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

Rakish Paddy

eeguy wrote: »

It's not illegal to be on a footpath. If you don't like it, contact your TD to change the law and build a cycle path.

Unless I'm grossly misinformed, it absolutely is illegal to cycle on a footpath. It was apparently due to be one of the offences to fall under the fixed penalties but there was a climb-down and it was left off the list. As things turned out, that fixed penalty idea turned out to be a load of equine excrement that is almost totally unenforced and has not let to any noticeable improvement in overall cyclist behaviour, in Dublin anyway.

And even if it wasn't illegal, it's thoroughly obnoxious and inexcusable behaviour to cycle on the footpath.

shootermacg

bk wrote: »

It is interesting to note, that in the 1970's Amsterdam City Council decided to priorities spending on cycling infrastructure over car and even public transport.

The reason being that they had excellent public transport (buses and trams) but the city was growing quickly and they know that there just wasn't enough space in the narrow medieval city streets to fit more buses and trams (sound familiar) to meet the needs of the growing city and instead they would need to spend 10's of billions building Metros to cope with the increases (again sound familiar).

Instead they decided to focus on building cycling infrastructure, with the hope that it would take the pressure off the existing bus and tram network and delay the need to spend 10's of billions on Metros.

As we now know, it was a complete success. Massive numbers of people switched to the new cycling infrastructure, which too the pressure off the existing public transport and allowed them to delay the building of the Metro for 40 years, thus saving them 10's of Billions, creating a very pleasant city and a much healthier population.

Doesn't this all sound rather familiar?

1 billion might sound like a lot, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the 10 billion or so we need to spend on Metro North and Dart underground. If 1 Billion gets us a cycling infrastructure as good as Amsterdam, then it will likely allow us to delay be years spending 10's of billion more on more roads and undergrounds, all the while helping us build a nicer city and healthier population.

I was going to write a post commending this and adding my thoughts, but why bother? I would say the vast majority of sound-minded cyclists and motorists can't fail but see the advantages of a healtier, less conjested and safer mode of travel for everyone.

I would argue that opinions are not like arseholes, indeed everyone has an arsehole, but certain arseholes can have opinions too.

Chuchote

Emissions tax and car insurance should be included in the price of petrol. This would ensure that everyone pays, and would release many, many gardaí and civil servants from the necessity of checking and issuing these; it would stop private companies from making profits from insurance - in itself an essentially immoral idea, to profit from injury and death.

SeanW wrote: »

Well, firstly, the Grand Canal cycle path is totally lawless, so as a pedestrian that's out there sometimes it's not something I'd be keen to replicate.

I use this path quite often. I've only ever seen one accident on it - a cyclist on one of those Deliveroo backfietsen who had hit a patch of oil and come off and had sore grazes on his knee and elbow.

At the pinch point at Charlemont Street, when the light goes red for this path, you'll normally see a bunch of cyclists waiting for it to go green, and a couple of idiots (usually on Dublin Bikes) going through.

For those calling for licence plates, etc - anyone on a Dublin Bike is traceable; if you want to prosecute those, it's easy.

In relation to licence plates, what a brilliant idea (not!) - the Swiss used to have this and got rid of it as utterly useless. On the other hand, if you want to hire 100 or so new civil servants to administer such a scheme, and divert Garda resources to policing it, fine by me!

There's an argument to be made for allowing cyclists to go through red lights, cycle on pavements, etc, as long as they do so considerately, by the way; this is already the norm in plenty of places - here's a recent LA Times editorial about it:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-babin-bicycle-laws-20161003-snap-story.html

Roadhawk wrote: »

My view on this is, if €1 billion is invested, over 5 years, then gauging the current number of cyclists as 65,000 approx then over €3000 euro per cyclist per year is being spent? again, is this realistic? Cycling being said to be the most cost effective mode of transport is suddenly seeking €1 Billion.

Then, lets say this investment is granted. Will the infrastructure be used by all cyclists? It would be a great shame to see this investment granted and then wasted just ask quick.

No, no, no, my darling Hawk. That's the Irish way of doing it. That's what resulted in the ferocious summer stench of poo that hangs over Sandymount. We think about how much we're going to use some infrastructure, and we build that much, when what we should be doing is what our grannies used to do - "I'll put a good bit of let-out on these seams and a big wide hem, so when you grow you'll be able to let the dress out and let the hem down".

Here's two cities that have done it right: Groningen, and Vancouver (videos):

https://vimeo.com/76207227
https://vimeo.com/183441272

shootermacg

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

As things turned out, that fixed penalty idea turned out to be a load of equine excrement that is almost totally unenforced and has not let to any noticeable improvement in overall cyclist behaviour, in Dublin anyway.

Lets be logical here, there are a lot more cars traveling the commuting routes. If you put a plain clothes policeman at the lights looking for cyclists breaking rules, he's be too busy busting 3 cars every red light for the cyclists to even make a dent.

Arthur.beaker

eeguy wrote: »

It's not illegal to be on a footpath. If you don't like it, contact your TD to change the law and build a cycle path.

