Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Chips Lovell

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You're telling me you walk though undergrowth and trees, then climb over a safety barrier, then walk across 3 lanes of traffic to a traffic island, climb over some more barriers and thick hedges, cross another 3 lanes of traffic, then over another safety barrier, to climb through more undergrowth, to get to where you're going? With young kids?

Don't be disingenuous.

Part of that road is as you describe, the 80kph stretch I mention, but certainly not all of it.

Chips Lovell

Swanner wrote: »

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

I don't think anyone is saying cycling is the only way to stay fit, but it's for some people it's their preferred way and also convenient.

I occasionally run to work, but it's a 13km commute, so not practical every day.

Personally, I'm more likely to get injured running than cycling.

Etnies

There was a post on the Garda Twitter feed last week about inconsiderate parking, where a car had parked on a footpath at an angle and completely blocked the footpath for pedestrians.

In the background of the photo were cars parked in a cycle lane, which was pay and display at certain hours, pay and display machine clearly visible.

Queue the outraged cyclists of Twitter to take umbrage about these drivers "illegally" parking and that the Garda did nothing about it.

Tonnes of them. Same on Joe.ie when their quality journalist reposted the same thing and the comment section.

One fella even told me you can NEVER park in a cycle lane that's why they are there "to keep cyclists safe"

None of these people knew the rules of the road, most of them cyclists.

Theory test needed to cycle a bike on public roads at once.

Etnies

No

Etnies wrote: »

There was a post on the Garda Twitter feed last week about inconsiderate parking, where a car had parked on a footpath at an angle and completely blocked the footpath for pedestrians.

In the background of the photo were cars parked in a cycle lane, which was pay and display at certain hours, pay and display machine clearly visible.

Queue the outraged cyclists of Twitter to take umbrage about these drivers "illegally" parking and that the Garda did nothing about it.

Tonnes of them. Same on Joe.ie when their quality journalist reposted the same thing and the comment section.

One fella even told me you can NEVER park in a cycle lane that's why they are there "to keep cyclists safe"

None of these people knew the rules of the road, most of them cyclists.

Theory test needed to cycle a bike on public roads at once.

I think it would be more productive to have a theory test for commenting on the internet.

Weepsie

Etnies wrote: »

T


Theory test needed to cycle a bike on public roads at once.

Nope. Yes there are some cycle lanes in which you can park at certain hours, some being pay and display. The Garda post you refer to doesn't have the Pay and Display signage in it so people can be excused for not knowing that parking was legal there.

Drivers do theory tests, and park illegally all the time such as the car on the footpath in that same post and another one later on, and do all sort of dangerous nonsense.

Etnies

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/865622369301221376


"You can pay and park in a bike lane? I'm confused"


There is a quite visible blue pay and display machine in the photo.

Along with the back of a Grey sign which clearly states the parking hours and clearway hours. But if you don't know the rules of the road, then you wouldn't know this

CramCycle

Swanner wrote: »

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

I don't think it is exclusive to cycling but cycling is one of the few things I can fit into my daily routine that work for me. I used to love running and would happily run into work only due to injuries from football, it is no longer viable. I also now commute just shy of 40km a day, which would put me at marathon distance every day. I don't perceive any risks with cycling that are significantly worse than driving, walking or other methods of commuting. Although my understanding is that it is safer, although I think there are other mitigating factors that are not taken into account in these studies.

cython wrote: »

At no point did he suggest that it was exclusive to cycling, but if you read it a bit more carefully he's referring to a scenario if he "stopped commuting by bike". i.e. if he simply swapped his cycle commute for a sedentary commute, and the rest of his day to day life remained the same, i.e. no more added physical activity.

Swanner wrote: »

Fair enough. He didn't say that though

CramCycle wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that if I stopped commuting by bike

I did think it was pretty obvious that I was talking about it as part of my commute and if I instead started driving or busing it.

It's often mentioned on here about car drivers being overweight, unfit, unhealthy and destined for an early grave.. Truth is these are just general judgements and no better then those flung the other way..

I said I would be, and I have seen it when I have taken a break from cycling, I gain weight extraordinarily quickly, I am slower and less motivated. Does this happen to everyone, probably not. Does it mean if you commute in a sedentary fashion you are unfit, of course not. Does it mean that if you increased your daily exercise by integrating some extra exercise into your commute you would be fitter, yes, yes it does.

Some people are fit and healthy, some aren't. Their method of daily commute needn't have any bearing on that whatsoever.

