Journalism and cycling

Moflojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

Even allowing extra time to arrive at work can also be thrown off if a number of cyclists are encountered. There is no problem coming across a cyclist when there are one or two cars behind it because they usually pass fairly quick. However, i find when there are 10, 15 or 20 cars behind a cyclist there is a lot of time lost. Then you consider this happening 3, 4 or 5 times in one commute and not again for another week...there is no active planning that could accommodate that.

Have you contacted a local representative about the lack of adequate cycling infrastructure on your commute to work?

average_runner

07Lapierre wrote: »

When overtaking...the only road user that needs to move is the road user doing the overtaking. if there is insufficient room to move, don't overtake.

Yeah and the only one that will die will be the cyclists.

average_runner

PeadarCo wrote: »

Tell me what particular roads are you talking about? Never seen it happen. On the M50 there's a big issue with people doing the precise opposite of that staying in one of the two overtaking lanes when the left most lane is free.

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

Road to Wexford/Rosslare after Enniscorthy, alot of cars would pull into the hardshoulder if safe. Road Wexford to Waterford also

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

Just move in a bit to encourage a dangerous I-can-just-squeeze-by-this-guy-on-a-bike-now overtake? Or get in the ditch to make it actually safe?

It has to be safe for all. No one is asking a driver or cyclists to put their lives at risk.
But the way some people drive, taking the high ground will only get you under it.

Moflojo

average_runner wrote: »

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

Road to Wexford/Rosslare after Enniscorthy, alot of cars would pull into the hardshoulder if safe. Road Wexford to Waterford also

You're citing anecdotal examples of poor driver behaviour as supporting arguments for...poor driver behaviour. You're on shaky ground here.

Roadhawk

Moflojo wrote: »

Have you contacted a local representative about the lack of adequate cycling infrastructure on your commute to work?

No, I choose the faster and cost effective option. I changed my route.

average_runner

Moflojo wrote: »

You're citing anecdotal examples of poor driver behaviour as supporting arguments for...poor driver behaviour. You're on shaky ground here.

I will admit there is awful lot of poor driver behaviour, look at the increase in road accidents sure.

That's why I am saying we should all try to help each other, improve the situation.

At the end of the day the cyclists has more to lose.

Roadhawk

average_runner wrote: »

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

Unless a truck carrying hay on the M50 goes on fire it not too bad. Its a grand aul road.

Chips Lovell

Or horses. It's a pain in the hoop when there's horses on it.

PeadarCo

average_runner wrote:

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

Is that the problem anecdotal evidence. We both see two different behaviors and there's no way of proving which is more widespread

There's no requirement for anyone to pull over to get out of the way of any other vehicle other that emergency and related services. Its fairly basic rules of the road stuff.

Roadhawk

average_runner wrote: »

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

Road to Wexford/Rosslare after Enniscorthy, alot of cars would pull into the hardshoulder if safe. Road Wexford to Waterford also

Moflojo wrote: »

You're citing anecdotal examples of poor driver behaviour as supporting arguments for...poor driver behaviour. You're on shaky ground here.

@average_runner: sounds like you are going to be asked for evidence...its always about the evidence...

Roadhawk

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Or horses. It's a pain in the hoop when there's horses on it.

woh nelly, I havent had any slow me down

Roadhawk

Anyone fancy a change of topic? Perhaps...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/only-25-of-cyclists-paid-court-imposed-fines-for-traffic-offences-in-2016-1.2946716

blackwhite

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that the problem anecdotal evidence. We both see two different behaviors and there's no way of proving which is more widespread

There's no requirement for anyone to pull over to get out of the way of any other vehicle other that emergency and related services. Its fairly basic rules of the road stuff.

There's a farmer in Mayo who thought like that in the past.........

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

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

It has to be safe for all. No one is asking a driver or cyclists to put their lives at risk.
But the way some people drive, taking the high ground will only get you under it.

So every time I'm driving, I need to pull in once someone comes within a car-length of my rear bumper? What exactly are you suggesting here?

average_runner wrote: »

I will admit there is awful lot of poor driver behaviour, look at the increase in road accidents sure.

That's why I am saying we should all try to help each other, improve the situation.

At the end of the day the cyclists has more to lose.

Am I right in saying that by 'help each other', you mean 'get out of the way' ?

PeadarCo

blackwhite wrote:

There's a farmer in Mayo who thought like that in the past.........

I get your point but in the context of the thread there's nothing law against a person driving slow and holding people up for a short amount of time. I do understand there is a point when it becomes a bit extreme and ridiculous. But what we're talking about here(remember the forum is about cycling) is a relatively small group of cyclists (1-30ish) holding drivers up for a couple of minutes in most cases less. As far as I know there is no law against that.