It is actually.

eeguy

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Unless I'm grossly misinformed, it absolutely is illegal to cycle on a footpath. It was apparently due to be one of the offences to fall under the fixed penalties but there was a climb-down and it was left off the list. As things turned out, that fixed penalty idea turned out to be a load of equine excrement that is almost totally unenforced and has not let to any noticeable improvement in overall cyclist behaviour, in Dublin anyway.

And even if it wasn't illegal, it's thoroughly obnoxious and inexcusable behaviour to cycle on the footpath.

I will absolutely cycle on the footpath if I deem the road too dangerous.
There's plenty of right hand turns in Dublin with no filter light that are hazardous to cars, never mind cyclist.

I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty notice. Not a single guard pays any heed to cyclists, since the risk of harm is so low.

Arthur.beaker

eeguy wrote: »

I will absolutely cycle on the footpath if I deem the road too dangerous.
There's plenty of right hand turns in Dublin with no filter light that are hazardous to cars, never mind cyclist.

I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty notice. Not a single guard pays any heed to cyclists, since the risk of harm is so low.

So your boast about not breaking the law earlier was hot air? I'll have that medal back, please.

Rakish Paddy

eeguy wrote: »

I will absolutely cycle on the footpath if I deem the road too dangerous.

That's time to get off your bike and wheel it, not cycle on the bleedin' footpath!

ted1

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

It is actually.

It's not, it was talked about but the minister didn't want to be the person who either
A. Put three year olds on the road or
B. Put nearly every young person in a position where do would be breaking the law on a daily basis.

ted1

eeguy wrote: »

I will absolutely cycle on the footpath if I deem the road too dangerous.
There's plenty of right hand turns in Dublin with no filter light that are hazardous to cars, never mind cyclist.

I've never heard of anyone getting a penalty notice. Not a single guard pays any heed to cyclists, since the risk of harm is so low.

As someone who does a 40 km round trip on my bike every work day, 52 weeks of the year. I've never seen a situation like you describe. If I'm turning right I'll position myself in the centre of the lane and progress like a car would do.

Can you give an example of a junction?

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

We think about how much we're going to use some infrastructure, and we build that much, when what we should be doing is what our grannies used to do - "I'll put a good bit of let-out on these seams and a big wide hem, so when you grow you'll be able to let the dress out and let the hem down".

So ultimately the M50 should have been built with 5 or 6 lanes on each side to allow for the future usage and not current usage?

Chuchote wrote: »

Here's two cities that have done it right: , and Vancouver (videos):

Groningen - 90,000 inhabitants of which 50,000 are students? how would this possibly suite Dublin's demographic?

Vancouver - a better choice to represent but still not personally sold

Arthur.beaker

ted1 wrote: »

It's not, it was talked about but the minister didn't want to be the person who either
A. Put three year olds on the road or
B. Put nearly every young person in a position where do would be breaking the law on a daily basis.

It has always been illegal. Well it always bit from long before the uninforced fixed penalty nonsense.

ted1

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

It has always been illegal.

Can you provide a reference to the S.I

Arthur.beaker

ted1 wrote: »

Can you provide a reference to the S.I

No I can't, the same as I can't for murder or any other offence.

Cycling on footpaths is not legal in Ireland. Full stop. A blind eye is turned to it but that doesn't make it legal.

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

So ultimately the M50 should have been built with 5 or 6 lanes on each side to allow for the future usage and not current usage?

Groningen - 90,000 inhabitants of which 50,000 are students? how would this possibly suite Dublin's demographic?

Vancouver - a better choice to represent but still not personally sold

How would the Groningen system suit Dublin? I think the idea of having an area outside the city centre where cars can travel (and can circuit the city), but the centre only for cyclists and pedestrians, is sensible.

About half the journeys made in Greater Dublin are 4km or under. These would be more sensibly made by bike.

Both the Vancouver and the Groningen systems are far more pleasant than Dublin's noisy, fumey roads - people comment on the blessed silence, the way people chat to each other quietly as they cycle, the nicer feel of the places.

The M50 should have been built wider, yes; there's now a plan for a second peripherique in Dublin, running outside the M50, which is going to mean years more of building chaos and increasing traffic, then two parallel circular motorways around the city.

ted1

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

No I can't, the same as I can't for murder or any other offence.
.

It's the 1861 offences against the person act.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1861/act/100/enacted/en/print.html

It's being amended so as to remove the death penalty.
Unless you can show me absct with regards cycling on footpaths then I'm not going to go off the word of some guy on the net.

Arthur.beaker

I suggest some cyclist posters on here familiarise themselves with the Rules of the Road, which apply to cyclists.

Being asked to prove that cycling on a footpath is illegal is beyond a joke.

Arthur.beaker

ted1 wrote: »

It's the 1861 offences against the person act.

It's being amended so as to remove the death penalty.
Unless you can show me absct with regards cycling on footpaths then I'm not going to go off the word of some guy on the net.

And we wonder why other road users and pedestrians hate cyclists?

