Is it worth it anymore..... ?

07Lapierre

No

Leroy Fast Scapegoat wrote: »

I posted a video a while back where two cars passed me quite close at high speed after the second car passed I took the lane (nothing behind me anymore) and somebody posted on here that I was just another angry cyclist. He/she thought I was trying to piss off motorists by cycling close to center of the lane. On the video itself people are giving me crap about not using the "perfect" cycle lane which only accommodates cyclists turning left, it's also filled with glass and has barriers across it at points.

Here is where I am talking about. The last 500 meters of my journey to work and it was just awful. So many incidents on that part of the road. Cars would overtake at speed, jam on the breaks just in front of me and turn left down east wall road. If they slowed down and changed lane behind me, they would lose a precious second or two.

I don't have all the answers but I suspect that any cyclist on that section of road who is not on that off road cycle path is probably seen as an "angry cyclist" (by motorists who know nothing about cycling)

P_1

Leroy Fast Scapegoat wrote: »

I posted a video a while back where two cars passed me quite close at high speed after the second car passed I took the lane (nothing behind me anymore) and somebody posted on here that I was just another angry cyclist. He/she thought I was trying to piss off motorists by cycling close to center of the lane. On the video itself people are giving me crap about not using the "perfect" cycle lane which only accommodates cyclists turning left, it's also filled with glass and has barriers across it at points.

Here is where I am talking about. The last 500 meters of my journey to work and it was just awful. So many incidents on that part of the road. Cars would overtake at speed, jam on the breaks just in front of me and turn left down east wall road. If they slowed down and changed lane behind me, they would lose a precious second or two.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I don't have all the answers but I suspect that any cyclist on that section of road who is not on that off road cycle path is probably seen as an "angry cyclist" (by motorists who know nothing about cycling)

Pretty much. Had the joy of a Dublin Bus beeping and whizzing a few inches from my elbows going the opposite way down that stretch this morning. I guess the cycle lane down that way could be useful for my offroad skills mind...

magicbastarder

BoatMad wrote: »

Today, an urban cyclist is likely to be progressing in traffic at the same or even greater speed then the surrounding powered vehicles

I that way , I see no difference between cyclists and say small motorcyclists.

Hence we need visibility lighting , turn indication , stop indication and a commonly of rules , making no difference between any of these road users

IN response, we take cyclists out of the " gutter" as has been mentioned and ensure they have full road space as is required to allow them to operate successfully and safety

that means that motorists dont find cyclists squeezed between their left door and the footpath , they see them dead centre in the lane in front or behind and the car travels behind them until it is safe to overtake in the normal rules of the road.

Junctions and so forth are handled in the same way. cyclists are front and centre as required

i'm not even going to try to address some of your points. there is nothing wrong with the bicycle as a vehicle; i would regard it as one of humanity's greatest inventions.

and one of the main attractions of cycling is that you get to progress faster than people stuck in traffic jams in cars. you've just kicked that leg out from underneath cycling as a useful mode of transport. you're trying to impose some of the worst aspects of motorised travel on the very mode which suffers least from them.

Weepsie

BoatMad wrote: »

that means that motorists dont find cyclists squeezed between their left door and the footpath , they see them dead centre in the lane in front or behind and the car travels behind them until it is safe to overtake in the normal rules of the road.

This is exactly what loads of us do and drivers treat us like an obstacle to dangerously pass.

Kaisr Sose

To answer the question that is the title of the thread, that's a decision for each cyclist to make. Having had more than my fair share recently, I too have asked it. Thankful I still like cycling and am too stubborn to allow inconsiderate motorists take it away from me.

What is sad though is that the question even has to be asked ...

magicbastarder

i only started cycling to work again recently, and am actually really enjoying the noticeable effects on my fitness and the benefit that my commute - for the most part - is actually fairly safe.

to be fair, i am compensating for the fitness benefit by having a few beers tonight (long weekend for me). i can recommend steak night in the whitworth - a pint and (very nice flank) steak for €20.

Danjamin1

No

07Lapierre wrote: »

Just wondering how many people who are going to stop cycling are also going to Stop going on Holiday (plane crash)?

Look, cycling is healthy, efficient and an economical form of transport.

I accept it's not for everyone and has risks, but there are things you can do to make your cycle a little safer:

1: be more assertive! Don't cycle in the gutter. Take the lane at pinch points.
2: make eye contact with motorists when your manovering (e g turning right)
3: be patient on your commute. (Don't take risks)
4: obey the rules of the road..stop at traffic lights etc.
5: if you can, choose a route that involves less right hand turns, roundabouts, junctions etc.

