Dooradoyle Bikelane/footpath

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

In 2016 (the last year that full figures have been released for) 10 cyclists (not 15) were killed on Irish roads. That compares to 81 drivers, 38 passengers, 35 pedestrians and 22 motorcyclists. http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

It is incredibly crass of you to quibble over the figures. 15 cyclists have died this year so far, the highest in five or six years. You'll find numerous reports online.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Every death is one too many, but 10 is a very small number and you are totally over reacting to the dangers from motorists.

Over-reacting to the dangers from motorists? Why do you think so few parents allow their kids to cycle to school these days? Ask anybody who lives within cycling distance of work and ask them why they don't cycle and they'll cite safety as the primary concern.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

It is incredibly crass of you to quibble over the figures. 15 cyclists have died this year so far, the highest in five or six years. You'll find numerous reports online.

The simple fact is that cycling is actually very safe. This is proven by the figures. More of every other type of road user die every year.

zulutango wrote: »

Over-reacting to the dangers from motorists? Why do you think so few parents allow their kids to cycle to school these days? Ask anybody who lives within cycling distance of work and ask them why they don't cycle and they'll cite safety as the primary concern.

Got anything to back up that conjecture?

Mr.H

amcalester wrote: »

Any evidence for this? I can find opinion pieces suggesting this but nothing to say licences are being introduced in LA or the UK.

In some countries children are not allowed cycle on the road unless a certain age, have passed a test or both but I don't think any of the countries you have listed require adults to have a licence (or are seriously thinking about introducing one).

FWIW I don't think people should cycle on footpaths.

I cant find the article right now having a quick look on the phone but Ill try to find it later and post it here. It was an article (written back in July) about how cycling culture is changing and becoming more popularized and how going forward society needs to adapt to make the roads safer for all users. It goes on to talk about how certain municipalities in California are able to "opt in" to a bicycle license scheme that was started as far back as 2006 iirc. So not all of California have opted in. In fact some parts have tried it and it failed due to enforcement issues. As far as I remember from the article, part of Los Angeles is still opted in. The article talks about how there are similar schemes like that in parts of poland and how places in the UK Germany and France are debating bringing in a licence.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The simple fact is that cycling is actually very safe. This is proven by the figures. More of every other type of road user die every year.

Would you allow your kids to cycle across Shannon Bridge? Would you cycle across it yourself?

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

On the issue of introducing a bicycle license, we'd be up there with such progressive countries as Zimbabwe if we did that. Nice idea lads - http://road.cc/content/news/205652-zimbabwe-introduces-bicycle-licensing-12-months-jail-those-who-dont-pay

Other jurisdictions have tried it and all have abandoned it.

I bet people said similar when Driving licenses where first talked about

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

Would you allow your kids to cycle across Shannon Bridge? Would you cycle across it yourself?

If its too dangerous then dont cycle it............................ simple

Dont give me the whole healthy spiel either. My mate at work doesnt smell very healthy after his 20 minute commute in the morning

zulutango

Mr.H wrote: »

If its too dangerous then dont cycle it............................ simple

Dont give me the whole healthy spiel either. My mate at work doesnt smell very healthy after his 20 minute commute in the morning

Maybe he doesn't, but he's probably much healthier than his overweight colleagues to be fair.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The simple fact is that cycling is actually very safe. This is proven by the figures. More of every other type of road user die every year.

You didn't seem to think so a few years ago.

Edit: Cookiemunster and cookie_monster might not be the same person

LeoD

LimerickCity wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is illegal. 
Anyone on here suggesting that a member of he public, be it an adult or a child should use the footpath for cycling is an idiot.

When was this law introduced? When fixed charge penalties for cycles were introduced in 2015, they covered the following:

1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
4. Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing

Unless you can point to some legislation stating that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath then please do so. Until then, I am of the opinion it is perfectly legal to cycle on a footpath. A recent prosecution in Limerick involved a guy cycling on a footpath the wrong way down a one way street without using his hands. Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, a €60 fine was issued for the offence of cycling without reasonable consideration for other road users. The offence was not for cycling on a footpath.

But that is a side issue and it's sad that so much energy and time is wasted arguing over the rights and wrongs of motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic. It's in everyone's interest that local authorities provide safe and efficient methods of transport for everyone. Separating motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic from each other is the only solution to this and one that would serve everyone's best interest. Local authorities throughout Ireland continue to take the cheapest and easiest option to building cycle infrastructure (slap of paint at the side of a road) which at best displays total incompetence and at worse, a complete disregard for human life. As a motorist, wouldn't it be more pleasant to drive in urban areas if you knew cycle traffic was not going to appear unexpectedly in front of you? That you didn't have to share a traffic lane with a slow moving pedal cycle? Wouldn't it be better if the volume of motor traffic in urban areas was reduced by 20%? If you are pro-cycling, you are seen as anti-car. We should no longer look at the problem like this - we should be pro safe and efficient transport for everyone. What is good for pedal cycles is also good for motor traffic - they are not mutually exclusive.

