Journalism and cycling

I love Sean nos

DeepBlue wrote: »

The best way to do that is to analyse why the incidents happened, what contributed to it and what can prevent that type of incident happening again.

We know why these incidents are happening.

Chuchote

RayCun wrote: »

On Sunday I drove along this road
https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.2446286,-6.3897835/53.1699873,-6.3883244/@53.2397875,-6.3947188,15z
(Ballinascorney to Kippure)

10 kilometres, one lane road all the way.

To put a path (or a row of planters!) along the side of this road, would mean widening the road along the whole length, at enormous cost, making the road unusable while the works are going on, and spoiling more of the countryside.

And that's a road in Dublin (half of it). How many more like it are there in the country?

Widening the road should not be "at enormous cost". Buying a narrow strip of land through compulsory purchase and turning it into a safe path for walking (and cycling).

It all depends what you value: people's health and lives?

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Widening the road should not be "at enormous cost". Buying a narrow strip of land through compulsory purchase and turning it into a safe path for walking (and cycling).

It all depends what you value: people's health and lives?

Everyone values people's health and lives, but you're avoiding the point - widening every road in the country would be extortionately expensive, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

RayCun

Chuchote wrote: »

Widening the road should not be "at enormous cost". Buying a narrow strip of land through compulsory purchase and turning it into a safe path for walking (and cycling).

It all depends what you value: people's health and lives?

Is widening this road by a metre, for 10k, really something we want to do?

It would be even safer if there were two lanes for traffic. And lights!

DeepBlue

Macy0161 wrote: »

Not always only on the driver. However, many motorists don't take account of conditions, don't only drive as fast as they can see to safely break, just aren't paying attention.

Walking the children home from bogball last week we were close passed despite all three of us (coincidentally) wearing gawdy running tops (two of us in orange, one in bright yellow). The close passer was messing with his phone or radio of something. I'm sure if he'd hit us he would've gone with "didn't see them, weren't wearing hi-viz" bullsh!t excuse too.

No doubt they would and they'd be completely in the wrong.
My point was from the perspective that 99.99% of motorists and pedestrians/cyclists want to behave responsibly and avoid collisions. Thus there has to be some effort from both sides to do that.

I get this vague impression from some posts that are almost of the viewpoint that they feel they should be entitled to walk/cycle wearing all black (with a black balaclava if they feel like it) and no lights/reflectives of any kind and anyone that hits them is some kind of monster. Ok, I exaggerate for effect but there needs to be an acknowledgement that off-loading responsibility in totality to someone else for your own safety is not really a common sense approach or an approach that should be lauded or supported.

In truth if you want to hugely reduce the likelihood of nighttime collisions between motorists and pedestrians/cyclists then you would reduce the nighttime speed limit to something like 30k/h on all roads. Do we all want that?

RayCun

DeepBlue wrote: »

In truth if you want to hugely reduce the likelihood of nighttime collisions between motorists and pedestrians/cyclists then you would reduce the nighttime speed limit to something like 30k/h on all roads. Do we all want that?

On a lot of roads that would be an excellent idea.

CramCycle

DeepBlue wrote: »

In truth if you want to hugely reduce the likelihood of nighttime collisions between motorists and pedestrians/cyclists then you would reduce the nighttime speed limit to something like 30k/h on all roads. Do we all want that?

Yes, or have speed limits that are appropriate for the road. Rather than this system of one limit for all similar classes of road. I get the principle, this way no driver has an excuse of no signs or warnings if they are pinged speeding but it is stupid.

In this day and age, it is not unreasonable to ask for people to carry a torch to mitigate risk, but it is also not unreasonable to ask that motorists drive at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions. Some do, but many don't. It has to come from all road users. If possible gardai also need to start handing out fines and tickets if possible for driving without due care and attention in regards accidents like this. If you cannot see someone with your full beams on, on a straight road, driving at 50kmph, even after you hit them, then you need to be reassessed for your suitability as a driver.

ford2600

buffalo wrote: »

Everyone values people's health and lives, but you're avoiding the point - widening every road in the country would be extortionately expensive, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

There is only 12,000km or road in munster, can't see how it would be expensive...
CPOs, legal battle with private landowners, an Taisce getting upset, Wildlife groups...