Finally, do you really want to go back to rush hour traffic and/or public transport?

This times a thousand, and and added point, thank someone who gives way to you, I do this both on the bike and in the care with a quick wave. That one wave can improve one drivers outlook of a cyclist which could hopefully improve attitudes in general.

tomasrojo

No

greenspurs wrote: »

So, one death a month is acceptable?

It's a tricky word, "acceptable". The rate is a lot better than nearly four a month, which is what it was in the late 80s. If we got it down to one a year, and everyone celebrated that fact, someone could still come back and say, "So, one death a year is acceptable to you, is it?"

In the context of assessing whether I personally find cycling safe enough to continue with it being my main mode of transport, yes, I do find one death a month "acceptable". In the context of the terrible tragedy it imposes on those left behind, no, I don't find it "acceptable".

tomasrojo

No

It is always possible that the underlying annual fatality rate has gone up. It's just hard to tell from less than five months, especially when the annual totals are quite small, and prone to lurch around a lot due to being small. We might have months with no fatalities at all in the second half of the year too.

Danjamin1

No

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

On my way to work today 15km drive , 4 cyclists blatently going through red lights at 3 major junctions , while there idiot drivers dont assume the cyclist are not at fault , if these 4 were creamed by cars it be all " poxy drivers etc , not poxy cyclists

I agree wholeheartedly with your username!

With regard to your post, no arguing about the prevalence of a lot of cyclists breaking red lights, though most contributors here wouldn't make a habit of it themselves. It really pisses me off seeing people I've overtaken breeze past me at a red light only for me to overtake them again a minute later. But in my experience most cyclists who do this at least assess the junction before doing so to judge the potential risk, it's not the same as most other road users who run red lights with the blatant intention of 'catching' the light without any regard for what may be happening on other sides of the junction.

07Lapierre

No

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly with your username!

With regard to your post, no arguing about the prevalence of a lot of cyclists breaking red lights, though most contributors here wouldn't make a habit of it themselves. It really pisses me off seeing people I've overtaken breeze past me at a red light only for me to overtake them again a minute later. But in my experience most cyclists who do this at least assess the junction before doing so to judge the potential risk, it's not the same as most other road users who run red lights with the blatant intention of 'catching' the light without any regard for what may be happening on other sides of the junction.

It may not be the same, but it is still illegal. Amber/red lights mean stop for all roadusers.

Danjamin1

No

pm1977x wrote: »

Confession - I don't cycle at all as I'd be too scared having commuted for years on the quays in Dublin, it wouldn't be for me - so apologies if I'm not supposed to post in here but I like reading cycle threads as it helps give me a different perspective as a motorist.

I think the 'take the lane' approach is great as it makes a decision for me, I'm no longer looking to overtake or wondering if I have space to do it safely or when is the next gap in on-coming traffic. Years ago I completely misunderstood what this approach was about, I thought it was cyclists being arrogant but now I get it that it's about safety for them and indeed everyone so I think more education (of motorists) is needed.

On point 2 of eye-contact I'd much rather there was clear arm signalling in addition to eye contatct - I often encounter cyclists who look over their shoulder and then shoot across the lane as if they've just indicated their intention, so now I always hang back as soon as anyone looks over their shoulder - but it is very ambiguous because then you meet a cyclist who is just checking and isn't planning to move across for some time if at all...just an observation not looking to blame cyclists, I imagine it's not easy keeping control of a bike one-handed while avoiding cars/pot holes etc...

To get back on topic - it was never worth it due to bus drivers/maniac motorists on the quays.

You're one of the good ones, if only this was most people's attitudes!!!

Get back on the bike, it's not as bad as it appears!

Danjamin1

No

07Lapierre wrote: »

It may not be the same, but it is still illegal. Amber/red lights mean stop for all roadusers.

Agreed and it boils my blood every time I see it, I'm just pointing out the generic approach. Obviously doesn't apply to all, I'm sure some cyclists breaking reds are doing so without a care just as I'm sure some drivers are assessing the risk

DanDublin1982

No

Completely get where the OP is coming from here. Somewhere in the middle of last year I pretty much stopped cycling on the road apart from the bits of my commute where I basically have to. If they ever get the Quays cycle lane right that part becomes much more pleasant too.

