into the mountains from Dublin any sunny evening..

Rockbrook is always a good one. 30+ vehicles stuck behind 2 cyclists going at walking pace up the hill in the middle of the road.

devnull

The fact that people are still talking about this topic 15 pages longer shows you that MOL once again is master of free publicity by making deliberately controversial comments

Banjoxed

devnull wrote: »

The fact that people are still talking about this topic 15 pages longer shows you that MOL once again is master of free publicity by making deliberately controversial comments

What next, RyanBike? Blue and Yellow bikes for hire across towns and cities?

2RockMountain

prinzeugen wrote: »

Try looking at the tailbacks heading into the mountains from Dublin any sunny evening..

Rockbrook is always a good one. 30+ vehicles stuck behind 2 cyclists going at walking pace up the hill in the middle of the road.

Take a picture, my friend. If you can produce a picture or video of 30+ vehicles in a tailback going up Rockbrook, I'll pay €100 to a charity of your choice.

MJohnston

prinzeugen wrote: »

Try looking at the tailbacks heading into the mountains from Dublin any sunny evening..

Rockbrook is always a good one. 30+ vehicles stuck behind 2 cyclists going at walking pace up the hill in the middle of the road.

Lazy, sedentary drivers clogging up a lovely bit of countryside with cars, and you're complaining about the 2 cyclists? You're blaming the wrong group

magicbastarder

devnull wrote: »

The fact that people are still talking about this topic 15 pages longer shows you that MOL once again is master of free publicity by making deliberately controversial comments

people seem to be talking about cycling rather than where they're flying to with ryanair, though.

Roadhawk

Spin 103.8 had an interesting piece earlier at about 13.00. No real stats mentioned but the general consensus was that a crack down was needed on cyclists who break the law. A little more traction and the government might actually do something about it. Good coverage though.

ThisRegard

prinzeugen wrote: »

Try looking at the tailbacks heading into the mountains from Dublin any sunny evening..

Rockbrook is always a good one. 30+ vehicles stuck behind 2 cyclists going at walking pace up the hill in the middle of the road.

I was heading north bound into Dublin over the weekend by the time most sensible people are only getting out and about. All the traffic queues travelling to the hotspots were caused by the motorist themselves, Glendalough and Roundwood were nothing but cars, the traffic on the M50 exiting at Bray was backed for a couple of miles, no cyclists causing that, and again backed up a few K around Sandyford, again no cyclists there.

I did encounter many cyclists on my travels on the R roads as one would early on a sunny weekend morning and it must have taken all of what, seconds? to wait for a safe opportunity to overtake.

traprunner

Roadhawk wrote: »

Spin 103.8 had an interesting piece earlier at about 13.00. No real stats mentioned but the general consensus was that a crack down was needed on cyclists who break the law. A little more traction and the government might actually do something about it. Good coverage though.

General consensus....hmm. The general consensus without statistical backing sounds like something some of our elected representatives would come out with to justify a silly proposal. I wonder who provided the general consensus...could it be drivers?

I'm sure the general consensus would be that we need 1000's more gardai to enforce all the laws of the land....maybe that's wishful thinking.

traprunner

prinzeugen wrote: »

Try looking at the tailbacks heading into the mountains from Dublin any sunny evening..

Rockbrook is always a good one. 30+ vehicles stuck behind 2 cyclists going at walking pace up the hill in the middle of the road.

I was up in the mountains on Saturday. I got caught in traffic. No bicycles involved. It was cars. Then I met a number of pedestrians that insisted on standing in the middle of the road. Oh, I can't forget the motorcyclist who was half a second from coming through my front windscreen while he was cutting a blind bend. That would have caused some tailback but still wouldn't have involved an unmotorised bicycle.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Spin 103.8 had an interesting piece earlier at about 13.00. No real stats mentioned but the general consensus was that a crack down was needed on cyclists who break the law. A little more traction and the government might actually do something about it. Good coverage though.