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

I cant find the article right now having a quick look on the phone but Ill try to find it later and post it here. It was an article (written back in July) about how cycling culture is changing and becoming more popularized and how going forward society needs to adapt to make the roads safer for all users. It goes on to talk about how certain municipalities in California are able to "opt in" to a bicycle license scheme that was started as far back as 2006 iirc. So not all of California have opted in. In fact some parts have tried it and it failed due to enforcement issues. As far as I remember from the article, part of Los Angeles is still opted in. The article talks about how there are similar schemes like that in parts of poland and how places in the UK Germany and France are debating bringing in a licence.

Thanks, Id be interested in reading that.

I wonder if that article was confusing or conflating a licence with ID.

amcalester

LeoD wrote: »

When was this law introduced? When fixed charge penalties for cycles were introduced in 2015, they covered the following:

1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
4. Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing

Unless you can point to some legislation stating that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath then please do so. Until then, I am of the opinion it is perfectly legal to cycle on a footpath. A recent prosecution in Limerick involved a guy cycling on a footpath the wrong way down a one way street without using his hands. Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, a €60 fine was issued for the offence of cycling without reasonable consideration for other road users. The offence was not for cycling on a footpath.

But that is a side issue and it's sad that so much energy and time is wasted arguing over the rights and wrongs of motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic. It's in everyone's interest that local authorities provide safe and efficient methods of transport for everyone. Separating motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic from each other is the only solution to this and one that would serve everyone's best interest. Local authorities throughout Ireland continue to take the cheapest and easiest option to building cycle infrastructure (slap of paint at the side of a road) which at best displays total incompetence and at worse, a complete disregard for human life. As a motorist, wouldn't it be more pleasant to drive in urban areas if you knew cycle traffic was not going to appear unexpectedly in front of you? That you didn't have to share a traffic lane with a slow moving pedal cycle? Wouldn't it be better if the volume of motor traffic in urban areas was reduced by 20%? If you are pro-cycling, you are seen as anti-car. We should no longer look at the problem like this - we should be pro safe and efficient transport for everyone. What is good for pedal cycles is also good for motor traffic - they are not mutually exclusive.

Cycling on the footpath is illegal but it wasnt included in the list of FPNs to avoid young children being fined.

Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property.

Source

And why it wasn't included in the FPN's

While a specific offence of cycling on a footpath was not included in the schedule published today, those cycling on pavements could be fined if they were doing so “without reasonable consideration”.
However, he insisted children cycling to school on pavements, either alone or with their parents, would not face fines.

Source

zulutango

LeoD wrote: »

But that is a side issue and it's sad that so much energy and time is wasted arguing over the rights and wrongs of motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic. It's in everyone's interest that local authorities provide safe and efficient methods of transport for everyone. Separating motor, cycle and pedestrian traffic from each other is the only solution to this and one that would serve everyone's best interest. Local authorities throughout Ireland continue to take the cheapest and easiest option to building cycle infrastructure (slap of paint at the side of a road) which at best displays total incompetence and at worse, a complete disregard for human life. As a motorist, wouldn't it be more pleasant to drive in urban areas if you knew cycle traffic was not going to appear unexpectedly in front of you? That you didn't have to share a traffic lane with a slow moving pedal cycle? Wouldn't it be better if the volume of motor traffic in urban areas was reduced by 20%? If you are pro-cycling, you are seen as anti-car. We should no longer look at the problem like this - we should be pro safe and efficient transport for everyone. What is good for pedal cycles is also good for motor traffic - they are not mutually exclusive.

I'm in general agreement with your points but would just point out that there will be some cases where segregration just isn't realistic for practical and economic reasons, and in those situations we must employ other methods of ensuring the safety of road users, such as slowing vehicular traffic.

LeoD

amcalester wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is illegal but it wasnt included in the list of FPNs to avoid young children being fined.

Source

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Mr.H

zulutango wrote: »

Maybe he doesn't, but he's probably much healthier than his overweight colleagues to be fair.

I dont think any of the people at work that drive are overweight actually.

LeoD

zulutango wrote: »

I'm in general agreement with your points but would just point out that there will be some cases where segregration just isn't realistic for practical and economic reasons, and in those situations we must employ other methods of ensuring the safety of road users, such as slowing vehicular traffic.