It helps that I live just a few km from the Corkagh Park cycle track where I must have put the guts of 5,000km in last year. That sort of cycling isn't for everyone but I actually love it, stick the earphones in and I can be on that track for hours, happy as anything.

I'll never give up the bike again, its played massive part in the changes I've made to my life over the last 3 years and I'm truly thankful I've been able to find other ways to enjoy it. I hope others who feel like the OP can do the same.

ThinkProgress

I used to cycle to work in Dublin for years... but I'd never do it again. It's madness! Not just in Dublin, any major city.

Really, when you step back and think about it, there is essentially almost no difference between a pedestrian on foot and a cyclist... the ONLY real difference is that the cyclist is going faster. (which actually puts them at greater risk)

Also, you could argue that a pedestrian on foot has greater ability to survey their surroundings because they are going slower and they won't lose their balance if they look behind themselves... whereas this can be quite tricky when travelling at speed on a bike! A bike is inherently unstable... this is a double-edged sword as this instability is what gives it great maneuverability... but it also makes it a liability at times too!

IMO the only surefire method of protecting cyclists, is to take them off busy roads, and put them where they belong, right next to other pedestrians on foot. They are just faster pedestrians with a slightly worse view of their surroundings!

No matter how fast a runner I am, nobody in their right mind would think it safe for me to be running alongside (and in between) trucks, buses and cars on busy city streets... but yet for some reason, we think someone sitting on top of a flimsy piece of metal is perfectly okay?? Why?

The one major change that could be implemented in the short term to make cycling safer in cities, would be to have speed limiters fitted on bikes... as IMO one of the major reasons that motorists often fail to see cyclists (or see them too late) is because they are travelling far too fast and can often be concealed behind other vehicles while travelling at speed... combine this with how visually small they are relative to even the smallest car, and you often have a recipe for disaster!

Rokta

No

I commute every day by bike and cycle for "leisure" at the weekends, being in Dublin 15 the only place I feel I can do so is Phoenix Park because there I can mostly enjoy it without being worried to get run off the road, unfortunately I have to go through Castleknock where I usually encounter one near miss by a car every time.

I stopped cycling on the road to cross the bridge over the Canal coming from Castleknock to Blanch and vice versa and decided to walk, more than once I had drivers coming to close for my liking..

Would I stop cycling... no, after having 2 accidents involving a knee injury, one of them a car accident with myself in the car and the other party at fault but not present (hit and run) cycling is the only thing I can still do and I still have hope that somebody someday will have a light bulb moment to enforce the proper infrastructure and to enforce the rules of the road to everybody.

In the meantime I keep dismounting to cross a bridge.

I am not getting started on infrastructure though, I grew up very close to the dutch border...

Edit: Well, reading the post above....

The one major change that could be implemented in the short term to make cycling safer in cities, would be to have speed limiters fitted on bikes... as IMO one of the major reasons that motorists often fail to see cyclists (or see them too late) is because they are travelling far too fast and can often be concealed behind other vehicles while travelling at speed... combine this with how visually small they are relative to even the smallest car, and you often have a recipe for disaste

I could not disagree more.... speed limiter for bikes... like.... really? So basically you are saying it is the cyclists fault to get killed because they cycle too fast? How about a speed limiter for cars to 30kmh in inner city and a complete ban of HGVs unless with permit for specific construction sites? The probable best response to the above issue is infrastructure and city planning... I know the first one does not exist in Dublin, I am not so sure if the second one exists either.....

km991148

ThinkProgress wrote: »

IMO the only surefire method of protecting cyclists, is to take them off busy roads, and put them where they belong, right next to other pedestrians on foot. They are just faster pedestrians with a slightly worse view of their surroundings!

I walk @ 4-7 km/h
I run @ 12km/h
I cycle at 27-40 km/h*
I drive at 30-60km/h (in town)

If I am cycling in shared zones with peds its way less than 20.

Sure - in the car I am also just a faster pedestrian?

Anyway - point is - bikes are closer to cars in speed (in town). The problem may be that in standing traffic, cycling affords the ability to move faster, which may mean that (moving) cyclists (and by extension) stationary vehicles need to be more careful. When this doesn't happen, the cyclist will probably come off worse.

07Lapierre

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I used to cycle to work in Dublin for years... but I'd never do it again. It's madness! Not just in Dublin, any major city.