So you are saying that if an unfit person started increasing their daily exercise amount, they would not become fitter? I would disagree with you. That exercise might be walking to a bus stop further away, it might be running into work, or simply parking the car before work and commuting the remainder by foot/ bicycle, skateboard, scooter etc.

Mr.H

I agree that here are god awful drivers out there and they need to be punished but the same goes for the bad cyclists.

It is more common for cyclists to break ref lights than drivers. I know your instinct is to get defensive now but I'm not saying all cyclists. Every single day in Limerick I see cyclists break red lights or cycle on bike path footpaths to break red lights. They will also sway in and around traffic stopped at a red light.

Again this is not all but a lot.

Equally I see drivers who pass too close to bikes or I through a roundabout not giving right of way to an on coming cyclist.

It's dangerous out there but we all need to be more considerate using the roads. Not just drivers or cyclists but all of us.

Running red lights is dangerous no matter what. Just because your on a hike doesn't mean it's only your life your taking in your hands.

Chips Lovell

I think the moral of the story is that the world is chock full of idiots. Idiots on bikes, idiots in cars, idiots on Twitter.

Weepsie

Etnies wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/865622369301221376


"You can pay and park in a bike lane? I'm confused"


There is a quite visible blue pay and display machine in the photo.

Along with the back of a Grey sign which clearly states the parking hours and clearway hours. But if you don't know the rules of the road, then you wouldn't know this

There is also a double yellow line. The sign is not readable from that angle. It could for all I know say no parking 24 hours. It may also have clear times in which those cars shouldn't be there, but times those cars commonly ignore.
Your faux outrage is worse than those on twitter.

I know the rules of road (I also know that they are not statute which an awful load of drivers don't know and are more important)

Weepsie

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think the moral of the story is that the world is chock full of idiots. Idiots on bikes, idiots in cars, idiots on Twitter.

and evidently on Boards

basch32

Tbh I am probably gonna get a massive back lash for the following but gonna say it anyways.

I am both a motorist and a cyclist so see both sides of the argument when it comes to who is right and wrong. There needs to be better education and training on both sides. I find it madness that a cyclist can take to the roads with no training, no safety gear (enforcement) and no experience.

Personally I think every new bike should be registered for a small fee and have something similar to a log book in that it is owned by person X. This would allow firstly that bikes being stolen would be better to track and also then enforcement of fines for breaking the law such as breaking a red light be better enforced.

Every bike user should have to do a training course before being allowed on a main road and get a simple piece of paper to say its completed which they carry when cycling.

Finally we need proper enforcement of laws for cyclists such as changing lanes without signalling, breaking reds, cycling the wrong way down a street, dangerous cycling like going up inside a lorry at a junction/red light (suicidal comes to mind).

Lastly we need proper cycle lanes segregated from the road or at least ones that cars cant move into (broken white lines)

Again this is just a thought not that it should be implemented but of the 7 people killed this year I'd like to know exactly what happened. We cant automatically blame the driver....

The Bishop Basher

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Personally, I'm more likely to get injured running than cycling.

I would agree. When I can't run because of injury I cycle as it has far less impact on me overall.

CramCycle wrote: »

So you are saying that if an unfit person started increasing their daily exercise amount, they would not become fitter?

No of course not.. Obviously anyone upping their daily exercise amount is a good thing and will result in improved fitness. It just doesn't have to involve a bike and be part of a commute was all I was saying.. I believe we're in agreement.

Etnies

Weepsie wrote: »

There is also a double yellow line. The sign is not readable from that angle. It could for all I know say no parking 24 hours. It may also have clear times in which those cars shouldn't be there, but times those cars commonly ignore.
Your faux outrage is worse than those on twitter.

I know the rules of road (I also know that they are not statute which an awful load of drivers don't know and are more important)

Faux outrage

The angry cyclist. "and evidently on Boards"

The double yellow lines are for the front of the gate way into the car dealership and end at the front of each of the cars in the photo, If you can't work out from all the evidence in that picture what is actually going on here, then clearly you do NOT know the rules of the road, or maybe you're just a little slow on the uptake.


Here look the Guards even put up a breakdown of the picture for the cyclists : https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/865941767287386113

mcgratheoin

No

basch32 wrote: »

I am both a motorist and a cyclist so see both sides of the argument when it comes to who is right and wrong.

Pretty much every anti-cyclist post starts like this - "I'm a cyclist but..."

There needs to be better education and training on both sides.

Cue list of everything cyclists need to do with no mention of drivers training. :rolleyes:

I find it madness that a cyclist can take to the roads with no training, no safety gear (enforcement) and no experience.

