Is it worth it anymore..... ?

mcgratheoin

No

greenspurs wrote: »

Question 2 from Alyward to Ross

"To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if his attention has been drawn to the fact that inappropriately designed and constructed cycle lanes can result in fatal outcomes for users; his plans to rectify this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter.


* For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 11th October, 2016.

Ref No: 29373/16

Answered by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport
Shane Ross
REPLY

While I have overall responsibility, as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, for policy and funding in relation to roads and traffic, the design and construction of cycling infrastructure in Ireland is carried out in accordance with the criteria set out in the National Cycle Manual as published by the National Transport Authority.
Noting the above position, I have referred the Deputy's question to the NTA for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you don't receive a reply within 10 working days."

Translation:

Let me pass the buck along here - I can only deal with items relevant to my department unless I feel like poking my nose into someone else's department. Having said that, I may claim credit for anything the NTA does that you like.

mcgratheoin

No

greenspurs wrote: »

No. 3

"To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if his attention has been drawn to the national cycling policy framework document 2009 and if he is following the recommendations set in the document; if he recognises the need to engage with the stakeholders as identified in the national cycling policy framework document, if not, the reason; and if he will make a statement on the matter.


* For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 11th October, 2016.

Ref No: 29372/16

Answered by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport
Shane Ross

REPLY

The National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF) was launched in 2009 and sets out a vision for cycling in Ireland to 2020.
Wide consultation with stakeholders and members of the public was part of the process of developing the NCPF. As it currently stands the scope of the NCPF is broad and ambitious and while significant progress has been made on a numbers of actions, we will need a further concerted effort to try to deliver on the overall vision by 2020.
My Department intends undertaking a review of this policy document in the near future and in doing so will again consult with all the relevant stakeholders.

Translation.

We spoke with stakeholders in 2009, what more do you want? To look like I'm doing something I'm going to pass the buck on the NCPF by commissioning a review in some theoretical time frame known as the "near future".

mcgratheoin

No

greenspurs wrote: »

No. 4 :

"To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the urgent need to address cycle safety here; his plans to bring forward legislation relevant to cyclist safety; and if he will make a statement on the matter.


* For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 11th October, 2016.

Ref No: 29371/1
Answered by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport
Shane Ross
REPLY

​My current priority in road safety legislation is the Road Traffic Bill 2016 which is focussed on measures to improve safety for all road users including cyclists. The Bill provides for roadside testing for drugs and an offence of driving with the presence of specified drugs in the blood, a special speed limit of 20km/h, and measures to give effect to an agreement between Ireland and the UK on mutual recognition of driving disqualifications.

I have no plans at present to bring forward specific road traffic legislation regarding cycling safety. In my view, safety for cyclists is best addressed by way of educational and publicity campaigns, such as those undertaken by the Road Safety Authority (RSA). The RSA promote awareness of the Rules of the Road and safe practice on our roads for all road users including the awareness of cyclists and other vulnerable road users among motorists and drivers of heavy commercial vehicles, in conjunction with promoting safe cycling practice by promoting awareness among cyclists of the need for visibility on our roads.

The current Road Safety Strategy, running from 2013 to 2020, contains measures to promote the use of personal protection equipment and high visibility clothing, which is heavily funded by the RSA, and developing a standardised road safety cycling proficiency training programme for schools.
My Department is funding the development and roll-out of "Cycle Right", a new national cycling training standard which I expect will roll out nationally in 2017. Funding of approximately €37m has been allocated by the National Transport Authority for investment in cycling/walking projects, QBCs, safety integration and traffic management projects in 2016 covering the Greater Dublin Area and Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.

Translation

Firstly let me tell you about what I've done that is irrelevant to your question. Cyclists safety is best addressed by somebody else (RSA) and education - but I already think that drivers get enough education. Seeing as the NTA have put some investment into cycling I'll claim credit for it here though - please ignore the previous reply where I told you it was the NTA's responsibility, clearly their achievements are also my achievements.