Really, when you step back and think about it, there is essentially almost no difference between a pedestrian on foot and a cyclist... the ONLY real difference is that the cyclist is going faster. (which actually puts them at greater risk)

Also, you could argue that a pedestrian on foot has greater ability to survey their surroundings because they are going slower and they won't lose their balance if they look behind themselves... whereas this can be quite tricky when travelling at speed on a bike! A bike is inherently unstable... this is a double-edged sword as this instability is what gives it great maneuverability... but it also makes it a liability at times too!

IMO the only surefire method of protecting cyclists, is to take them off busy roads, and put them where they belong, right next to other pedestrians on foot. They are just faster pedestrians with a slightly worse view of their surroundings!

No matter how fast a runner I am, nobody in their right mind would think it safe for me to be running alongside (and in between) trucks, buses and cars on busy city streets... but yet for some reason, we think someone sitting on top of a flimsy piece of metal is perfectly okay?? Why?

The one major change that could be implemented in the short term to make cycling safer in cities, would be to have speed limiters fitted on bikes... as IMO one of the major reasons that motorists often fail to see cyclists (or see them too late) is because they are travelling far too fast and can often be concealed behind other vehicles while travelling at speed... combine this with how visually small they are relative to even the smallest car, and you often have a recipe for disaster!

Rubbish!

"No difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian" yet you feel bikes should be fitted with speed limiters because they are too fast???? WTF?

:eek:

Autochange

it is compulsory in Australia to wear helmets and hi visibility gear. Yet i see some cyclists on Irish roads not wearing any safety equipment. This is madness as drivers in Ireland dont do anything to accommodate cyclists so the is a risk of being hit by a vehicle or in a "collision". Even out walking i have had close encounters with vehicles who get so close i can feel the gust as they pass by. The roads are too small and bendy, busy, not maintained and there are no Gardai. Thats my area anyway

tomasrojo

No

Autochange wrote: »

it is compulsory in Australia to wear helmets

Mostly true. (I think there's an exemption for adults in the Northern Territory.)

Autochange wrote: »

and hi visibility gear.

Not true.

Autochange wrote: »

Yet i see some cyclists on Irish roads not wearing any safety equipment.

We have two megathreads to deal with helmets and hiviz. It's more complicated than you might think. For starters, Australia has a poor safety record. It's much worse than ours.

ThinkProgress

07Lapierre wrote: »

Rubbish!

"No difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian" yet you feel bikes should be fitted with speed limiters because they are too fast???? WTF?

:eek:

If you read my post, I clearly stated that greater speed was perhaps the ONLY difference between the two.... and that greater speed actually puts them at greater risk on the road!

If you slow cyclists down a bit... they are essentially no different to pedestrians on foot.

What do you feel are the major differences between the two groups? I would be interested to hear your answer...

Specifically, what major differences do you feel makes it okay for one group to be mixed in with 40 tonne trucks on the road... while the other group should be kept safely away from those trucks on the footpath? I don't see any differences that make that a logical choice myself... but perhaps you have a different perspective??

StevieGriff

Autochange wrote: »

it is compulsory in Australia to wear helmets and hi visibility gear. Yet i see some cyclists on Irish roads not wearing any safety equipment. This is madness as drivers in Ireland dont do anything to accommodate cyclists so the is a risk of being hit by a vehicle or in a "collision". Even out walking i have had close encounters with vehicles who get so close i can feel the gust as they pass by. The roads are too small and bendy, busy, not maintained and there are no Gardai. Thats my area anyway

Firstly. Have you been to Oz? It's nothing like Ireland and aussies have a fiery hatred for bicycles so not sure what your point is there?
You said it yourself, the level of driving skills in Ireland is appalling and we seem to have a blatant disregard for other people's safety in this country. Hi-Vis and helmets won't change that.

ThinkProgress

Rokta wrote: »

Edit: Well, reading the post above....



I could not disagree more.... speed limiter for bikes... like.... really? So basically you are saying it is the cyclists fault to get killed because they cycle too fast? How about a speed limiter for cars to 30kmh in inner city and a complete ban of HGVs unless with permit for specific construction sites? The probable best response to the above issue is infrastructure and city planning... I know the first one does not exist in Dublin, I am not so sure if the second one exists either.....

It's certainly a contributing factor... but I never said it was the only factor.

There are usually numerous factors that lead to crashes... from both motorists and cyclists.

