Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

eeguy

Chuchote wrote: »

Depends on "the facilities meant for them". In Dublin, an awful lot of cycle lanes are unsafe.

There was a thread a while back where a motorist was defending himself after hitting a cyclist while opening his door.

He said cyclists should maintain distance from parked cars just like motorists do. A sensible idea, until you realise that the gap that motorist leave is usually a designated cycle area.

So usually a cyclist has a choice. Either the cycle lane, and risk getting doored, cut across by someone turning left or pulling into the kerb OR move into the flow of traffic.

Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Cycle lanes need some form of segregation,even cheap plastic bollards would do.

ted1

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Pavements, pedestrianised areas and pedestrianised bridges aren't.

That's a bit clearer, but TBH it just sounds like your looking for an argument in your intiak phrasing of it. Don't forget cars, busses trucks etc shouldn't use them either.

ted1

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Agreed, the offenders are almost all Dublin Bikes users.

If you're serious about cycling to spend decent money on a bike and gear you're generally going to have a decent amount of common courtesy and sense.

However, there is one **** who wears some sort of breathing apparatus like Bane out of the last Batman film and goes hell for leather down Eustace St and across the Millennium Bridge like a nutter! He is gonna hurt someone soon.

Equally there's bad pedestrians and drivers, what had one cyclist got to do with providing proper facilities.

Mortpourvelo

ted1 wrote: »

That's a bit clearer, but TBH it just sounds like your looking for an argument in your intiak phrasing of it. Don't forget cars, busses trucks etc shouldn't use them either.

Not trying to have a go but the bridge in question is blocked off so cars can't physically cross it - cyclists shouldn't but sneak on.

ted1

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Not trying to have a go but the bridge in question is blocked off so cars can't physically cross it - cyclists shouldn't but sneak on.

Grand , but how is that relevant to the thread?

Mortpourvelo

ted1 wrote: »

Grand , but how is that relevant to the thread?

I just fail to see how a group where many of it's representatives seem to have no scruples breaking the law and can do so with impunity, and contribute nothing to the economy should be rewarded for this with a billion quid of tax payers money.

If the cash is going to someone on the pavement - give it to the homeless.

buffalo

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

I just fail to see how a group where many of it's representatives seem to have no scruples breaking the law and can do so with impunity, and contribute nothing to the economy should be rewarded for this with a billion quid of tax payers money.

If the cash is going to someone on the pavement - give it to the homeless.

"Contribute nothing to the economy"? Does nobody on a bike pay income tax? None of them paid VAT when they acquired their bikes? Presumably pedestrians have zero right to footpaths, the spongers! :pac::pac:

ted1

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

I just fail to see how a group where many of it's representatives seem to have no scruples breaking the law .

Can we get this guy banned. Clearly trolling and going off topic.

BuffyBot

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

I just fail to see how a group where many of it's representatives seem to have no scruples breaking the law and can do so with impunity, and contribute nothing to the economy should be rewarded for this with a billion quid of tax payers money.

If the cash is going to someone on the pavement - give it to the homeless.

I'd suggest you take some time out from this thread and not post nonsense like this again

jive

Most people need to realise that cyclists don't wish to be mingling with cars and buses. Provide safe cycle lanes and they will use them.

Regardless of who follows the rules of the road and who doesn't, 10 cyclists have died on Irish roads this year and many of these were avoidable. If you ever need something to capture the typical Irish work ethic and mentality, just look at cycle lanes; a classic case of 'that's grand, they're good enough'.

monument

For clarity: Mortpourvelo is banned for 3 days for posts/rants which are now deleted.

- moderator

eeguy

jive wrote: »

If you ever need something to capture the typical Irish work ethic and mentality, just look at cycle lanes; a classic case of 'that's grand, they're good enough'.

A classic case of ticking a box and massaging some stats.

Zynks

I was having trouble to understand why would cyclists entertain a discussion with a 2 month old account called death for bicycles. Seriously...

shootermacg

Zynks wrote: »

I was having trouble to understand why would cyclists entertain a discussion with a 2 month old account called death for bicycles. Seriously...

I think you'll find the cyclists here are well used to dealing with those kinds. I believe it's called giving them rope ^ ^

BuffyBot

Can we please revert to discussing the topic, not other posters?

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/female-cyclist-rushed-to-hospital-after-colliding-with-truck-in-rushhour-traffic-35238687.html

Hopefully this lady will be ok. And still people oppose investment in cycling infrastructure.

The report says she "collided with" a truck. How careless of her. It goes on to say:

The bike was severely damaged as it got caught between the two front wheels on the left-hand side of the truck.

which could surely only have happened if she was hit from behind?

Summerhill Parade/ Portland Row - isn't that the same place another woman was killed by a truck a few weeks ago when she was scrunched between the truck and the ill-advised 'sheep pen' railings on the edge of the pavement?

eeguy

Chuchote wrote: »

The report says she "collided with" a truck. How careless of her. It goes on to say:



which could surely only have happened if she was hit from behind?