Slutmonkey57b

clickerquicklic wrote: »

Every morning I am getting close passes at the same points on the road, these are mostly where there is an off-road inappropriate bike lane. I have started to take the full bus lane and blatantly cycle down the centre of the lane to the annoyance of taxi and bus drivers, I get a fair amount of abuse and beeping but I feel safer.
I'm wondering is this what its going to take to get a change in attitude on the road? If everyone just takes the centre of the lane they are cycling in until motorists realise that we are entitled to be there and that the position we normally take is been courteous to other road users.

I'm not clear, if the bike lane is off road, how are you getting close passes? Is it that the pavement is too narrow?

Leroy42

They don't use the cycle lane, they stated it was inappropriate.

The problem being that cars etc feel that cyclists are simply taking the P by continuing to use the road whilst a bike lane has been provided.

On a different, I got a very close pass on Sunday. It was early Sunday morning and I took a left on a red light. Obviously this angered the coming car (although there was plenty of time and I was well on the road by the time they came through) and they moved right on top of me, and then once passed moved back to the right.

Now, regardless of you position on the red light and my cycling, there is simply no excuse for putting my life in danger to make a point. When did vigilatism become an accepted practice. When a car sees another car breaking a light, speeding, talking on the phone etc, do they go out of their way to endanger that person?

It is very odd, and dangerous carry on. If I had moved to avoid a pothole, my tire blew etc, and I ended up under the wheels, you can bet the driver would be full of remorse etc. Why do people put themselves (never mind the cyclist) at such a risk of a life changing event?

And yes I do get the irony that I broke the rules first, and I even get that the driver may well feel aggrieved or put out by it (don't understand it but I see it happen) but why compound the problem by a potential crash. What does the driver think will be the outcome of such an action?

randomname2005

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was early Sunday morning and I did to a left on a red light. Obviously this angered the coming car (although there was plenty of time and I was well on the road by the time they came through) and they moved right on top of me, and then once passed moved back to the right.

I don't understanding doing to a left on a red light!

Leroy42

randomname2005 wrote: »

I don't understanding doing to a left on a red light!

Sorry, total typo.

I took a left hand turn on a red light at a T junction.

PaulieC

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, total typo.

I took a left hand turn on a red light at a T junction.

Why did you break a red light ?

Annie get your Run

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

They don't use the cycle lane, they stated it was inappropriate.

The problem being that cars etc feel that cyclists are simply taking the P by continuing to use the road whilst a bike lane has been provided.

On a different, I got a very close pass on Sunday. It was early Sunday morning and I took a left on a red light. Obviously this angered the coming car (although there was plenty of time and I was well on the road by the time they came through) and they moved right on top of me, and then once passed moved back to the right.

Now, regardless of you position on the red light and my cycling, there is simply no excuse for putting my life in danger to make a point. When did vigilatism become an accepted practice. When a car sees another car breaking a light, speeding, talking on the phone etc, do they go out of their way to endanger that person?

It is very odd, and dangerous carry on. If I had moved to avoid a pothole, my tire blew etc, and I ended up under the wheels, you can bet the driver would be full of remorse etc. Why do people put themselves (never mind the cyclist) at such a risk of a life changing event?

And yes I do get the irony that I broke the rules first, and I even get that the driver may well feel aggrieved or put out by it (don't understand it but I see it happen) but why compound the problem by a potential crash. What does the driver think will be the outcome of such an action?

They're not thinking about killing you or trying to kill you, I'd imagine they want to show you how dangerous it can be to break a light - you're right, they are not the police and it's not justified - however... I see this as a red rag to a bull and I really really really wish cyclists would not break red lights. If at the very least we obey the rules of the road then drivers have less to throw at us. I hate seeing cyclists go through red while I'm sitting patiently on my bike waiting for the green.

Also, you put yourself at risk in that situation, something you didn't acknowledge in your post.

Leroy42

PaulieC wrote: »

Why did you break a red light ?

Because...

My brakes failed, there was a car very close to me, the sun was in my eyes, it was really orange when I got to it, it was early Sunday morning and I wanted to.