Obviously common sense comes into it. Which goes both ways I.e just because someone is going slower than you they don't have to get out of the way and if your going to organise a large cycle/running event etc you appropriate advertise beforehand.

ThisRegard

average_runner wrote: »

M50 is a bad road for any comparsion, best to avoid it even at the weekend, you see terrible things on it.

It's fine, and completely safe statistically. If a person has a fear of it and feel the need to avoid it, driving might not be for them.

Moflojo

Roadhawk wrote: »

No, I choose the faster and cost effective option. I changed my route.

That's a myopic approach. The issue still exists and affects many of your fellow citizens; both the people who drive and those who cycle. There are probably plenty of people or groups campaigning for better cycling facilities (that will benefit all road users in the long term) but if everyone takes the attitude of "not my problem" then nothing will ever be done. We're living in a bystander society.

blackwhite

PeadarCo wrote: »

I get your point but in the context of the thread there's nothing law against a person driving slow and holding people up for a short amount of time. I do understand there is a point when it becomes a bit extreme and ridiculous. But what we're talking about here(remember the forum is about cycling) is a relatively small group of cyclists (1-30ish) holding drivers up for a couple of minutes in most cases less. As far as I know there is no law against that.

Obviously common sense comes into it. Which goes both ways I.e just because someone is going slower than you they don't have to get out of the way and if your going to organise a large cycle/running event etc you appropriate advertise beforehand.

I fully agree with the above, but you posted in pretty absolute terms, and I was pointing out the flaw in that.

If a large cycling club was causing a similar tailback over a similar distance/time period by cycling in a large formation (for example, 40 cyclists cycling 20x2 with no spacing between any groups), what would the actions of Gardai be?

EDIT: Not asking as an attack on cycling clubs or anthing - more wondering would they apply the same thinking as in this case

average_runner

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is that the problem anecdotal evidence. We both see two different behaviors and there's no way of proving which is more widespread

There's no requirement for anyone to pull over to get out of the way of any other vehicle other that emergency and related services. Its fairly basic rules of the road stuff.

I agree there is no requirement, but then again the following are my options

1) I move in and let the other car overtake and move on and I get home safe

2) I don't move in, the driver behind me gets frustrated and does a stupid overtaking move and causes a crash which i am involved in.

I go option 1, always like the low risk.

average_runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's fine, and completely safe statistically. If a person has a fear of it and feel the need to avoid it, driving might not be for them.

Never had incident on it, but every weekend there is an accident on it. Just the way people drive on it.

ThisRegard

Look at the volume of cars on it, accidents are not statistical anomalies.

PeadarCo

blackwhite wrote:

I fully agree with the above, but you posted in pretty absolute terms, and I was pointing out the flaw in that.

I get your point.

In terms of the group of cyclists 20 deep I think its a case of where common sense comes into it.

If its a race/ organised leisure/ charity cycle that's been properly organised I.e. had conversations with the relevant local authorities I can't imagine the guards doing anything.

If its a normal club training spin I don't see the point in a group of 40 makes better sense to split into 2/3 groups. Better training for everyone(more time in the wind) and can be more social as you see the same person more regularly in as the group rotates. Its less of an issue when it comes to passing also.

Roadhawk

Moflojo wrote: »

That's a myopic approach. The issue still exists and affects many of your fellow citizens; both the people who drive and those who cycle. There are probably plenty of people or groups campaigning for better cycling facilities (that will benefit all road users in the long term) but if everyone takes the attitude of "not my problem" then nothing will ever be done. We're living in a bystander society.

I would rather see investment in an underground rail system for Dublin before extending Luas lines, extra bus lanes or cycle routes. That opinion isn't going to be heard by many because of the associated costs but it is what's needed. Imagine the amount of road space that would be freed up if Luas lines and bus lanes weren't as plentiful. There could be a serrated dual-cycleway nearly on every road as well as an extra lane for other vehicles.

In relation my my approach, im not waiting around months-years for people to protest for a solution to a problem when I can amend my route and not have a problem. Its not myopic, its reactive.

Roadhawk

blackwhite wrote: »

I fully agree with the above, but you posted in pretty absolute terms, and I was pointing out the flaw in that.

If a large cycling club was causing a similar tailback over a similar distance/time period by cycling in a large formation (for example, 40 cyclists cycling 20x2 with no spacing between any groups), what would the actions of Gardai be?