Not half as mad as drivers being allowed on motorways with no training and no experience of them.

Finally we need proper enforcement of laws for cyclists such as changing lanes without signalling, breaking reds, cycling the wrong way down a street, dangerous cycling like going up inside a lorry at a junction/red light (suicidal comes to mind).

Let's try to fully enforce the same laws for vehicles first and see where that gets us.

We cant automatically blame the driver....

We're not automatically blaming the driver - we're looking at aggregated data that generally shows cyclists are not the instigators of most collisions.

Chuchote

No

greenspurs wrote: »

Back on topic....

Still no other replies from my 10 emails to Td's and Councillors , about if they are going to do anything about cyclist safety on the public roads.

I replied to Bobby Alywards response (i have posted it a few pages back in the thread). I also suggested some things that could be implemented.

I've got a few every time I've emailed councillors. It's also worth hammering home the advantages of good cycling infrastructure on Twitter.

Mr.H wrote: »

It is more common for cyclists to break ref lights than drivers. I know your instinct is to get defensive now but I'm not saying all cyclists. Every single day in Limerick I see cyclists break red lights or cycle on bike path footpaths to break red lights. They will also sway in and around traffic stopped at a red light.

I know you do. But you're wrong, and a million (slight exaggeration) studies show that it is drivers who break red lights more than cyclists.

http://www.thejournal.ie/cyclists-dublin-3018953-Oct2016/

GARDAÍ HAVE CAUGHT 24 times more motorists than cyclists breaking red lights so far this year in Dublin.
The figures, released at a press conference in Dublin this morning, show that 1,296 cars in Dublin have been recorded breaking a red light so far in 2016 – 24 times the rate of cyclists caught breaking red lights (54) in the same period.

Pedestrians were involved in 42% of all fatal collisions in the Dublin metropolitan region between 2013 and 2016 to date. Some 11% of fatalities were cyclists.

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-only-cyclists-break-red-traffic-lights-in-ireland-right-take-a-look-at-this/

http://irishcycle.com/2016/05/26/only-1-in-8-cyclists-run-red-lights-says-study-of-60-irish-junctions/

ONLY 1-IN-8 CYCLISTS RUN RED LIGHTS SAYS STUDY OF 60 IRISH JUNCTIONS

Drivers break lights in a different way - and a more dangerous way, generally: when the lights turn red, a stream of cars whizzes through, usually cars that are turning. On the other hand, the relatively much fewer people who ride their bikes through the lights are often stopping, hesitating, looking left and right and checking that it's safe, and cycling on - a method that's legal in many countries, in fact.

AndrewJRenko

No

Swanner wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point ? I'm not perfect. I try not to break laws but being human I do slip up from time to time and when I do I genuinely try and learn from it.

However that's a million miles away from proudly announcing that I willingly break laws just because I can while ranting about every other road user who dares to step out of line.

One is being human. The other is being a hypocrite.

So just to clarify - when driving you generally aim and achieve staying within the speed limit? You might occasionaly slip over it, but in urban areas, you generally drive under 50 kmph?

Swanner wrote: »

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

You take time out of day to run. Commuting cyclists build their exercise into their commuting time. That's the difference.

Etnies wrote: »

There was a post on the Garda Twitter feed last week about inconsiderate parking, where a car had parked on a footpath at an angle and completely blocked the footpath for pedestrians.

In the background of the photo were cars parked in a cycle lane, which was pay and display at certain hours, pay and display machine clearly visible.

Queue the outraged cyclists of Twitter to take umbrage about these drivers "illegally" parking and that the Garda did nothing about it.

Tonnes of them. Same on Joe.ie when their quality journalist reposted the same thing and the comment section.

One fella even told me you can NEVER park in a cycle lane that's why they are there "to keep cyclists safe"

None of these people knew the rules of the road, most of them cyclists.

Theory test needed to cycle a bike on public roads at once.

While people may have got the wrong end of the stick about that particular location, there is close to zero Garda enforcement of no-parking rules in bike lanes. I commute through Ranalagh and Rathmines regularly, and it is a very rare day that there is not at least one vehicle parked in a mandatory cycle lane during rush hour. Garda have explicitly stated that they turn a blind eye to such parking.

Mr.H wrote: »

I agree that here are god awful drivers out there and they need to be punished but the same goes for the bad cyclists.