Summerhill Parade/ Portland Row - isn't that the same place another woman was killed by a truck a few weeks ago when she was scrunched between the truck and the ill-advised 'sheep pen' railings on the edge of the pavement?

It looks like she was on the left hand side of the truck, near the cab and either she did something VERY stupid, or the driver turned left without checking the blind spot (more likely)

The language used is ambiguous. It implies that she hit the truck, but it doesn't seem possible given where the bike ended up.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Summerhill Parade/ Portland Row - isn't that the same place another woman was killed by a truck a few weeks ago when she was scrunched between the truck and the ill-advised 'sheep pen' railings on the edge of the pavement?

Nope. The two locations are along the continuation of the North Circular Road, but are about a kilometre apart: https://goo.gl/maps/HCHpKTmCsoL2

Zynks

eeguy wrote: »

It looks like she was on the left hand side of the truck, near the cab and either she did something VERY stupid, or the driver turned left without checking the blind spot (more likely)

Not even the best driver in the world can solve blind spots. The liability should be with the owner of the HGV because the risk is well known and they are not resolving it.

That's criminal negligence in my books.

eeguy

Zynks wrote: »

Not even the best driver in the world can solve blind spots. The liability should be with the owner of the HGV because the risk is well known and they are not resolving it.

That's criminal negligence in my books.

Don't they have a secondary, downward facing mirror for checking that spot?

Zynks

eeguy wrote: »

Don't they have a secondary, downward facing mirror for checking that spot?

It is obviously not enough.

magicbastarder

eeguy wrote: »

Don't they have a secondary, downward facing mirror for checking that spot?

i'm not sure if we're at the deadline yet for retrofitting older trucks though.

Chuchote

The obvious solution - and the reason cyclists are looking for infrastructural funding - is to separate cyclists from cars and trucks as much as possible by building excellent separated and protected cycle lanes.

This is so obviously a good idea for all kinds of reasons -

• It would get kids cycling and stop childhood obesity
• Kids cycling to school would immediately drop traffic levels to those that are the norm when schools are on holidays
• It would cut the three big killers - diabetes, heart disease and hypertension
• It would cut down pollution and so cut the main cause of upper respiratory diseases
• The health service would start working again without the great load of diabetics, heart patients, blood pressure patients, asthmatics and bronchitics; cancers would also decrease with less pollution
• It would save lives as cyclists would no longer be killed by cars in 'accidents'
• Traffic would flow more efficiently
• Public transport would be used more in conjunction with cycling
• Retail would benefit - people who cycle through an area stop and shop 30% more than people who drive through
• Localism and neighbourliness would benefit with people out in the air on their bicycles instead of shut into their cars

- that it's astonishing that this plan is not immediately seized on and put into action. Of course there are lots of powerful interest groups against it, such as the motor industry and car park owners…

schemingbohemia

Chuchote wrote: »

The obvious solution - and the reason cyclists are looking for infrastructural funding - is to separate cyclists from cars and trucks as much as possible by building excellent separated and protected cycle lanes.

This is so obviously a good idea for all kinds of reasons -

• It would get kids cycling and stop childhood obesity
• Kids cycling to school would immediately drop traffic levels to those that are the norm when schools are on holidays
• It would cut the three big killers - diabetes, heart disease and hypertension
• It would cut down pollution and so cut the main cause of upper respiratory diseases
• The health service would start working again without the great load of diabetics, heart patients, blood pressure patients, asthmatics and bronchitics; cancers would also decrease with less pollution
• It would save lives as cyclists would no longer be killed by cars in 'accidents'
• Traffic would flow more efficiently
• Public transport would be used more in conjunction with cycling
• Retail would benefit - people who cycle through an area stop and shop 30% more than people who drive through
• Localism and neighbourliness would benefit with people out in the air on their bicycles instead of shut into their cars

- that it's astonishing that this plan is not immediately seized on and put into action. Of course there are lots of powerful interest groups against it, such as the motor industry and car park owners…

I am all in favour of more and better cycling infrastructure. The junction where this took place is reportedly North Circular Road with Summerhill - what sort of segregation would work here, at a junction?

In Blackrock at junctions the segregated lane (which is great) comes back to grade at the junctions, the same would presumably be put in place at the NCR/Summerhill junction, how would that prevent this accident?

All this is posited on the probability that this is a left-turning lorry across a straight-ahead or left turning cyclist. Obviously no-one knows the cause of this incident.

ED E

Segregated lanes work where you have long spans. The Grand Canal is a great example.

They don't work in areas with many junctions. There is zero point using the bike if your travel time is identical to a pedestrian. If you have to wait for a ped light at every 100m cyclists will just join the roadway. The quays are a perfect example of this.



The above is near Dundrum. Use the lane you can either:
-Stop and wait for forever
-Continue on and be flattened by a left turning car
Dont use the lane:
-Continue with traffic and join the cycle lane again 500m on.