While all our regional and national primary roads should not be high risk for vulnerable road users; truth is many are horrible to walk/cycle/run on. I made my own mind up about 2 years ago to avoid them as much as possible; I don't think there is any pushing back the car centric tide. Away from high population areas and commuting, it is the easiest solution for a solo cyclist

I've done a lot of road surveys over the years; with his vis, signs, flashing light lot of drivers just show disdain for you- that's when they are aware of you. As bad as cyclist are treated, pedestrians are completely shat down on.

Listen to Pat Kenny and Martin yesterday; there was no exploration of why he didn't spot anything until he hit him with full lights on a luxury BMW at "30mph odd". A huge part of our economy commutters/delivery trucks/couriers/sales people is built of people rushing around; subconsciously the majority of road users have made a decision; vulnerable road users don't matter in our rushed/stressed lives.



The reasons how we got here are complicated

Moflojo

buffalo wrote: »

Everyone values people's health and lives, but you're avoiding the point - widening every road in the country would be extortionately expensive, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

I think there's a reasonable middle ground to be found here so we should stop discussing the extreme example of "every road and boreen in the country".

As a starting point we could look at our towns and villages. Treat each town/village as a node and build paths 1 or 2 kilometres out from each town. 2 kilometres is a reasonable max distance to expect someone to walk into their local town/village, especially kids getting to school.

You wouldn't have to stick rigidly to the 2km distance either, you could pick a reasonable point for stopping the path, i.e. a cluster of houses ~2km from the town/village or a junction with another minor road a similar distance from the town.

RayCun

Moflojo wrote: »

As a starting point we could look at our towns and villages. Treat each town/village as a node and build paths 1 or 2 kilometres out from each town. 2 kilometres is a reasonable max distance to expect someone to walk into their local town/village, especially kids getting to school.

That's still a huge amount of roads. There are an awful lot of small villages out there, and an awful lot of isolated houses.

Chuchote

Is it only Ireland that is haunted by a dull sense of inertia that drags drags down any possibility of change?

Moflojo

RayCun wrote: »

That's still a huge amount of roads. There are an awful lot of small villages out there, and an awful lot of isolated houses.

I'm sure there could be a formula for working out a reasonable density required to justify a path. Perhaps something like a minimum of 10 houses, or 50 residents, per kilometre. Certain amenities such as sports pitches outside a town/village could also trump the minimum density requirement.

Moflojo

The potential benefit of taking cars off the roads that are simply dropping kids to school/training/music lessons would monumentally outweigh the initial capital costs of building these paths. And the cost of maintenance for the paths, compared to the roads they'd sit beside, would be minuscule.

RayCun

Moflojo wrote: »

The potential benefit of taking cars off the roads that are simply dropping kids to school/training/music lessons would monumentally outweigh the initial capital costs of building these paths. And the cost of maintenance for the paths, compared to the roads they'd sit beside, would be minuscule.

The potential benefits -
people who live 1km outside the village will start walking there instead? I love your optimism.

The capital costs are enormous.

To support one-off housing.

buffalo

Moflojo wrote: »

I think there's a reasonable middle ground to be found here so we should stop discussing the extreme example of "every road and boreen in the country".

I am glad there's a reasonable middle ground, as the previous poster did not seem to want to acknowledge it.

Before grand plans to widen hundreds if not thousands of kilometres of roads, perhaps we should focus on the most densely populated areas and their infrastructure first?

Chips Lovell

Prioritse footpath building to areas where they're most needed.

On road where there isn't a footpath, the onus is on people to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions. If you fail to spot a pedestrian in time, then the chances are you were driving too fast.