It is more common for cyclists to break ref lights than drivers. I know your instinct is to get defensive now but I'm not saying all cyclists. Every single day in Limerick I see cyclists break red lights or cycle on bike path footpaths to break red lights. They will also sway in and around traffic stopped at a red light.

Again this is not all but a lot.

Equally I see drivers who pass too close to bikes or I through a roundabout not giving right of way to an on coming cyclist.

It's dangerous out there but we all need to be more considerate using the roads. Not just drivers or cyclists but all of us.

Running red lights is dangerous no matter what. Just because your on a hike doesn't mean it's only your life your taking in your hands.

88% of those picked up breaking the red lights by the Luas red light camera were motorists, not cyclists. 82% of motorists break speed limits.

Tell me again what are the priority areas for enforcement?

basch32 wrote: »

Tbh I am probably gonna get a massive back lash for the following but gonna say it anyways.

I am both a motorist and a cyclist so see both sides of the argument when it comes to who is right and wrong. There needs to be better education and training on both sides. I find it madness that a cyclist can take to the roads with no training, no safety gear (enforcement) and no experience.

Personally I think every new bike should be registered for a small fee and have something similar to a log book in that it is owned by person X. This would allow firstly that bikes being stolen would be better to track and also then enforcement of fines for breaking the law such as breaking a red light be better enforced.

Every bike user should have to do a training course before being allowed on a main road and get a simple piece of paper to say its completed which they carry when cycling.

Finally we need proper enforcement of laws for cyclists such as changing lanes without signalling, breaking reds, cycling the wrong way down a street, dangerous cycling like going up inside a lorry at a junction/red light (suicidal comes to mind).

Lastly we need proper cycle lanes segregated from the road or at least ones that cars cant move into (broken white lines)

Again this is just a thought not that it should be implemented but of the 7 people killed this year I'd like to know exactly what happened. We cant automatically blame the driver....

Why would you expect similar rules for cycling and motoring given the dramatically different levels of risk involved. It's like expecting the same rules for buying a Swiss Army knife as buying an AK47. 4,500 people killed by motorists in the last 15 years vs zero killed by cyclists - just in case you're struggling to understand the difference in risk and danger.

mcgratheoin

No

Chuchote wrote: »

I know you do. But you're wrong, and a million (slight exaggeration) studies show that it is drivers who break red lights more than cyclists.

It actually should be even more skewed - if a light is red, every cyclist arriving at those lights has the opportunity to break the red light - only a very few cars get that chance. Most cars stopped at a junction are stopped behind another vehicle, not because they made a decision based on the colour of the lights. Every cyclist stopped at red lights has seen those lights and made the decision to obey the signals. Therefore the number of cars who break lights as a percentage of those in a position to do so is remarkably high.

CramCycle

basch32 wrote: »

Tbh I am probably gonna get a massive back lash for the following but gonna say it anyways.

I am both a motorist and a cyclist so see both sides of the argument when it comes to who is right and wrong. There needs to be better education and training on both sides. I find it madness that a cyclist can take to the roads with no training, no safety gear (enforcement) and no experience.

Personally I think every new bike should be registered for a small fee and have something similar to a log book in that it is owned by person X. This would allow firstly that bikes being stolen would be better to track and also then enforcement of fines for breaking the law such as breaking a red light be better enforced.

Every bike user should have to do a training course before being allowed on a main road and get a simple piece of paper to say its completed which they carry when cycling.

Finally we need proper enforcement of laws for cyclists such as changing lanes without signalling, breaking reds, cycling the wrong way down a street, dangerous cycling like going up inside a lorry at a junction/red light (suicidal comes to mind).

Lastly we need proper cycle lanes segregated from the road or at least ones that cars cant move into (broken white lines)

Again this is just a thought not that it should be implemented but of the 7 people killed this year I'd like to know exactly what happened. We cant automatically blame the driver....

MOD VOICE: Off topic, stay on topic or don't post again. As its your first ever post, no card but the next will result in one. Any questions, via PM.

Etnies

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you expect similar rules for cycling and motoring given the dramatically different levels of risk involved. It's like expecting the same rules for buying a Swiss Army knife as buying an AK47. 4,500 people killed by motorists in the last 15 years vs zero killed by cyclists - just in case you're struggling to understand the difference in risk and danger.

It's not about risk of killings others, its about risk of killing themselves and damage that they could inflict on others by the erratic use of the roads with 0 restrictions and training. Which would be reduced with learning something about the rules everyone else is abiding by using the same roads

mcgratheoin

No

Etnies wrote: »

It's not about risk of killings others,

Yeah, it is. It absolutely is. If all drivers obeyed all the rules all the time our road fatalities would be slashed. All cyclists obeying all rules all the time makes zero difference.