PaulieC

No

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I see this as a red rag to a bull and I really really really wish cyclists would not break red lights. If at the very least we obey the rules of the road then drivers have less to throw at us. I hate seeing cyclists go through red while I'm sitting patiently on my bike waiting for the green.

100% this. Cyclists breaking the red lights tars all cyclists with the same brush in motorist's eyes.

Leroy42

PaulieC wrote: »

100% this. Cyclists breaking the red lights tars up all with the same brush in motorist's eyes.

So all car drivers are vigilante nutcases who speed, break red lights, kill pedestrians and use mobile phones?

That just a convenient excuse used by motorist to excuse their own behaviour. My breaking the red, or whatever, should not impact on the other road users adherence to the rules.

Tenzor07

Leroy42 wrote: »

That just a convenient excuse used by motorist to excuse their own behaviour. My breaking the red, or whatever, should not impact on the other road users adherence to the rules.

What ya mean is that it's not up to the motoring public to be Police and Judge/Jury using a 1300kg machine as the executioner..

Annie get your Run

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

So all car drivers are vigilante nutcases who speed, break red lights, kill pedestrians and use mobile phones?

That just a convenient excuse used by motorist to excuse their own behaviour. My breaking the red, or whatever, should not impact on the other road users adherence to the rules.

Yes but it does, that's a fact. And your breaking the light has a knock on affect on the rest of us too.

Leroy42

Annie get your Run wrote: »

They're not thinking about killing you or trying to kill you, I'd imagine they want to show you how dangerous it can be to break a light - you're right, they are not the police and it's not justified - however... I see this as a red rag to a bull and I really really really wish cyclists would not break red lights. If at the very least we obey the rules of the road then drivers have less to throw at us. I hate seeing cyclists go through red while I'm sitting patiently on my bike waiting for the green.

Also, you put yourself at risk in that situation, something you didn't acknowledge in your post.

How does passing me with inches to spare teach me that. i don't even know that what they are complaining about. There was no danger, as is proved by the fact that I am perfectly fine, until they decided to teach me a lesson.

it's not justified - however...

Why are you not putting the same level of understanding to breaking the red light. It's not justifies...however!

I put myself at risk everytime I go on the road. If this was the only time that I had been closed passed, shouted out, beeped out, targeting then I would agree. But it isn't and never is. Even the attitude that this person thinks they have the right to 'teach me the dangers' screams of thinking they know better than me.

Leroy42

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Yes but it does, that's a fact. And your breaking the light has a knock on affect on the rest of us too.

How? Does your speeding have a knock on effect to me? What about the time you failed to signal a tthe roundabout? Or used your mobile phone whilst driving?

it is not a fact. The driver made a decision to act that way. My breaking the red did not inevitably lead to them close passing me. They could have simply passed (there was no other cars on the road), they could have slowed down and waited, they could have reported me, they could have ignored it and simply put it down to me being an idiot and get as far away from me as possible.

They chose to act the way they did. They chose to take a perfectly safe situation and make it dangerous.

Car drivers are not treated as a single group, why are cyclists? Are you suggesting that the motorist was within their rights to close pass every other cyclist they met the rest of the day, or is there a time limit.

Annie get your Run

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

How does passing me with inches to spare teach me that. i don't even know that what they are complaining about. There was no danger, as is proved by the fact that I am perfectly fine, until they decided to teach me a lesson.

Why are you not putting the same level of understanding to breaking the red light. It's not justifies...however!

I put myself at risk everytime I go on the road. If this was the only time that I had been closed passed, shouted out, beeped out, targeting then I would agree. But it isn't and never is. Even the attitude that this person thinks they have the right to 'teach me the dangers' screams of thinking they know better than me.

From what I can see, the beeping, shouting etc etc is because they see us all as rules breakers etc (when in fact it's probably just frustration that we are getting home quicker than they are). I know and you know that they also break the rules but lets put that to one side for a second - if 'we' can obey the rules of the road and be the better road users then it can only help. Anyway, I'll continue to cycle (and drive) without breaking red lights and hope that someday others will consider doing the same.