Radio station has piece on 'cracking down on cyclists' - asks people who think there should be a crack down on cyclists to call in, and surprise, surprise, people phone in with that view. This happens all the time - you'll see the red top tabloids do it frequently and get caught out on Twitter - it goes well beyond confirmation bias into something far more sinister.

The reason we have government in general is because the 'consensus view' is typically misinformed, ignorant, or just intentionally wrong. That said, the one correct part of your post surmises that more 'consensus views' and the government would do something. That's about the only way the Irish government operates these days, populist vote chasers.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Radio station has piece on 'cracking down on cyclists' - asks people who think there should be a crack down on cyclists to call in, and surprise, surprise, people phone in with that view. This happens all the time - you'll see the red top tabloids do it frequently and get caught out on Twitter - it goes well beyond confirmation bias into something far more sinister.

The reason we have government in general is because the 'consensus view' is typically misinformed, ignorant, or just intentionally wrong. That said, the one correct part of your post surmises that more 'consensus views' and the government would do something. That's about the only way the Irish government operates these days, populist vote chasers.

I suppose the majority lunch-time audience are more than likely motorist driving somewhere for food but it still highlights whats going on with cyclists around the city. I mean i dont see any homeless or housing issues where i live but im well aware that there is a massive issue with them.

Cyclists have a chance now more than ever to go backwards and reduce motorist on the irish roads. Sure the new minister of transport doesnt even know the extent of his powers. What wally voted for this lad.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-minister-for-transport-promises-significant-dail-reform-734068.html

At least we agree that irish politics is a joke.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

I suppose the majority lunch-time audience are more than likely motorist driving somewhere for food but it still highlights whats going on with cyclists around the city. I mean i dont see any homeless or housing issues where i live but im well aware that there is a massive issue with them.

The majority of ANY audience will be motorists. The last study I can find (From 2014) shows 33% car commuters in Dublin vs 5% cyclists.

And when you take into account how easily people (like yourself, sorry) are led along by anecdote and hearsay, it's not surprising then that the 'general consensus' would end up vilifying cyclists.

We need to get realistic here, let's go back to the original topic, which is MOL's comments. Car drivers get annoyed at cyclists for the perception that everything taken away from the car is being given over to the cyclists. This is utter nonsense, for one thing, the clear intention of every recent policy has been to degrade car access to the benefit of public transport and pedestrians.

College Green plaza? Public Transport and pedestrian focused. Very little cyclist consideration involved.
Quays/O'Connell Bridge plans? Public transport first and foremost. Cyclists given some considerationbecause of the space freed up by the focus on PT.
Liffey Quays greenway? Abandoned because it negatively impacted Public Transport.

Pedestrians *might* have some claim to the idea that they're being sidelined in favour of cyclists, but only because most cycling infrastructure reduces the space available to peds, not to cars.

Secondly, you can get rid of every cyclist in Dublin and those policies will still be there (in fact, they'll be even stronger because traffic will be worse and more former cyclists will be using PT). So the clear outlook is that driving a car into Dublin city centre is going to suck, and it's going to get suckier over the next few years. Absolutely none of this is the fault of the cyclist, so drivers would do well to correctly direct their bitterness.

The other thing to be realistic about is the fact that private cars shouldn't be commuting in Dublin CC. They're inefficient, polluting, dangerous, and take up way too much space for the service they offer. Drivers have to realise this, and when they do, they'll know the real reason that they're being targeted with reduced access has absolutely nothing to do with cyclists.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

The majority of ANY audience will be motorists. The last study I can find (From 2014) shows 33% car commuters in Dublin vs 5% cyclists.

And when you take into account how easily people (like yourself, sorry) are led along by anecdote and hearsay, it's not surprising then that the 'general consensus' would end up vilifying cyclists.

We need to get realistic here, let's go back to the original topic, which is MOL's comments. Car drivers get annoyed at cyclists for the perception that everything taken away from the car is being given over to the cyclists. This is utter nonsense, for one thing, the clear intention of every recent policy has been to degrade car access to the benefit of public transport and pedestrians.