Agree. Designing the traffic infrastructure may require some creativity at times and bespoke solutions when the existing space doesn't appear compatible with full segregation.

martyc5674

Mr.H wrote: »

If its too dangerous then dont cycle it............................ simple

You see...this attitude doesn't help anyone, It clearly should be safe for all to use, it's a main access route people need to use to get into the city.

santino

The thread has taken on a life of its own...which isn't a bad thing. There have been some very good points made along with many personal thoughts and opinions thrown in. It is good to get a feeling on what people are thinking.

From the point of view of time spent on each activity I would consider myself a motorist first, pedestrian second and cyclist third. I don't tend to come down strongest on any one particular side... as people have pointed out some people are bad drivers, bad pedestrians and bad cyclists. Habits, lack of concentration and awareness and human error are what lead to most accidents. And nobody is perfect, I'm the first to say.

I am of the belief that if one does all three activities, you become much more aware of things potentially going wrong. Not to say it always is the case. I used to cycle to work in another life and was unfortunately knocked off my bike twice. First time a car pulled out onto O'Connell St right outside my office. I was on the road, had right of way and wasn't going particularly fast. I fell and damaged my wrist. The person stopped and when I got up they drove away. The second time a guy came around the corner on the Wrong side of the road in my estate and I landed on ground again. There was nothing I could do to legislate against these drivers.

Personally I don't think cyclists should use footpaths. If nothing else it would protect some pedestrians from themselves. And some cyclists cycle recklessly. And break red lights, and cycle the wrong way on the road etc. However, it might be a moot point but my understanding is and was that 'responsible' cycling on footpaths continues to be legal, and definitely non-enforceable.

""While a specific offence of cycling on a footpath was not included in the schedule published today, those cycling on pavements could be fined if they were doing so “without reasonable consideration”".

""It's believed that Mr Donohoe has taken the decision to exclude the offence of cycling on footpaths after consultations with gardaí and road safety chiefs"".

'Could' is the key word in the above. While I don't agree with cycling on footpaths, it's not to say that one cannot cycle on paths should there be a genuine reason to, with safety being paramount.

It is not a black and white issue and the debate will rumble on. Everyone has a responsibility out there, to themselves and to others. It just doesn't always come to the fore.

Have a nice and peaceful day.

Mr.H

santino wrote:

'Could' is the key word in the above. While I don't agree with cycling on footpaths, it's not to say that one cannot cycle on paths should there be a genuine reason to, with safety being paramount.

No reason to. It's illegal

Insect Overlord

Mr.H wrote: »

No reason to. It's illegal

If only life was really that simple.

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

No reason to. It's illegal

Any luck finding that article or can we just ignore it as the nonsense that it was?

Mr.H

amcalester wrote:

Any luck finding that article or can we just ignore it as the nonsense that it was?

Completely forgot actually. I'll try to remember to have a look for it later after work. You can ignore it if you'd like. But either way I can't see the weight of this articles existence having a positive or negative effect on the fact the bad cycling practices. But then again some things are just that simple.

Mr.H

Insect Overlord wrote:

If only life was really that simple.

It is.

You break the law or you obey it. It's not a grey area at all.

amcalester

Mr.H wrote: »

Completely forgot actually. I'll try to remember to have a look for it later after work. You can ignore it if you'd like. But either way I can't see the weight of this articles existence having a positive or negative effect on the fact the bad cycling practices. But then again some things are just that simple.

You made the claim, I’m just asking you to back it up.

The existence of said article will have no impact on cyclist behavior but it will have an impact on how much effort I put into reading your posts.

I notice how it’s gone from LA and parts of the UK bringing in a license to simply an article about bringing in licenses.

panda100

I really think they should change the junction by The Abbey Bridge to make it more inclusive for cyclists. It's the start of the pathway out to UL and many cyclists us this throughout the day. At the moment most cyclists just wait until the green pedestrian lights to cross and then mount the pavement to join the UL path.

There is not one piece of cycling infrastructure at this busy junction for cyclists. They should at least change the lights to include bicycles similar to the light system further up the UL path. The pavement from the junction to the path should have a cycle lane and this should be a shared path. It also make sense considering there is a bike scheme in the middle of the pavement anyway.

santino

Happy New Year all,

Just a quick update, I noticed yesterday (whilst in the car I'll admit) that the bike signs have been re-painted on the cycle-lane on Dooradoyle Road as promised by the Council. Around 10 or so on that stretch which is very good to see.

It didn't seem to have stopped people walking in the lane (at that time anyway) but hopefully the signs will do their job.

panda100

santino wrote:

Just a quick update, I noticed yesterday (whilst in the car I'll admit) that the bike signs have been re-painted on the cycle-lane on Dooradoyle Road as promised by the Council. Around 10 or so on that stretch which is very good to see.

Ooh I wonder if they repainted the one's on the UL pathway too?

santino

panda100 wrote: »

Ooh I wonder if they repainted the one's on the UL pathway too?

Hopefully I still haven't made it out there.