PaulieC

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

How? Does your speeding have a knock on effect to me? What about the time you failed to signal a tthe roundabout? Or used your mobile phone whilst driving?

Car drivers are not treated as a single group, why are cyclists? Are you suggesting that the motorist was within their rights to close pass every other cyclist they met the rest of the day, or is there a time limit.

People who complain about cyclists complain because they see cyclists breaking red lights. It doesn't matter if only 10% cyclists do it, all cyclists are seen to be RLJs.

What the person in the car did to you was a dick move, but if you hadn't broken a red light, you wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place. The rules of the road apply to all road users at all times.

queldy

Sometimes it is safer to break a red light, rather then wait for green being in the center of a formula 1 start race, but involving cars/buses/trucks,motorbikes etc.
I break red lights sometimes, not all of them - many cases it is just way safer. I may be wrong, but this is my best way of surviving the city.
I also use pedestrians green light to cross, but only (and I mean it) when I am sure all the pedestrians are gone and I cross very low speed (walking speed).

For what concerns drivers punishing you, unfortunately many of them do this - the revenge pass or call it as you want.
Once we were a group of cyclist (me and some friends going to the Phoenix park) turning right at a traffic light; everything was in order, but a woman in her big SUV, at the green, had to speed up and pass us in a very dangerous way, so that she could queue 30 meter later. I went close to her window, I excused myself, and I told her if she could take in consideration that she put in danger a group of cyclists just 10 seconds earlier - she yelled at me "where is your helmet?". So apparently, she thought she could put me in danger because I did not have my helmet.
There is always an excuse for a punishment pass.

axer

queldy wrote: »

Sometimes it is safer to break a red light, rather then wait for green being in the center of a formula 1 start race, but involving cars/buses/trucks,motorbikes etc.
I break red lights sometimes, not all of them - many cases it is just way safer. I may be wrong, but this is my best way of surviving the city.
I also use pedestrians green light to cross, but only (and I mean it) when I am sure all the pedestrians are gone and I cross very low speed (walking speed).

Absolute BS. I never have to break red lights and I cycle right through Dublin city centre daily. Its not that hard to follow the rules of the road. You do realise that if it is not safe to go forward you could just wait so if a truck (etc) is ahead of you and you think it is dangerous to be around it at the lights maybe just wait behind it until it goes ahead or until it is safe to pass it - it doesn't give you permission to break the lights and sure as hell doesn't make it safer for you (or others).

CramCycle

It does not make it safer, but it is a nice excuse if you want to do it. Personally there are several situations where breaking a red is not unsafe. Just phrase it like that. I stopped, I observed, it was clear in all directions so I carried on because it suited me.

I have no time for people hiding behind the safety issue, as with one or two rare exceptions, which always involve someone else breaking the law and attempting to kill you, then it is not safer, it si more convenient.

It is like motorists who run the red after it turns. Claim it was safer to do so as they would have been rear ended or caused an accident. The truth is, they were driving dangerously and they wanted to continue and in their mind, they didn't really care that much about it, nothing to do with safety either but it is the first line trotted out. Everyone likes it though because it is accepted and therefore they can use it they next time they do it.

ED E

Worth what?

Queldy making excuses for your impatience. There are advance stop zones and safe methods of cycling, zero need to RLJ (I've commuted by bike for 14yrs).

queldy

axel, thanks for BS-ing me, I was peacefully giving my opinion. I think it is safer in some cases, not for myself only - I am actually advising it.

cramcycle, you have no time for people hiding behind the safety issue, but I am not hiding behind anything. Anyway, if you refer to me, please find the time to give me your opinion, because I am here to contribute for the best of all of us.

ed e, I am honestly not making any excuse, and I do not think it is about my impatience. advance stop zones are occupied more than 95%, and not from cyclists.

Leroy42

What are the statistics in relation to the accidents and crashes caused by RLJ by cyclists?