College Green plaza? Public Transport and pedestrian focused. Very little cyclist consideration involved.
Quays/O'Connell Bridge plans? Public transport first and foremost. Cyclists given some considerationbecause of the space freed up by the focus on PT.
Liffey Quays greenway? Abandoned because it negatively impacted Public Transport.

Pedestrians *might* have some claim to the idea that they're being sidelined in favour of cyclists, but only because most cycling infrastructure reduces the space available to peds, not to cars.

Secondly, you can get rid of every cyclist in Dublin and those policies will still be there (in fact, they'll be even stronger because traffic will be worse and more former cyclists will be using PT). So the clear outlook is that driving a car into Dublin city centre is going to suck, and it's going to get suckier over the next few years. Absolutely none of this is the fault of the cyclist, so drivers would do well to correctly direct their bitterness.

The other thing to be realistic about is the fact that private cars shouldn't be commuting in Dublin CC. They're inefficient, polluting, dangerous, and take up way too much space for the service they offer. Drivers have to realise this, and when they do, they'll know the real reason that they're being targeted with reduced access has absolutely nothing to do with cyclists.

We gone completely off topic.

However my vilifying cyclists is not a bias. I used to commute in and out of DCC daily for 2 years. I am aware of the dangers they face and aware of the danger they put themselves in.

MOL is right in my opinion, there is an emphasis on reducing the private car traffic in DCC and a mass promotion on public transport and cycling. Next step will be congestion charges or a city tax. It is a complete backward comment to suggest banning private vehicles from DCC completely. Sounds like something a blow-in would say.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

However my vilifying cyclists is not a bias.

It absolutely is. You have argued in the face of factual evidence with nothing other than opinion.

MOL is right in my opinion, there is an emphasis on reducing the private car traffic in DCC and a mass promotion on public transport and cycling. Next step will be congestion charges or a city tax. It is a complete backward comment to suggest banning private vehicles from DCC completely. Sounds like something a blow-in would say.

And yet, it's something that DCC have consistently been pursuing for years now - is the council full of blow-ins too? Did London fall apart due to Congestion Charges? Nope and nope.

Private car traffic is undeniably and scientifically unsustainable, and only a massively right-wing government out to deliberately sabotage environmental progress would try to promote otherwise. The only progressive view is to reduce reliance upon private vehicles in city centres. And the only real alternative you can offer to that is Public Transport (and by the way this is NOT off-topic, because it's directly addressing MOL's comments).

By the way, the next step isn't congestion charges, it's the College Green plaza and the Batchelor's Walk public transport plan. Private car usage in CC in 5 years time will be deeply unpleasant (as if it isn't already), very much downgraded, and very much intentionally so on both counts.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cyclists have a chance now more than ever to go backwards

and there's you on the other hand complaining cyclists should be safer. how are you meant to pedal backwards unless you've a fixie and a neck like megan from the exorcist?

cdebru

Roadhawk wrote: »

We gone completely off topic.

However my vilifying cyclists is not a bias. I used to commute in and out of DCC daily for 2 years. I am aware of the dangers they face and aware of the danger they put themselves in.

MOL is right in my opinion, there is an emphasis on reducing the private car traffic in DCC and a mass promotion on public transport and cycling. Next step will be congestion charges or a city tax. It is a complete backward comment to suggest banning private vehicles from DCC completely. Sounds like something a blow-in would say.

It is a completely backward step to think everyone can drive their own private car and be able to conveniently park it close to their destination, the city centre simply does not have the space to accommodate everyone who needs to go there in a private car. Only about 20% of the daily commute across the canals are by private car, it makes zero sense to allow them to take up so much space and delay and discommode the vast majority who use public transport, cycle or walk.

Hellrun

We should start with bad drivers first. If there are any bullets left then we can move on to bad cyclists. There are some good ones out there, as much as a surprise as that might come to people.

2RockMountain

MJohnston wrote: »

Private car traffic is undeniably and scientifically unsustainable, and only a massively right-wing government out to deliberately sabotage environmental progress would try to promote otherwise.

Uh-oh!

