Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

Firedance

Chuchote wrote: »

I don't care whether drivers think I'm a legitimate part of road traffic; I don't want them able to get at me. The safest infrastructure for cycling is separated from, and protected from, motor traffic.

I'm not suggesting they should't be protected in some way, but they should be on the road, not the footpath, footpaths are for feet

josip

Chuchote wrote: »

Was he reversing? Mostly if you're driving forward you can see a child, but if you're reversing you can't, which is why it's illegal to back out of a driveway onto a road.

No driving forwards, but he was elderly and slow to react even after he'd seen us.

It was one of these driveways and as you can see the driver has a sufficient field of view on emerging from the drive to see if they need to stop for any pedestrians. He forgot that there might also be cyclists however.

magicbastarder

ah; you were on *his* driveway.

Chuchote

AltAccount wrote: »

I'd feel safer if I had the choice of the cycle track or the road, if I knew that drivers were educated to see things from the cyclist's perspective, and if I knew that there was even a remote possibility of a driver being prosecuted for passing too close or otherwise endangering cyclists.

Educating drivers has consistently failed to make cycling safer, whereas separated and protected cycleways are used in all cities where cycling is mainstream.

Footpaths in Ireland are often wider than necessary for the amount of use they get. It would be simple to take a slice off the path and a slice off the road and make a broad cycleway protected by kerbs; kerbing would also stop drivers from racing out, because they would fear bumping their cars' chassis.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

Educating drivers has consistently failed to make cycling safer, whereas separated and protected cycleways are used in all cities where cycling is mainstream.

Footpaths in Ireland are often wider than necessary for the amount of use they get. It would be simple to take a slice off the path and a slice off the road and make a broad cycleway protected by kerbs; kerbing would also stop drivers from racing out, because they would fear bumping their cars' chassis.

And I have to disagree, the safest roads in all my years of cycling are the ones where they are so wide in one lane to accomodate both cyclists, motorists and safe overtaking distance. Unfortunately i often see on these roads, the pedestrian path reduced to nowt to accomodate a completely unnecessary bike lane that means, wheelchairs, prams, two friends talking cannot be accomodated without being in the cycle path. All the cycle path does is invite ire from a small group of motorists who are not inconvenienced anyway.

I have grown balls the size of watermelons over the years of cycling in Dublin which are as hard as mild steel. Maleable but you would not punch them full belt without alot of padding.

This maybe a medical condition, and something I should have seen too but the truth off the matter is, cycling in Ireland is generally safe. It sometimes feels unsafe but is generally not so. Sharing space with pedestrians, even if they are technically seperated by a white line is not something we should ever strive for. We need to strive for a culture where the time and the destination, for all travellers is not the focus, but the present and where you are.

My parents always told me that your better to arrive late than not arrive at all. Good advice, it is also good advice to arrive late rather than take a detour in the back of a Garda car on the way to the Joy.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

I have grown balls the size of watermelons over the years of cycling in Dublin which are as hard as mild steel.

i'm surprised you're still able to cycle.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm surprised you're still able to cycle.

Severe lower back pain from it, but since we can't ask for medical advice, and I cannot afford it, I am where I am.

patrickbrophy18

Firedance wrote: »

No I think the other way round is better. We're a legitimate part of the traffic and should be treated as such, we're not second class road users and putting cycle tracks along side footpaths just gives motorists the impression that we belong off the road (as 07L already said).

A lot of people are using a stance similar to racial or class discrimination which is a tad overly dramatic. The fact of the matter is that inherently slower modes of transport (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists) are being mixed with faster ones (i.e. cars, buses and trucks) with the exception of the select few very fit cyclists who can keep up with faster ones. As a pedestrian, I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of a cyclist just as I wouldn't get in the way of a motorist of I were a cyclist especially when there is infrastructure there which allows each mode to act independently of the other. Some posters on this site have or may refer to this attitude as embracing a commuting "hierarchy:rolleyes:". However, I would think of it more as being a considerate and observant road user.