Chuchote

Rather than just a footpath, an area for walking and non-speed cycling, walled off by planters, would be a better shelter.

For instance in some areas an adult will bring kids along dangerous roads in a "walking bus" every day to school. A series of planters would allow a pathway, and would also slow the road because cars would have to slow to pass each other.

We have to think in terms of getting people out of cars, getting our population into active travel again.

ThisRegard

Didn't Fingal only last year (around October) knock back plans to include a cycle facility to and from a new school somewhere in north Dublin?

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

Didn't Fingal only last year knock back plans to include a cycle facility to and from a new school somewhere in north Dublin?

Yes. And I'm waiting to see what the "new suburb" will come up with - right beside the Grand Canal so could have a cycleway all the way into the city. It would be interesting if it were built deliberately for bikes and walking and buses.

ThisRegard

And out of 14 Fingal councillors I emailed about this issue, how many do people thing replied to me?

RayCun

In the countryside, off-road paths are probably a better solution. Right of way through fields for pedestrians. No building required, no destruction of wildlife, and complete segregation from road traffic.

magicbastarder

RayCun wrote: »

To support one-off housing.

this is it; one off housing is already a drain on the country, without further cossetting people who prefer to live on half an acre a mile outside the nearest town, and probably wouldn't walk anyway.

for all this talk of spending money on providing footpaths, i still see loads of one off houses being built - of the few i know on the go at the moment, not one is for someone 'tied to the land'.

and yes, i know people *do* need to live and work the land. they're probably a minority in many areas.

mcgratheoin

In terms of linking this topic into the over-riding arc of the Journalism thread - the Macgill summer school this year had a session on strategic planning in Ireland - creeping individualism, rural housing etc..


http://www.thejournal.ie/john-moran-property-rights-3512370-Jul2017/


Quite Dublin centric - but there are some good points about underfunded public transport.
http://www.dubchamber.ie/news/press-releases/news/display-news/2017/07/20/mary-rose-burke-speech-to-macgill-summer-school

ford2600

The trouble with looking for footpaths in concentrated population settlements, is that is where there is most competition for space is greatest and where most issues/costs will arise.

Crosshaven village is on Cork Harbour, with about 2000 people. Brightwater was built about 10 years ago with over 200 houses, so an addition to population of 500 people or so with development worth over 50million.

In spite of that, with the main, lower, vehicle entrance being only 200m from village centre/hub there is no footpath. That 200m is one of the more horrible 200m I used to regularly walk.

The developers built a footpath alright, one going uphill away from village who no utility walker uses...

If that what passes for planning here, no word we are a bit of a mess. Before you grant planning, you have all the power; if a planner can't/won't see that (or bows to political pressure) you gets messes like this all over the country.

Look at the difficulty with building a simple greenway, looking for a path on the edge of a landowner's road frontage is fanciful with running into all sotrs of difficuly (even if FG weren't in power:pac:). Wonder why part of Mayo greenway is on road? Hint:Tayto

plodder

buffalo wrote: »

I am glad there's a reasonable middle ground, as the previous poster did not seem to want to acknowledge it.

Before grand plans to widen hundreds if not thousands of kilometres of roads, perhaps we should focus on the most densely populated areas and their infrastructure first?

apart from anything else, the whole principle of lighting up the country side is fundamentally wrong. It's a form of pollution. If you need light walking/cycling/driving in a rural area, you should bring it yourself.

Off topic now, but from previous post, it amazes me that county councils are still allowing estates to be built that aren't connected by footpath to the (presumably) nearby town.

tomasrojo

RayCun wrote: »

In the countryside, off-road paths are probably a better solution. Right of way through fields for pedestrians. No building required, no destruction of wildlife, and complete segregation from road traffic.

I seem to remember agricultural roads(*) in Swizerland that only farm traffic, cyclists and pedestrians can use.

Think they arose out of quite different land-use practices though.