EDIT: Not asking as an attack on cycling clubs or anthing - more wondering would they apply the same thinking as in this case

I dont think the Gardai could do anything. A group of20x2 would pretty much take up the same space as an articulated truck. Its just tough luck to whoever is behind.

Weepsie

Dublin is tiny. It does not need an underground system.

It would also cause years and years of untold chaos, more so than luas. People need to be encouraged to stop using their cars as much as possible particularly inside the canals.

Private Cars should be the vary last consideration in future planning

blackwhite

Roadhawk wrote: »

I dont think the Gardai could do anything. A group of20x2 would pretty much take up the same space as an articulated truck. Its just tough luck to whoever is behind.

Given they successfully prosecuted a farmer for failing to pull over with a tractor/trailer combo (smaller footprint), then in extreme cicrumstances it would appear that Driving without Due Care/Consideration could be a factor.

As Peadar pointed out, it's unlikey you'd ever encounter a club outing that would ever behave in the manner that the tractor driver did.

07Lapierre

Roadhawk wrote: »

I don't think the Gardai could do anything. A group of 20x2 would pretty much take up the same space as an articulated truck. Its just tough luck to whoever is behind.

If 20 riders turned up for a club spin, Most Cycling clubs would split into two groups of 10.

Roadhawk

Weepsie wrote: »

Dublin is tiny. It does not need an underground system.

Well Dublin is often compared to Amsterdam and Copenhagen in relation to area and population. Both of these Cities being admired by Dublin's future planners. Both cities having a very extensive and well established underground transport system. You cant really think that Dublin does not need an underground.

Weepsie wrote: »

It would also cause years and years of untold chaos, more so than luas. People need to be encouraged to stop using their cars as much as possible particularly inside the canals.

There would be chaos but must of it being underground. You can be sure it would be less chaos than the Luas ever was. People are encouraged to stop using cars (fuel prices, road taxes, insurance hikes, traffic calming measures, bike-to-work scheme and so on) but the truth is that many people need to use a car on a daily basis (even some of those living inside the canal belt).

mcgratheoin

Roadhawk wrote: »

Imagine the amount of road space that would be freed up if Luas lines and bus lanes weren't as plentiful. There could be a serrated dual-cycleway nearly on every road as well as an extra lane for other vehicles.

Seriously? Based off what argument? That the bus lanes and Luas lanes aren't crammed to capacity like the car lanes? Bearing in mind that bus lanes also operate as cycle thoroughfares and taxi lanes, the passenger numbers across the canal cordon who could use bus lanes (buses/taxis/bikes) are pretty similar to those in the car lanes (cars/goods/motorbikes) so shouldn't the argument be that we should give 50% of every road to each set of users?

I'd also dispute your inference that the Luas in any way significantly detracts from the traffic capacity of Dublin's road network. By that logic we may as well turn the DART into a road as well.

Mode |2006| 2007 |2008 |2009|2010 |2011 |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |2016
Bus |59,874 |57,201 |60,438 |56,168 |50,420 |54,251 |52,007 |56,177 |56,671 |57,584 |54,710
Rail |33,534 |35,692 |32,324 |25,723 |23,580 |22,932 |23,999 |24,969 |24,866 |29,521 |31,309
LUAS |9,029 |9,171 |9,242 |8,776 |9,111 |9,949 |10,014 |10,835 |11,670 |12,503 |12,254
Public Transport |102,437 |102,064 |102,004 |90,667 |83,111 |87,132 |86,047 |91,981 |93,207 |99,608 |98,273
Car |76,850 |71,597 |67,732 |71,043 |71,978 |69,681 |68,626 |68,072 |64,169 |65,269 |64,885
Taxi |1,453 |2,154 |1,930 |2,739 |2,260 |2,674 |3,271 |3,111 |2,775 |2,960 |2,724
Walk |17,114 |18,594 |18,360 |14,618 |15,092 |14,551 |17,070 |17,495 |19,711 |18,727 |21,473
Cycle |4,839 |5,676 |6,143 |6,326 |5,952 |6,870 |7,943 |9,061 |10,349 |10,893 |12,089
Goods |2,291 |1,445 |1,223 |1,087 |993 |1,176 |1,099 |1,045 |1,087 |1,096 |1,093
Motor Bike |2,395 |2,429 |2,375 |2,060 |1,656 |1,485 |1,425 |1,423 |1,372 |1,390 |1,464
Total Pers. Trips |207,379 |203,959 |199,767 |188,540 |181,042 |183,569 |185,481 |192,188 |192,670 |199,943 |202,001


Just to note that I've assumed motorcyclists use the car lanes when in practice we all know that's not entirely true.