Having said that, where there are hidden dangers such as driveways or diversions as with Church Road, I would assess the traffic to my right (i.e. the main road) and enter it where space permits in advance of these obstacles. However, this should only be a temporary strategic move. As with my previous comment, I think drastic measures will need to be taken along Church Road and by extension, *Wyattville Road so that it is more intuitive, convenient and most importantly, safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I think metal speed bumps, speed ramps or a combination of both (where driveways are particularly long) need to installed on driveway entrances facing these roads. Perhaps, a metal speed bump just inside the gates would bring the drivers to stopping speed.

*: I know plans are underway on a small chunk of this road between Loughlinstown Drive and Wyattville Road (Eastbound).

Chuchote

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A lot of people are using a stance similar to racial or class discrimination which is a tad overly dramatic.

Actually, it's not, and I'll explain why this is so.

The terminology being used by people arousing hate for cyclists is very similar, for instance, to that used by the famous Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), which fuelled the racial hatred that resulted in the mass killings of Tutsi people by Hutu. This station used terminology that gave permission for hatred.

The 'dog-whistle politics' terminology uses coded terms that are understood by those who share an ideology. To take Travellers as an example, if you start talking about violent rural burglaries and I grin and say "It's our culture, boss", we then share the attitude that Travellers are violent, cruel and feral. The 'dog-whistle' term means that like dogs who can hear a whistle inaudible to most humans, we share notions that can be transmitted in a coded way.

RTLM used dog-whistle methods, referring to Tutsi people as 'cockroaches', and talking about the need to 'cut down the tall trees' (Tutsis being traditionally, though not really, taller and paler than Hutus). When the massacre began, Tutsis fled their homes - with transistor radios pressed to their ears…

As this (very interesting) article says:

https://toriborealis.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/the-role-of-rtlm-in-the-rwandan-genocide-how-observational-learning-moral-disengagement-individuation-and-dehumanization-all-contribute/

As one Hutu man hears the radio spout out hate about the Tutsi “cockroaches” and watches his friends develop more severe feelings and behavior towards the Tutsi’s, his ideals alter – his models are showing him alternate ways of behaving and he feels that he can, too, behave in this way.

Now, I'm not suggesting that drivers are going to start packing machetes and getting out and chopping cyclists. But the terminology I'm seeing used about cyclists - 'vermin', 'they all go through red lights', 'no respect for the law', 'they should be put in their place', 'the Lycra brigade', etc - is typical of dog-whistle language: it makes people into an identifiable hate group that it's all right to harm - it 'would serve them right'.

This has to be stopped right now, not only for the sake of cyclists, but for the sake of the society we live in. We want our society to be warm and cooperative and mutually helpful.

If it splits off into groups that justify hating other groups - something that's already happening in relation to 'welfare', Travellers, 'scrotes', 'scumbags', etc - we will greatly harm our society.

endagibson

Firedance wrote: »

putting cycle tracks along side footpaths just gives motorists the impression that we belong off the road

Agreed and that's exactly why I didn't suggest that.

Chuchote

Once again, I post the Vimeo piece on how Vancouver's changed its roads to make them cyclable, and how its cyclist numbers have increased exponentially:
https://vimeo.com/183441272

If cyclists are seen in large numbers cycling in cycleways, [sane] motorists don't resent them at the times when they have to use the roads.

2RockMountain

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A lot of people are using a stance similar to racial or class discrimination which is a tad overly dramatic. The fact of the matter is that inherently slower modes of transport (i.e. pedestrians and cyclists) are being mixed with faster ones (i.e. cars, buses and trucks) with the exception of the select few very fit cyclists who can keep up with faster ones.

Except for the fact that in urban traffic, most cyclists are faster than most motorists most of the time.

And what Churchote said.

magicbastarder

it comes back to how you cater for road users. most posters on this forum would be experienced and happy to mix with traffic (in a sensible way!) and would probably progress faster in that context.
but then there's the less experienced/confident cyclists - my wife being a case in point - who are very wary about mixing with traffic, and who would benefit from segregated cycle lanes; as they're not fast cyclists to begin with, the possible loss of speed with dedicated infrastructure will not be an issue. so there's a circle to be squared there.

