Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclist assaulted

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Japanese culture including road culture is fundamentally different to ours. They also have a police force that upholds the law.
    And where the riot cops do an especially nasty form of aikido training. True story.

    But I digress...


  • Options
    #123
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    And where the riot cops do an especially nasty form of aikido training. True story.

    But I digress...

    Please digress! Fascinating!


  • Options
    #124
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,769 ✭✭✭cython


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It's not compulsory to use cycle tracks anymore. It was until a few years back. 1997-2014, I think.

    2012, actually ;)

    My, how time flies :D


  • Options
    #125
    jive
    Registered Users Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    The whole Dublin cyclist vs. road traffic and now vs. pedestrians is so tiresome.

    There's moron cyclists, there's moron drivers and there's moron pedestrians. These 3 types of morons are exacerbated by a poor infrastructure. Everyone needs to hold themselves accountable as the Guards don't and cannot enforce everything.

    Cycling on the path wouldn't work over here and I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise. The shared path/cycle lanes are bad enough as it is.


  • Options
    #126
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,754 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Please digress! Fascinating!

    Totally off topic, but a book to add to your list so; https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198051.Angry_White_Pyjamas Very entertaining.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    smacl wrote: »
    Totally off topic, but a book to add to your list so; https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/198051.Angry_White_Pyjamas Very entertaining.

    No further off it than me -- that was exactly the source I had in mind! Great book, especially (though not exclusively) if you've at least dabbled in the ki-projecting arts...


  • Options
    #128
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,311 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    jive wrote: »
    These 3 types of morons
    *pedant hat on*

    One type of moron. Three types of getting around.


  • Options
    #129
    jive
    Registered Users Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    endacl wrote: »
    *pedant hat on*

    One type of moron. Three types of getting around.

    I think you'll find there's precisely 4 types of getting around; you're forgetting the monorail.

    I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook and by gum it put them on the map.


  • Options
    #130
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,327 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I hear those things are awfully loud?


  • Options
    #131
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 16,319 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Pedestrians just end up walking in the cycle path section then.

    The Phoenix Park has paths separated for pedestrians and cyclists and it's a joke.

    That's pretty much it, gormless pedestrians and cyclists in the parts of the path they shouldn't be using. Add gormless dog walkers into the mix and you have a perfect clusterf**k.

    The shared paths lead some to believe they can cycle on any old footpath regardless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    whisky_galore wrote: »
    The shared paths lead some to believe they can cycle on any old footpath regardless.

    Some of the cycle paths nearby are just a strip of paint on a footpath. The cycle path that leads onto Clanwilliam Terrace is slightly fancier in that there is a different surface, but it is on the footpath and leads directly onto the pedestrian only footpath on Clanwilliam Terrace. Bear in mind that the cycle path on Clanwilliam Terrace just ends (and starts) in the middle of the path, it doesn't join the road.

    Across the other side of Pearse St, there are mixed paths (bike and pedestrian with no strip of paint to separate) in the Grand Canal Basin area.

    You can see where people would feel they could just keep going on the path due to the muddled inconsistent design of the cycle tracks.


  • Options
    #133
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    check_six wrote: »
    Some of the cycle paths nearby are just a strip of paint on a footpath. The cycle path that leads onto Clanwilliam Terrace is slightly fancier in that there is a different surface, but it is on the footpath and leads directly onto the pedestrian only footpath on Clanwilliam Terrace. Bear in mind that the cycle path on Clanwilliam Terrace just ends (and starts) in the middle of the path, it doesn't join the road.

    Across the other side of Pearse St, there are mixed paths (bike and pedestrian with no strip of paint to separate) in the Grand Canal Basin area.

    You can see where people would feel they could just keep going on the path due to the muddled inconsistent design of the cycle tracks.

    I am quite clear that in Galway it was intended (by the council/designers) that cyclists were intended to infer that they were supposed to cycle on the footpath on some roads. Sean Mulvoy road is one example.


  • Options
    #134
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I am quite clear that in Galway it was intended (by the council/designers) that cyclists were intended to infer that they were supposed to cycle on the footpath on some roads. Sean Mulvoy road is one example.

    Yeah, you can see on some designs that it almost looks like they would rather not put in the proper signage and let people work it out for themselves. If there is an absence of signs, the designers can't be accused of doing them wrong!


  • Options
    #135
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    check_six wrote: »
    Yeah, you can see on some designs that it almost looks like they would rather not put in the proper signage and let people work it out for themselves. If there is an absence of signs, the designers can't be accused of doing them wrong!

    Galway doesn't really do signs. Except on the roundabouts, which they've very sensibly named and signed so you can tell which is which.


  • Options
    #136
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    Given all that, is there ANY rationale for cyclists using the footpath in front of St Stephen's Green (the road by the shopping centre ?)

    It is bad enough usually but the LUAS works are making the pavement even narrower and the idiots still hurtle down not caring about pedestrians.

    And a genuine question - road signs and markings apply to cyclists also ? I've lost count of the number of times a cyclist cuts up Frade St past the NO ENTRY sign and goes right towards Mercer St - despite there being a "NO RIGHT TURN" sign.


  • Options
    #137
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Given all that, is there ANY rationale for cyclists using the footpath in front of St Stephen's Green (the road by the shopping centre ?)

    Dar liom, nope.
    And a genuine question - road signs and markings apply to cyclists also ? I've lost count of the number of times a cyclist cuts up Frade St past the NO ENTRY sign and goes right towards Mercer St - despite there being a "NO RIGHT TURN" sign.