Chuchote

Of course it's illegal to cycle on footpaths. But it's not (as an Irish driver in Boston once said when caught driving the wrong way up a one-way street, to the hysterical laughter of the cops) very illegal!

Children and parents on my road cycle (slowly and safely) up the pavement to and from school every morning. No one minds. It's different if you get a great burly thug racing along and endangering people. Sometimes, it's not so much the rules that matter as good sense - ar scaith a chéile a maireann na daoine.

Roadhawk

ted1 wrote: »

Can you provide a reference to the S.I

There is pleanty to show that is is illegal unless specified as a shared cycle path or otherwise. However it is excluded from on the spot fines.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/07/19/cycling-fines-what-you-need-to-know-from-august-1/

http://irishcycle.com/2015/07/01/cycling-on-footpaths-removed-from-planned-on-the-spot-fines/

You can find your legislation here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/cycling_offences.html

trellheim

ROTR is not the law !!!!

Isn't no driving on paths in SI294/64 ?

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

How would the Groningen system suit Dublin? I think the idea of having an area outside the city centre where cars can travel (and can circuit the city), but the centre only for cyclists and pedestrians, is sensible.

No it only suits a very small portion of people living in certain parts of Dublin to have the city blocked off to motorised traffic. People living outside the the "Cycle Belt" would be penalised and essentially denied access just because they decided to drive?

Chuchote wrote: »

About half the journeys made in Greater Dublin are 4km or under. These would be more sensibly made by bike.

Again...the "Cycle Belt"

Chuchote wrote: »

Both the Vancouver and the Groningen systems are far more pleasant than Dublin's noisy, fumey roads - people comment on the blessed silence, the way people chat to each other quietly as they cycle, the nicer feel of the places.

Well i can tell you that Vancouver is no place to praise silence or fume free air. Ive been there many of times and I can say from my own experience that its quite driven by motor vehicles... cars, trucks, sea planes, oil tankers.

Chuchote wrote: »

The M50 should have been built wider, yes; there's now a plan for a second peripherique in Dublin, running outside the M50, which is going to mean years more of building chaos and increasing traffic, then two parallel circular motorways around the city.

Finally, a good idea

Chuchote

Ah, but if you watched the video you'd see that Vancouver has changed.

Interesting piece here Cycle Lanes Don't Cause Traffic Jams, They're Part of the Solution:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/oct/06/cycle-lanes-dont-cause-traffic-jams-theyre-part-of-the-solution

blackwhite

ted1 wrote: »

Can you provide a reference to the S.I

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

Section 4.1 wrote:

(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle.

Section 13 wrote:

13. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a vehicle shall not be driven along or across a footway.

(2) Sub-article (1) does not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the footway.

(3) A reference in sub-article (1) to driving along or across a footway, includes s reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a footway.

Chuchote

One problem with cycle lanes, I have to admit, is that they lead to 'gentrification' of neighbourhoods, raising the price of houses and driving out working-class people from neighbourhoods where they have traditionally lived:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/05/blame-bike-cycling-contribute-city-gentrification

But the growth of city cycling is not purely utilitarian. Among what urban theorist Richard Florida calls “the creative class”, the bicycle is a potent symbol of identity and status. And more bikes, it seems, means more well-paid knowledge economy jobs. “Cycling to work is positively associated with the share of creative-class jobs and negatively associated with working-class jobs,” Florida wrote in 2011.

Consequently, local hostility to cycling infrastructure has often been a proxy for wider anger at gentrification. In Portland, Oregon in 2011, a proposed bike lane through a historic African American neighbourhood led to opposition from local residents. In 2013, a prominent church opposed a similar scheme in downtown Washington DC.

magicbastarder

ted1 wrote: »

As someone who does a 40 km round trip on my bike every work day, 52 weeks of the year

you need to read up on legislation about annual leave too!

eeguy

ted1 wrote: »

As someone who does a 40 km round trip on my bike every work day, 52 weeks of the year. I've never seen a situation like you describe. If I'm turning right I'll position myself in the centre of the lane and progress like a car would do.

Can you give an example of a junction?

I have two.

The right turn from Macken St to Pearse St.
You're totally exposed in a narrow strip at cars converge around you. There's no clear road markings so cars turning from the other direction try to cut across where I'm positioned.

The right turn from Constitution Hill onto Dorset st. is another.
You have to cross two lanes of traffic, and the turn is usually blind if there's a truck turning in the opposite direction.
Now that has a filter, but you get beeped at and cars running right up the back tyre if you try and wait while the general green light is on.

Chuchote

Deedsie wrote: »

Out of curiosity where is the cycle belt?

Around my waist, or would be if I could find it; damn thing keeps going missing.

shootermacg

Cyclist: Cars are dangerous, they kill cyclists, pedestrians and each other.
Car driver: I find cyclists annoying.

ThisRegard

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

I suggest some cyclist posters on here familiarise themselves with the Rules of the Road, which apply to cyclists.

Being asked to prove that cycling on a footpath is illegal is beyond a joke.

You do know there's a difference between the rules of the road and laws such as those for road traffic don't you?