Firedance

endagibson wrote: »

Agreed and that's exactly why I didn't suggest that.

My apologies, I assumed when you stated 'widen the footpaths' you meant to include a cycle path alongside it.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

but then there's the less experienced/confident cyclists - my wife being a case in point - who are very wary about mixing with traffic, and who would benefit from segregated cycle lanes; as they're not fast cyclists to begin with, the possible loss of speed with dedicated infrastructure will not be an issue. so there's a circle to be squared there.

That's exactly it. The fast movers, whether in full cycling gear or not, will probably make the best of whatever is available. It's convincing others, who don't cycle fast and don't want to be changing clothes, that cycling is the missing step between walking somewhere and getting into the car or onto the bus to make the journey.

The videos from Copenhagen and the Netherlands of regular people in regular clothes just ambling along on bikes should be our target.

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote: »

it comes back to how you cater for road users. most posters on this forum would be experienced and happy to mix with traffic (in a sensible way!) and would probably progress faster in that context.
but then there's the less experienced/confident cyclists - my wife being a case in point - who are very wary about mixing with traffic, and who would benefit from segregated cycle lanes; as they're not fast cyclists to begin with, the possible loss of speed with dedicated infrastructure will not be an issue. so there's a circle to be squared there.

Once you are used to charging into the death-arena that is Dublin bike commuting it is easy to forget that not everyone has the disposition for it. I know several people who like the idea of cycling but find it far too intimidating to contemplate. Segregated cycle paths would fix that.

2RockMountain

Zillah wrote: »

Once you are used to charging into the death-arena that is Dublin bike commuting it is easy to forget that not everyone has the disposition for it. I know several people who like the idea of cycling but find it far too intimidating to contemplate.

You'd have to wonder how much the RSA (hi-vis for everyone) and George Hook (let's kill cyclists) and other media contribute to this intimidation.

Fian

Chuchote wrote: »

The terminology being used by people arousing hate for cyclists is very similar, for instance, to that used by the famous Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), which fuelled the racial hatred that resulted in the mass killings of Tutsi people by Hutu. This station used terminology that gave permission for hatred.

The 'dog-whistle politics' terminology uses coded terms that are understood by those who share an ideology. To take Travellers as an example, if you start talking about violent rural burglaries and I grin and say "It's our culture, boss", we then share the attitude that Travellers are violent, cruel and feral. The 'dog-whistle' term means that like dogs who can hear a whistle inaudible to most humans, we share notions that can be transmitted in a coded way.

RTLM used dog-whistle methods, referring to Tutsi people as 'cockroaches', and talking about the need to 'cut down the tall trees' (Tutsis being traditionally, though not really, taller and paler than Hutus). When the massacre began, Tutsis fled their homes - with transistor radios pressed to their ears…

As this (very interesting) article says:

https://toriborealis.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/the-role-of-rtlm-in-the-rwandan-genocide-how-observational-learning-moral-disengagement-individuation-and-dehumanization-all-contribute/



Now, I'm not suggesting that drivers are going to start packing machetes and getting out and chopping cyclists. But the terminology I'm seeing used about cyclists - 'vermin', 'they all go through red lights', 'no respect for the law', 'they should be put in their place', 'the Lycra brigade', etc - is typical of dog-whistle language: it makes people into an identifiable hate group that it's all right to harm - it 'would serve them right'.

This has to be stopped right now, not only for the sake of cyclists, but for the sake of the society we live in. We want our society to be warm and cooperative and mutually helpful.

If it splits off into groups that justify hating other groups - something that's already happening in relation to 'welfare', Travellers, 'scrotes', 'scumbags', etc - we will greatly harm our society.

I just wanted to thank you for this post, interesting and informative.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

Once you are used to charging into the death-arena that is Dublin bike commuting

let's not lose the run of ourselves. thousands of people commute on bikes in dublin on a daily basis. not to belittle those who have died, but calling dublin a 'death arena' is needless and inaccurate.

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

calling dublin a 'death arena' is needless and inaccurate.