Same happens all over Dublin. Remove the segregated lane in cases like this, widen the road and enforce the laws for entering the cycle lane and boom you have a working system.

Chuchote

ED E wrote: »

Segregated lanes work where you have long spans. The Grand Canal is a great example.

They don't work in areas with many junctions.

The Dutch seem to manage…

prinzeugen

Chuchote wrote: »

The obvious solution - and the reason cyclists are looking for infrastructural funding - is to separate cyclists from cars and trucks as much as possible by building excellent separated and protected cycle lanes.

This is so obviously a good idea for all kinds of reasons -

• It would get kids cycling and stop childhood obesity
• Kids cycling to school would immediately drop traffic levels to those that are the norm when schools are on holidays
• It would cut the three big killers - diabetes, heart disease and hypertension
• It would cut down pollution and so cut the main cause of upper respiratory diseases
• The health service would start working again without the great load of diabetics, heart patients, blood pressure patients, asthmatics and bronchitics; cancers would also decrease with less pollution
• It would save lives as cyclists would no longer be killed by cars in 'accidents'
• Traffic would flow more efficiently
• Public transport would be used more in conjunction with cycling
• Retail would benefit - people who cycle through an area stop and shop 30% more than people who drive through
• Localism and neighbourliness would benefit with people out in the air on their bicycles instead of shut into their cars

- that it's astonishing that this plan is not immediately seized on and put into action. Of course there are lots of powerful interest groups against it, such as the motor industry and car park owners…

Most of that is rubbish.

A kid cycling to school will still be overweight if they have a bad diet. Cycling will not undo the xxl McDonald's they had the night before.

Kids will still cycle alongside parents (who will still walk) on the pavement making it hell for pedestrians.

As for freeing up the health service.. Nope.

I cycled a 8 mile round trip on my paper round as a teen, up at 06:30, 362 days of the year for 4 years in every form of Scottish weather (-14°c to 19°c)

Now aged 34, the doctors tell me that my knees & ankles are fecked and I am going to have big problems as I get older, and my circulatory system is like that of a 50 year old..

All thanks to cycling miles when I was younger. I think I will be more of a burden on the health service than a diabetic of someone with a dodgy ticker.

Cookie_Monster

prinzeugen wrote: »

Most of that is rubbish.

A kid cycling to school will still be overweight if they have a bad diet. Cycling will not undo the xxl McDonald's they had the night before.

Kids will still cycle alongside parents (who will still walk) on the pavement making it hell for pedestrians.

As for freeing up the health service.. Nope.

I cycled a 8 mile round trip on my paper round as a teen, up at 06:30, 362 days of the year for 4 years in every form of Scottish weather (-14°c to 19°c)

Now aged 34, the doctors tell me that my knees & ankles are fecked and I am going to have big problems as I get older, and my circulatory system is like that of a 50 year old..

All thanks to cycling miles when I was younger. I think I will be more of a burden on the health service than a diabetic of someone with a dodgy ticker.

so your own personal anecdotal experience outweighs population level stats available from multiple countries?, I don't think so.

It's a fairly obvious (and well documented) idea that greater amounts of exercise improve your physical and mental health overall. More cyclists mean less cars, less emissions, less wear and tear and so on and so on.

A kid cycling to school will still be overweight if they have a bad diet. Cycling will not undo the xxl McDonald's they had the night before.

say 20 min cycle each way. thats probably 600 calories a day extra used, it adds up. And while it's not 100% of the solution it is a big part and very easy to achieve

Now aged 34, the doctors tell me that my knees & ankles are fecked and I am going to have big problems as I get older, and my circulatory system is like that of a 50 year old..

from cycling or from the weather. because cycling puts very little strain on joints and wouldn't cause the above issues.

Kids will still cycle alongside parents (who will still walk) on the pavement making it hell for pedestrians.

where do you get that notion from, maybe those under 7 might but older kids wouldn't. Part of the appeal is the freedom

prinzeugen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so your own personal anecdotal experience outweighs population level stats available from multiple countries?, I don't think so.

Not every country is the same.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

say 20 min cycle each way. thats probably 600 calories a day extra used, it adds up. And while it's not 100% of the solution it is a big part and very easy to achieve

So you would agree that what was posted is rubbish. "It would get kids cycling and stop childhood obesity" .

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

from cycling or from the weather. because cycling puts very little strain on joints and wouldn't cause the above issues.

Must change doctors as he must know feck all:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

where do you get that notion from, maybe those under 7 might but older kids wouldn't. Part of the appeal is the freedom

Take a day off work and try going walking at school finishing time.. Cycles on pavements and even the parents that cycle (mothers usually) are blocking the path while they have a chat forcing pedestrians onto the road and in the path of more parents in cars using mobiles.

prinzeugen

Deedsie wrote: »

A guy I work with got sick of driving to work, started cycling last year. He has lost about 10kg's and seems much happier in himself, doesn't gas out going up a stairs anymore.

Maybe stopped smoking or something?? You cant claim it was cycling alone that made him healthier.