Annie get your Run

No

queldy wrote: »

Sometimes it is safer to break a red light, rather then wait for green being in the center of a formula 1 start race, but involving cars/buses/trucks,motorbikes etc.
I break red lights sometimes, not all of them - many cases it is just way safer. I may be wrong, but this is my best way of surviving the city.
.

I have to say, as a someone who cycles daily in the city and suburbs, I've never come across a situation where its safer to break a light than wait. I'll either stay behind traffic if I feel its safer to do so or I will position myself in the centre of the lane and make eye contact with the vehicle behind me to ensure I've been seen. There are plenty of ways to ensure your safety that don't involve breaking the law.

If people feel they should be allowed to break red lights for safety purposes (or any other reason) then I would encourage them to campaign on that matter with the relevant organisations or government department.

07Lapierre

No

queldy wrote: »

axel, thanks for BS-ing me, I was peacefully giving my opinion. I think it is safer in some cases, not for myself only - I am actually advising it.

:eek::eek:

Please explain this in detail.

Chips Lovell

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

As a car driver, I'd have to say it depends on which section of the N4 you're talking about. All the way from Kilmainham and particularly out past the M50 is effectively motorway and the only reason it isn't officially made one is that they like to keep speed traps there.

It is in no way "effectively" a motorway. That stretch of road goes through two different residential areas, with a short stretch in between where the speed limit goes up to 80. As someone who lives in that area and regularly crosses that road with young kids, I find it somewhat alarming that there's people tipping along there thinking the only reason it isn't a motorway is collection of speeding fines.

queldy wrote: »

Sometimes it is safer to break a red light, rather then wait for green being in the center of a formula 1 start race, but involving cars/buses/trucks,motorbikes etc.

Anyone who thinks they need to break a red light in order to stay safe really shouldn't be riding a bike.

CramCycle

queldy wrote: »

cramcycle, you have no time for people hiding behind the safety issue, but I am not hiding behind anything. Anyway, if you refer to me, please find the time to give me your opinion, because I am here to contribute for the best of all of us.

My opinion is simple, it is not safer to run the red light. There are occasions where it is not unsafe. The big issue in Ireland is that what is safe to you may not actually be safe to someone else or if you had the whole picture (not sayign you don't) but it is subjective, and culturally, we take the view that suits us best at the time, hence why just because you say it is safer, without evidence or proof, all i can say is it might not be more dangerous. A better way to view it would be why would it have been more dangerous to stay not break the red. I have had people try and explain this to me as well, and often it comes down to not reading the road properly and putting themselves in a dangerous position in the first place, nothing to do with the red light, just poor road craft.

I am honestly not making any excuse, and I do not think it is about my impatience. advance stop zones are occupied more than 95%, and not from cyclists.

You could get in the queue of traffic, if the ASL is blocked off.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What are the statistics in relation to the accidents and crashes caused by RLJ by cyclists?

I imagine it is quite small although I haven't heard of any official stats. A few paper reports (although rare) about accidents caused by RLJing but still uncommon.

danmanw8

Parchment wrote: »

I feel the same - i dont cycle for pleasure anymore except on greenways.

Everyone here is talking about enforcement and penalties - i get that but i dont want to be a statistic. Its lethal out there. I wish my boyfriend would stop cycling on the roads, its sad but i do feel that way.

So annoying that this will result in less people cycling when more people should be cycling. It's a free, healthy, environmentally friendly way to travel, more people should do, not less. It's a shame drivers make it dangerous.

mcgratheoin

No

CramCycle wrote: »

A better way to view it would be why would it have been more dangerous to stay not break the red.

I pretty much agree with everything you mention regarding RLJ, however the conclusion that obeying the law is safer than breaking the law is predicated on the behaviour of other road users. There are unfortunately drivers who become pretty frustrated and enraged when cyclists enter the advanced stop zone ahead of traffic - you could potentially argue that avoiding these drivers by jumping the red lights is safer than waiting for the lights to go green.

Incidentally, what is the accepted etiquette around anticipatory RLJ? i.e. taking off as the lights are about to turn green based on knowledge of the junctions light pattern?