Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Options
1…34689…22

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,452 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    just to put this into context - 4.35m is about a metre wider than one of the lanes on the M50.

    3.75 m at their widest I believe.


  • Options
    #153
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Cyclists should not be cycling two abreast where:
    (i) This leaves insufficient road space for a car to overtake them leaving a minimum passing distance.
    (ii) Where there is a continuous white line, and there would be sufficient road space for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the continuous white line.
    (iii) Where there is a marked cycle path, except where the cycle path is large enough to accomodate two cyclists .

    Don't just say it's cyclists that need to have their use of the road monitored/enforced.

    It is also the law that there is no road side parking (non marked spaces) where there is a continuous white line on the road, or within 10m of a junction, but motorists do both all the time. Result - endangering other road users.

    Little or no enforcement ..


  • Options
    #154
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    TheChizler wrote: »
    3.75 m at their widest I believe.

    3.25m is their minimum, with most being at 3.5m (or that was the intention) and above AFAIK. At certain junctions and blending they go up to 4m.


  • Options
    #155
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Do you understand why cyclists ride two abreast?

    Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

    For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
    Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
    So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #156
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,064 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

    For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
    Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
    So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?

    Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    Don't just say it's cyclists that need to have their use of the road monitored/enforced.
    It is also the law that there is no road side parking (non marked spaces) where there is a continuous white line on the road, or within 10m of a junction, but motorists do both all the time. Result - endangering other road users.
    Little or no enforcement ..

    Look back at my earlier comments on drink drivers etc - I've also said I think we should try better enforcement of what we already have before we bring in a new law and you have listed perfect example of laws we already have that are not being enforced.

    But if it is going to come in come hell or high water, then I think the amendments above are a good idea.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #158
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    If there's a continuous white lane, you won't be able to overtake anyone without crossing it on pretty much every road.


  • Options
    #159
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

    For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
    Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
    So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?
    Mainly because the difference in width of two cyclist versus one cyclist is not much more than 0.5m. It is just that psychologically it looks like alot more. Basically this means that motorists without experience of either cycling or good perception, think that overtaking one cyclist is far easier than two, but when doing it safely, there is very little difference. Therefore you get clearly uninformed or unskilled drivers attempting unsafe overtakes with single file cyclists that they would not risk with cyclists riding two abreast.

    TL: DR, if you cannot safely overtake cyclists riding two abreast, then you in almost every scenario, cannot safely overtake a cyclist riding in single file, even though you may think you can.
    Lumen wrote: »
    Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?
    Motorways :pac:


  • Options
    #160
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    Lumen wrote: »
    Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?

    All along the canal from Crumlin to Baggot Street is one example where you have a lot of car and cycle traffic.


  • Options
    #161
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Look back at my earlier comments on drink drivers etc - I've also said I think we should try better enforcement of what we already have before we bring in a new law and you have listed perfect example of laws we already have that are not being enforced.

    But if it is going to come in come hell or high water, then I think the amendments above are a good idea.

    Like most Irish laws, it isn't there for enforcement until we invest in Garda numbers. Until then it is a band aid for the courts to have better ground to stand on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    All along the canal from Crumlin to Baggot Street is one example where you have a lot of car and cycle traffic.

    Considering how many near misses I see on that stretch whenever I use it, safe is not the word I would use. Statistically survivable would be better.


  • Options
    #163
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    If there's a continuous white lane, you won't be able to overtake anyone without crossing it on pretty much every road.

    If that is the case (and I'm not 100% sure that it is) ... then there should be no objection to the condition, it can join all the other dead laws on the books :)

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #164
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,452 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Motorways :pac:

    Not even! Maybe where they widen for tolls...


  • Options
    #165
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Considering how many near misses I see on that stretch whenever I use it, safe is not the word I would use. Statistically survivable would be better.

    So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?


  • Options
    #166
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?

    Correct! A ban on private cars is already being proposed for the quays along the Liffey.


  • Options
    #167
    mrcheez
    Registered Users Posts: 13,732 ✭✭✭✭mrcheez


    Annie get your Run wrote: »
    It hasn't even come into law yet and already it's helping (IMO). My cycle home yesterday evening was noticeably safer then ever before, not just on the close passing but also on roundabouts etc, it seemed I was suddenly more visible.