Rokta

No

StevieGriff wrote: »

Firstly. Have you been to Oz? It's nothing like Ireland and aussies have a fiery hatred for bicycles so not sure what your point is there?
You said it yourself, the level of driving skills in Ireland is appalling and we seem to have a blatant disregard for other people's safety in this country. Hi-Vis and helmets won't change that.

I fully agree with this.

I am scared sh@#less of the idea of letting my son cycle to school.... even though we are talking about a school way of less than 5km because of this.

tomasrojo

No

In Dublin, the mostly likely cause of a cycling fatality is a turning HGV or bus. So it's really more to do with making junctions safer, and using whatever measures manufacturers like Scania took to make their trucks have fewer blind spots.

Autochange

StevieGriff wrote: »

Firstly. Have you been to Oz? It's nothing like Ireland and aussies have a fiery hatred for bicycles so not sure what your point is there?
You said it yourself, the level of driving skills in Ireland is appalling and we seem to have a blatant disregard for other people's safety in this country. Hi-Vis and helmets won't change that.

Yes I have. Lived in Brisbane for 8 years. Irish drivers have as much if not more hate for cyclists than Australians do. My point is since so many people are unfortunatly being knocked down why isn't it compulsory to wear helmets and hi viz gear? Its common sense anyway.

No they wont change that but if an idiot hits you while you are out cycling you might save yourself a brain injury

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

It is always possible that the underlying annual fatality rate has gone up. It's just hard to tell from less than five months, especially when the annual totals are quite small, and prone to lurch around a lot due to being small. We might have months with no fatalities at all in the second half of the year too.

I wonder if you cost in the reduction in cost to the health service over time, compared to the cost of a road fatality to the state or the increase in life expectancy and health complications linked to poor fitness, without being insulting, can you look at it as almost 0.

Autochange wrote: »

it is compulsory in Australia to wear helmets and hi visibility gear. Yet i see some cyclists on Irish roads not wearing any safety equipment. This is madness as drivers in Ireland dont do anything to accommodate cyclists so the is a risk of being hit by a vehicle or in a "collision". Even out walking i have had close encounters with vehicles who get so close i can feel the gust as they pass by. The roads are too small and bendy, busy, not maintained and there are no Gardai. Thats my area anyway

MOD VOICE: We are not having the helmet and hi vis discussion here, leave it at that, there are threads for that sort of thing, any questions, via PM.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If you read my post, I clearly stated that greater speed was perhaps the ONLY difference between the two.... and that greater speed actually puts them at greater risk on the road!

If you slow cyclists down a bit... they are essentially no different to pedestrians on foot.

What do you feel are the major differences between the two groups? I would be interested to hear your answer...

Specifically, what major differences do you feel makes it okay for one group to be mixed in with 40 tonne trucks on the road... while the other group should be kept safely away from those trucks on the footpath? I don't see any differences that make that a logical choice myself... but perhaps you have a different perspective??

One uses a vehicle, the other doesn't. One causes a risk to the other in shared space by virtue of its unbalance at slow speed and reaction time at higher speed, the other can be rectified by improved behaviour. They are very different.

Autochange

tomasrojo wrote: »

Mostly true. (I think there's an exemption for adults in the Northern Territory.)


Not true.



We have two megathreads to deal with helmets and hiviz. It's more complicated than you might think. For starters, Australia has a poor safety record. It's much worse than ours.

Its common sense to have helmets and safety gear.
You wouldnt drive your car without a seatbelt would you?

Rokta

No

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's certainly a contributing factor... but I never said it was the only factor.

Still, any proof on that?

There are usually numerous factors that lead to crashes... from both motorists and cyclists.

True to a certain point, however you are disregarding a few things there... most of all who is the more vulnerable participant in traffic, a cyclist/pedestrian or a car/HGV? I do not understand the attitude in this country towards vulnerable parties in traffic and I probably will never do..... but besides the aforementioned disregard of rules and lack of enforcement the arrogance and victim blaming (hi viz.... too fast, and so on) really puts me off....

beauf

Rokta wrote: »

I commute every day by bike and cycle for "leisure" at the weekends, being in Dublin 15 the only place I feel I can do so is Phoenix Park because there I can mostly enjoy it without being worried to get run off the road, unfortunately I have to go through Castleknock where I usually encounter one near miss by a car every time.....

+1

On my commute through the city center, D.15 and Castleknock is the worst part for me.