Speak for yourself. I take my morning commute through the park very seriously.

patrickbrophy18

While this thread is about someone who acted recklessly in making a case against cyclists, I will go off topic for a bit to address the various aspects of the following response to my previous post:

1. Chuchote wrote: »

   Actually, it's not, and I'll explain why this is so.

   
   I guess the definition of dramatic varies widely from one person to the other. In any case, I do understand your view point.

2. Chuchote wrote: »

   The terminology being used by people arousing hate for cyclists is very similar, for instance, to that used by the famous Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), which fuelled the racial hatred that resulted in the mass killings of Tutsi people by Hutu. This station used terminology that gave permission for hatred.

   
   I myself, also find it deplorable to use the misbehavior of the few to brand, condemn, punish or (in the above example) kill the many. In fact, reading that paragraph alone makes me sick to my stomach due to the extremely barbaric nature of the hatred you allude to.
   
   On a similar basis, I don't like how the current Minister For Health is using the misconduct of some drinkers to make a case for minimum price per unit of alcohol. Anyway, that's way off topic.

3. Chuchote wrote: »

   The 'dog-whistle politics' terminology uses coded terms that are understood by those who share an ideology. To take Travellers as an example, if you start talking about violent rural burglaries and I grin and say "It's our culture, boss", we then share the attitude that Travellers are violent, cruel and feral. The 'dog-whistle' term means that like dogs who can hear a whistle inaudible to most humans, we share notions that can be transmitted in a coded way.

   
   There have been many programs (mainly from RTE, TV3 and occasionally Sky TV) which produce footage of Gypsy weddings, animal fighting contests and street combat between rival gangs. A lot of these documentaries do indeed have a biased agenda which does look like an attempt to stir-up hatred towards Travelers and other nomadic groups. In reality, these incidents are just the exceptions and as such, are the minority.

4. Chuchote wrote: »

   RTLM used dog-whistle methods, referring to Tutsi people as 'cockroaches', and talking about the need to 'cut down the tall trees' (Tutsis being traditionally, though not really, taller and paler than Hutus). When the massacre began, Tutsis fled their homes - with transistor radios pressed to their ears…
   
   As this (very interesting) article says:
   
   https://toriborealis.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/the-role-of-rtlm-in-the-rwandan-genocide-how-observational-learning-moral-disengagement-individuation-and-dehumanization-all-contribute/

   
   So, in short, 800000 to a million people dead because of some radio broadcast or series thereof by the RTLM?
   
   That is absolutely disgusting. Although it was very much indirect, I don't know how the staff or presenters behind the RTLM can live with themselves with that much bloodshed on their hands as a result of inciting hatred towards the Tutsis.

5. Chuchote wrote: »

   Now, I'm not suggesting that drivers are going to start packing machetes and getting out and chopping cyclists. But the terminology I'm seeing used about cyclists - 'vermin', 'they all go through red lights', 'no respect for the law', 'they should be put in their place', 'the Lycra brigade', etc - is typical of dog-whistle language: it makes people into an identifiable hate group that it's all right to harm - it 'would serve them right'.

   
   People on either this thread or similar may attest to the fact that I too, have used the phrase in bold red typeface. However, when I have, I am only referring to a small minority of cyclists as many motorists are guilty of this too. Nevertheless, other phrases you have mentioned in normal bold typeface are common over-exaggerations maid mainly by ignorant motorists. Some similar phrases or variations of them were used by George Hook in the video linked earlier in the thread which was amusing yet, scary. I say that it was amusing because of how ridiculous the claims were and scary because he was serious about them.

6. Chuchote wrote: »

   This has to be stopped right now, not only for the sake of cyclists, but for the sake of the society we live in. We want our society to be warm and cooperative and mutually helpful.

   
   And I agree with you. In general, I think there needs to be better accountability across the entire spectrum of road users so that specific groups aren't being singled out. That way, we can build a cooperative and mutually helpful environment. Agreed?

7. Chuchote wrote: »

   If it splits off into groups that justify hating other groups - something that's already happening in relation to 'welfare', Travellers, 'scrotes', 'scumbags', etc - we will greatly harm our society.