    Frade Street? Fade Street? Stupid on a busy day, but if the street's empty… (shrug)


  • Options
    #138
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    One way streets in the city centre are designed to control motorised traffic flow. They were brought in because the motor vehicles would clog them up (or roads nearby) if they were permitted to travel in both directions.

    There are lots of streets where a contraflow bike lane could be provided. I think it's France (maybe Belgium) where they permit this with the addition of a simple sign at one end of the street and no extra road markings.

    There are streets where a lot of against the flow ('salmon') cycling takes place currently. These locations could be examined for suitability for contraflow bike tracks as they could be considered 'desire routes' already.


  • Options
    #139
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    check_six wrote: »
    One way streets in the city centre are designed to control motorised traffic flow. They were brought in because the motor vehicles would clog them up (or roads nearby) if they were permitted to travel in both directions.

    There are lots of streets where a contraflow bike lane could be provided. I think it's France (maybe Belgium) where they permit this with the addition of a simple sign at one end of the street and no extra road markings.

    There are streets where a lot of against the flow ('salmon') cycling takes place currently. These locations could be examined for suitability for contraflow bike tracks as they could be considered 'desire routes' already.

    COULD being the operative word.

    Currently that behaviour is against the law and should be prosecuted as a motorist would be.


  • Options
    #140
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    Chuchote wrote: »
    Dar liom, nope.



    Frade Street? Fade Street? Stupid on a busy day, but if the street's empty… (shrug)

    Typical. I'll break the law if no one sees it.


  • Options
    #141
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    COULD being the operative word.

    Currently that behaviour is against the law and should be prosecuted as a motorist would be.

    Think about why it is prohibited. Why is it against the law to drive a car the wrong way down a one way street?

    One way streets are used to control traffic flow. Specifically, motorised traffic flow. A single car can block a road on its own and cause chaos. There was a video posted the other day of someone trying to drive the wrong way down a one way street to get to a parking spot. There was two lanes of one way traffic but the car managed to clog up the whole road for several minutes. Not great for traffic flow.

    Think about the same scenario with a bike travelling the wrong way on a one way street. There is no interruption to traffic flow. We can see this as there are already lots of cyclists using 'desire routes' against one way traffic flow. The only issue is that it is illegal due to current road design. It is possible to redesign the road markings to make it legal and perhaps that is what should be done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,538 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Typical. I'll break the law if no one sees it.

    In the real world, the rules are made for heavy , large, high momentum vehicles such as cars.
    Slow moving, light bikes with very little momentum vehicles don't get considered , on a road like fade street it's perfectly within reason that bikes should be allowed go contra flow .
    Indeed in many large cities and countries they allow and encourage cyclists to go contra flow on one way streets. In many times it's the safer option as you are facing the oncoming vehicles and can see what is happening.


  • Options
    #143
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,538 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    COULD being the operative word.

    Currently that behaviour is against the law and should be prosecuted as a motorist would be.
    What is the intention of the law? To prosecute to provide a safe environment.


  • Options
    #144
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Typical. I'll break the law if no one sees it.

    Well, no. I'll take the sensible option if it inconveniences no one, in this case. Not that I would, generally — I'd usually hop off and walk the bike down. But there are occasions when that causes more inconvenience to pedestrians than going down a short one-way street.


  • Options
    #145
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    COULD being the operative word.

    Currently that behaviour is against the law and should be prosecuted as a motorist would be.

    Mind you, I think such cyclist misbehaviour is being prosecuted just as much as such motorist behaviour is being prosecuted - not at all...


  • Options
    #146
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    Round my neck of the woods, there are a lot of South American cyclists who regularly ride against traffic. In a Dublin context it looks lazy and irresponsible. In Sao Paulo its actively encouraged as a safe way to cycle in an urban area.


  • Options
    #147
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Typical. I'll break the law if no one sees it.

    How often do you break the speed limit in your car?


  • Options
    #148
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    How often do you break the speed limit in your car?

    Never, I don't drive.


  • Options
    #149
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,769 ✭✭✭cython


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Never, I don't drive.

    And how often do you cross a road within 15 metres of a zebra pedestrian crossing without using said crossing? Or cross a road while faced with a red pedestrian lamp? Do you per chance happen to be a bit more lax about it when there is no traffic on the road? What you describe is not unique to cyclists, so trying to pass it off as "typical" of a group like that (as opposed to simply the majority of people, likely including yourself) is patently ridiculous.


  • Options
    #150
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    cython wrote: »
    And how often do you cross a road within 15 metres of a zebra pedestrian crossing without using said crossing? Or cross a road while faced with a red pedestrian lamp? Do you per chance happen to be a bit more lax about it when there is no traffic on the road? What you describe is not unique to cyclists, so trying to pass it off as "typical" of a group like that (as opposed to simply the majority of people, likely including yourself) is patently ridiculous.

    I'm sure this won't be believed, but I never cross when not at a pedestrian crossing and the light is with me.

    The simple fact is that I've seen too many accidents caused by idiots breaking the rules that if I am unlucky enough to be hit by a car/cycle breaking a law - at least I'll be in the right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,538 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    TheExile1878 wrote: »

    The simple fact is that I've seen too many accidents caused by idiots breaking the rules that if I am unlucky enough to be hit by a car/cycle breaking a law - at least I'll be in the right.

    You'll be amazed to know that women are involved in more accidents because they obey the rules as oppose to men who asses the situation and make judgement calls on what safe and what's not safe


Advertisement