Pinch Flat

No

Etnies wrote: »

It's not about risk of killings others, its about risk of killing themselves and damage that they could inflict on others by the erratic use of the roads with 0 restrictions and training. Which would be reduced with learning something about the rules everyone else is abiding by using the same roads

At the moment though, drivers maim thousands and kill a few hundred annually. The only way atop address this is to radically change our road culture, starting with kids in primary school - it's pointless trying to teach a 23 year old in their first car about respecting the rules and other vulnerable road users when they'e seen mammy and daddy who've ferries them to schools behave like idiots.

There's a lot of cyclists killed by close passing motorists, hit and runs and HGV's, the latest tragedy in a cycle lane.

When cyclists maim and kill anywhere near the numbers that motorists achieved, they might examine this again.

Weepsie

Etnies wrote: »

It's not about risk of killings others, its about risk of killing themselves and damage that they could inflict on others by the erratic use of the roads with 0 restrictions and training. Which would be reduced with learning something about the rules everyone else is abiding by using the same roads

But motorists do a theory test, and a practical and still break lights, speed, use phones. Your idea is nonsense.

Provide better infrastructure, enforce Fixed Penalties. You'd hope cyclists would employ common sense on the road and not be doing stupid things, but a theory test is not the answer as it sure as hell doesn't stop drivers doing stupid things every single day.

AndrewJRenko

No

Etnies wrote: »

It's not about risk of killings others, its about risk of killing themselves and damage that they could inflict on others by the erratic use of the roads with 0 restrictions and training. Which would be reduced with learning something about the rules everyone else is abiding by using the same roads

Again, let's focus on the facts. 90% of those killed on the roads are not cyclists - they are mainly motorists with a bunch of pedestrians thrown in. So why would we be focusing new rules on dealing with the 10% of cycling deaths while ignoring the 90% of other deaths?

And of the 10% of cycling deaths - research in other countries shows that motorists ARE largely to blame. 92% motorist blame in Vancouver, 70% in London, similar figures in Florida iirc. So why would you expect Dublin to be different?

All this stuff about licenses and tests and insurances for cyclists is designed to distract from any possibility that motorists would actually obey traffic laws, like speed limits.

magicbastarder

the thing is, the government want more cyclists on the roads, even if they've shown themselves lacking when it comes to certain measures to promote this.
introducing a test which would make cycling illegal if you don't pass it, and the paperwork that would entail, would be a significant negative pressure on cyclist numbers - which we all know will have a negative pressure on cyclist safety.

the notion that my 70 year old aunt mary would need a licence, or proof of proficiency, to cycle to the shops, is absurd. it's a solution in search of a problem.

Chuchote

No

70-year-old Aunt Mary probably did learn cycling in school - I learned to cycle at seven, but there were certainly cycling classes in the schoolyard of my primary school in the 1950s. And in the 1970s, and today, there are similar cycling classes in primary schools. So the people raving about why there should be classes are just wrong.

The idea of registering every bike is a good one; you don't need to have people carry around proof of ownership or of qualification to cycle any more than you need the same for drivers, though.

The only trouble about it is that it requires an army of civil servants to pay for the registration and the maintenance and inspection of those records; this would have to be paid for by higher taxes.

tomasrojo

No

Sometimes people borrow bikes off other people to do short journeys. Would they have to contact the civil service to have their name added to the bike's register?

tomasrojo

No

There's a simple enough test for all these "innovative" ideas. Are they implemented in countries with good safety records and high levels of cycling participation? No? Then let's copy what those countries do actually implement and see how we get on.

loyatemu

you need a license and registration for cars, guns, dogs etc because they're potentially dangerous. Bikes are not dangerous - the idea of registrations, license plates etc is bureaucratic nonsense thought up by mouth-foaming idiots like George Hook.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you expect similar rules for cycling and motoring given the dramatically different levels of risk involved. It's like expecting the same rules for buying a Swiss Army knife as buying an AK47. 4,500 people killed by motorists in the last 15 years vs zero killed by cyclists - just in case you're struggling to understand the difference in risk and danger.

I don't get that. If someone​ gets killed cycling like an idiot that doesn't count? Does only damage you cause to others count? We had as kids cycling test and I think it did us no harm. If anything it made us safer and I wish the defensive attitude would be less aggressive and at least kids would be taught how to safely cycle. But apparently that is redundant because they don't kill anyone cycling.