((*)Unless I dreamt about them or something.)

magicbastarder

well, you have bridle paths in the UK, similar idea, primarily for horse-riding, i guess?
my wife does a bit of horseriding and coudl tell you stories she's heard from friends who were out hacking on the roads, and the way motorists treat them. she was saying cyclists can be a problem too, though usually due to not being noisy enough so the horse does not get advance warning.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, you have bridle paths in the UK, similar idea, primarily for horse-riding, i guess?

Not sure, as I heard about these roads, rather than cycled on them. There is a possibility I was misinformed, or I misunderstood.

I used to cycle to the outskirts of Basel every day, but I didn't use any roads with motor-traffic restrictions. It was a lovely cycle though.

I love Sean nos

plodder wrote: »

Off topic now, but from previous post, it amazes me that county councils are still allowing estates to be built that aren't connected by footpath to the (presumably) nearby town.

It's worse than that. I stayed in a small development in East Clare last week. The footpaths provided in the development didn't meet up. There would be a couple of metres on one side of the road, then nothing, then further on there might be another few metres across the road. No clear ways to join the footpath either, you joined the footpath by walking over grass or through shrubbery. The one clear entrance/exit to/from the footpath was at a parking space, so was frequently blocked by a car. The end result was that the place could not be navigated on foot without using the road.

Chuchote

Rather confused article in The Irish Times this morning about fines to people riding bikes.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-given-1-660-on-the-spot-fines-over-past-two-years-1.3202608

Cyclists given 1,660 on-the-spot fines over past two years
Cycling groups call for clampdown on car drivers who break red lights and use phones
Sarah Burns

More than 1,500 on-the-spot fines have been handed out to cyclists in the two years since their introduction, according to figures released by the Garda.
Breaking a red light was the most common offence, accounting for 843 of the 1,660 fines issued.
The fines, or fixed-charge notices, were introduced on July 31st, 2015 by Paschal Donohue, the then transport minister.
Cyclists can be issued with fines of €40 by gardaí for a number of offences, such as cycling in a pedestrianised area, riding without reasonable consideration and failing to have lights. The fine rises to €60 if it is not paid within 26 days, and if it remains unpaid, court fines of up to €2,000 can be imposed.
So far this year 441 fines have been issued, with 172 of them for breaking a red light followed by cycling in a pedestrianised area (88) and riding without reasonable consideration (73). Having no front light has resulted in 57 fines this year, slightly more than the 51 given for not having a rear light.

The piece goes on to quote Paul Corcoran, chair of the Irish Cycling Campaign, and Cllr Ciaran Cuffe, chair of Dublin City Council's Transport Committee, both piously saying that fining for lawbreaking was good, while whatabouting about whether garda resources were being devoted to illegal parking, RLJing by drivers and phone use in cars.

Rather bafflingly, the piece ends with a list of road death numbers.

If the Irish Times wanted to be a real force for road safety, by the way, it could run a series of pieces analysing every crash death on the roads, with photos of the aftermath. That would be roughly one every three days, if my calculations are right (?)

It could also run some pieces on infrastructure - including the lack of space given to rural walkers as discussed in the last couple of pages of this thread.

In comparison with Ireland's infrastructure for active travel, Finland (a bastion of one-off housing: 338,000 square km. 5.4 million inhabitants) has 11,000km of cycling infrastructure, and builds an average of 400km to 450km every year. 445,000 Finns keep fit by "Nordic walking" regularly - that's walking with two poles to get an upper body workout. Walking infrastructure is universal, part of a government drive since the North Karelia Project of the 1970s to get Finns using active travel http://www.walk21sydney.net/assets/Uploads/presentations/walk21sydney2014/Tuesday%2021st%20October%202014/4.%20Concurrent%20presentations/Counting%20the%20Steps%20What%20Measures%20for%20Measuring%20Walking/CP1_1400%20Tuuli%20Rantala.pdf