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

and there's you on the other hand complaining cyclists should be safer. how are you meant to pedal backwards unless you've a fixie and a neck like megan from the exorcist?

If you choose to partially select a quote from my post and change its context of course you are going perceive it as something different...

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Uh-oh!

Great bunch bar one or two

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

If you choose to partially select a quote from my post and change its context of course you are going perceive it as something different...

Ironic...

MJohnston

2RockMountain wrote: »

Uh-oh!

Nah, there's nothing in Ireland that measures up the right-wingedness I'm referring to.

Roadhawk

cdebru wrote: »

It is a completely backward step to think everyone can drive their own private car and be able to conveniently park it close to their destination, the city centre simply does not have the space to accommodate everyone who needs to go there in a private car. Only about 20% of the daily commute across the canals are by private car, it makes zero sense to allow them to take up so much space and delay and discommode the vast majority who use public transport, cycle or walk.

Well is works for other cities like Kansas and Hong Kong. Mainly one way streets with 2-3 lanes wide and hardly ever any traffic. Great cities.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Nah, there's nothing in Ireland that measures up the right-wingedness I'm referring to.

Well i have a fair amount of right winged tendencies im my blood but i will leave that for the politics forum

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well i have a fair amount of right winged tendencies im my blood but i will leave that for the politics forum

Ah, that might explain why you only reply to selective posts then

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well is works for other cities like Kansas and Hong Kong. Mainly one way streets with 2-3 lanes wide and hardly ever any traffic. Great cities.

Interesting choice of exemplar.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=hong+kong+traffic+jam&source=lnms&tbm=isch

MJohnston

Comparing a city like Kansas City - barely 150 years old, built nearly entirely in a grid system, in a country that loves through-city freeways, in a country that is one of the most car-reliant in the world - comparing that to Dublin? So pointless.

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Interesting choice of exemplar.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=hong+kong+traffic+jam&source=lnms&tbm=isch

Thats the beauty of google. It shows you what you search for.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Comparing a city like Kansas City - barely 150 years old, built nearly entirely in a grid system, in a country that loves through-city freeways, in a country that is one of the most car-reliant in the world - comparing that to Dublin? So pointless.

Well i just dont see the value of comparing with a city (London) that is a few years ahead of us but still messed up. Why not aspire to achieve perfection...Even if we have to knock a few buildings to make a better road i think its worth it. I had an idea for a cycle network in Dublin city that would act as a track for cyclists(only) and shelter pedestrians. It is pretty extreme (futuristic) but i think it could work... ill post a bit about it shortly.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well i just dont see the value of comparing with a city (London) that is a few years ahead of us but still messed up. Why not aspire to achieve perfection...Even if we have to knock a few buildings to make a better road i think its worth it. I had an idea for a cycle network in Dublin city that would act as a track for cyclists(only) and shelter pedestrians. It is pretty extreme (futuristic) but i think it could work... ill post a bit about it shortly.

Yeah right, Josiah Bartlet. Meanwhile in the real world, barely anyone wants to 'knock a few buildings to make a better road'. The only better road is the one filled with public transport, no private cars, and happy, healthy pedestrians.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah right, Josiah Bartlet. Meanwhile in the real world, barely anyone wants to 'knock a few buildings to make a better road'. The only better road is the one filled with public transport, no private cars, and happy, healthy pedestrians.

Im not too sure who Josiah Bartlet is but yes not many people want to knock buildings for better infrastructure but ist that exactly what cities are for? scrape out the crap and pave way for better and bigger plans that will assist the economy to thrive?

The road filled with public transport is only benefiting the government unless they reduce fare prices. You dont happen to work for public transport do you?

Roadhawk

Turn Dublin into a free flowing city by removing as many pedestrian crossings as possible. Build tunnels or bridges to reduce stoppage time for motorists. There are many roads that could be changed to one-way systems that would take a higher capacity of cars. Then build a segregated cycle track above pathways (1 story/ 1st floor) that is only for cyclists but would serve as a rain shelter for pedestrians.

PS. i dont do drugs