    I noticed this as well! I thought it was drivers "feeling bad for me" that I had to cycle in high winds.

    Only one or two passed close by.. evidently they weren't listening to the radio/news :)


    I also notice that I get more aggressive approaches on the road whenever George Hook is babbling on too.


  • Options
    #168
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Correct! A ban on private cars is already being proposed for the quays along the Liffey.

    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.


  • Options
    #169
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,327 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

    The idea is that people stop using cars completely as much as possible.


  • Options
    #170
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,762 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

    What, you mean all these areas flow freely at the moment?


  • Options
    #171
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

    I agree... in a perfect world we would have a cheap reliable public transport system, which would encourage people to leave their private cars at home. But that's not the case in Ireland. It's far from ideal, but banning private cars from urban areas is/will happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

    There are schools in Crumlin,Terenure etc.?
    Here's a thought: http://www.bikeradar.com/beginners/gear/article/ban-cars-school-run-49230/


  • Options
    #173
    timmy_mallet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭timmy_mallet


    What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.


  • Options
    #174
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    timmy_mallet wrote: »
    What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

    And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #175
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,762 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    timmy_mallet wrote: »
    What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

    Don't under estimate the power of car dependency. There's people who would gladly sit in a car for an hour to travel 5km rather than cycle / walk or use public transport.

    I met someone at a social event recently - drove daily from milltown to the city centre, virtually parallel to the Luas. I was surprised he didn't get it - he was bemoaning the car journey. His reason? Well, you're not guaranteed a seat on the LUAS.


  • Options
    #176
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?
    Not a bad idea. Have traffic one way only, or if possible, switch direction at a certain time of the day. Road bollards on the road. Begin rising at 2pm, lower to let traffic out, switch direction, and lower bollards again for the rest of the evening. Make it single lane only, with the other lane being for buses only. Leave the bollards on the bus lane and give buses a signal to lower on approach. Any driver who gets stranded, faces a 300euro fine plus a repair bill and call out charge to whoever needs to get them down.
    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.
    If proper support for commuters was put in place then it would not be chocker block. At many times of day it is quicker to bus into the city centre and walk out or bus out. Horrible network but usable, only that you have to pay two fares, so no one will, as driving can be cheaper, rather than a point to point, cheaper fare that can be reconciled with very simple software for billing via Leap. that info could finally be used to design sustainable bus routes.


  • Options
    #177
    timmy_mallet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭timmy_mallet


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    timmy_mallet wrote: »
    What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

    And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?
    Nothing (and not sure why the whataboutery is relevant or why I should), but if cycling too close or some-other request to cyclists to refrain from some behaviour would make pedestrians safer, I would do it, and wouldn't request some other concession from them to comply.


  • Options
    #178
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?
    What do you mean "you"? Statistically, both groups cause little danger to each other. There are already laws in place to deal with badly behaved cyclists, bar enforcement from more Gardai, and better education via the RSA, there is nothing else to be done there.

    I call out cyclists who run pedestrian junctions, at least they can hear me, cars who do it can't hear me and won't as they are. Both are d1cks, one is more likely to kill than the other, but unless enforcement is brought up a notch, there is nothing "I" can do unless you want me to risk assault with a citizens arrest.


  • Options
    #179
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

    "I" don't cycle on the footpath and use lights at night. Not sure what else "I" can do?


  • Options
    #180
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I wear all black, all of the time, I am like a middle aged version of Batman, just without, you know, any of the things that make him interesting. Except for the black bit. Sometimes when I am cycling I make car noises, and make fake skid noises as I slow down to stop at a red light.

    This said the cape was a bad idea, but I might bring it back if this minimum overtake thing takes off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Don't under estimate the power of car dependency. There's people who would gladly sit in a car for an hour to travel 5km rather than cycle / walk or use public transport.
    or even just walk. during the bus strikes last year, someone posted on the commuting forum asking for an alternative way to get from ballymun to the city centre. the suggestion to walk was met with a reaction along the lines of 'are you ****ing kidding me?' (not phrased quite like that).

    we live beside DCU and my wife has often walked into work in the city centre. it's actually not considerably longer than a bus commute at rush hour.


Advertisement