   
   I understand your concern for 'welfare' and Travelers as a small portion of each group are used to rant about, condemn or belittle them all. Having said that, 'scrotes' and 'scumbags' are words referring to individuals (not groups) who loose respect from their peers due to either questionable, unsavory or illegal conduct.

In short, I do agree with most of what you say as I share many of the same sentiments.

Now, back to the topic at hand......:D!

Grassey

Perhaps I should contact the paper and ask for an article on outrage at drivers using cycle lanes. Every car in front and behind me this morning sitting in a mandatory lane... Its not like space was at a premium. Ffs even a 2 year old can stay within the lines!

magicbastarder

Actually, that'd be an excellent campaign. Hand out colouring books at junctions to motorists unable to stay in lane.

AlreadyHome

Grassey wrote: »

Perhaps I should contact the paper and ask for an article on outrage at drivers using cycle lanes. Every car in front and behind me this morning sitting in a mandatory lane... Its not like space was at a premium. Ffs even a 2 year old can stay within the lines!

I've always found this phenomenon fascinating. Does this style of driving display a complete disregard for cycle lanes, or is this just sheer, mindblowing ignorance? You don't see cars doing the same thing on that other white line in the middle of the road...

Borderfox

AlreadyHome wrote: »

I've always found this phenomenon fascinating. Does this style of driving display a complete disregard for cycle lanes, or is this just sheer, mindblowing ignorance? You don't see cars doing the same thing on that other white line in the middle of the road...

I see multiple cars with no regard for any lines on the road everyday, only out walking yesterday and even a Zebra crossing wouldn't stop them with three drivers waving at me as they drove through

NiallBoo

Grassey wrote: »

Perhaps I should contact the paper and ask for an article on outrage at drivers using cycle lanes. Every car in front and behind me this morning sitting in a mandatory lane... Its not like space was at a premium. Ffs even a 2 year old can stay within the lines!

That would be a mistake as it suggests that the two things are on a par.

I.e. you're comparing one thing that's illegal to one thing that isn't and accidentally implying that either both are illegal or neither are...or that they're both in some sort of murky grey area - indo reporters will happily take on any of that rather than checking the facts.

NiallBoo

AlreadyHome wrote: »

I've always found this phenomenon fascinating. Does this style of driving display a complete disregard for cycle lanes, or is this just sheer, mindblowing ignorance? You don't see cars doing the same thing on that other white line in the middle of the road...

In fairness you see that pretty often.

I'm convinced that the biggest issue with road users is simply failing to look around them* and take in (and comprehend) the information that's there.

"I didn't see..." = i didn't look
"Ah sure it's just..." = i looked but failed to think about how my actions would effect others.
"Would ya' ever fùck off" = I'm clearly in the wrong.

*us, me...nobody's perfect

Chuchote

Saw two pieces of blinding ignorance last night in Ranelagh. One was a large, burly man cycling very fast on the pavement (came straight at me), then bumping straight out into the traffic without looking. Had a helmet on to protect himself, deffo, but no respect for other people. The other was a big jeep-like car parked in the cycle lane outside the Ranelagh Arts Centre from around 6pm to 6.45 (didn't check the times but that was roughly when I was there). It kind of looks like a parking bay, but all the driver had to do was walk back four paces to the sign that says "Cycling Lane 07:00-17:00".

Dermot Illogical

Chuchote wrote: »

Saw two pieces of blinding ignorance last night in Ranelagh. One was a large, burly man cycling very fast on the pavement (came straight at me), then bumping straight out into the traffic without looking. Had a helmet on to protect himself, deffo, but no respect for other people. The other was a big jeep-like car parked in the cycle lane outside the Ranelagh Arts Centre from around 6pm to 6.45 (didn't check the times but that was roughly when I was there). It kind of looks like a parking bay, but all the driver had to do was walk back four paces to the sign that says "Cycling Lane 07:00-17:00".

17:00 is 5pm

josip

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

17:00 is 5pm

Very logical Dermot.