State creates a Cycling Office

Grassey

The Specialist wrote:

What a quango this will be. Will it stop the Lycra clad pricks dangerously cycling through red lights or disobeying whatever rules of the road they feel like? Of course not.

Hopefully it's modelled on the RSA who successfully stamped this issue out in motorists in its first year...

The Specialist

Grassey wrote: »

Hopefully it's modelled on the RSA who successfully stamped this issue out in motorists in its first year...

There’s unfortunately no way of stamping cyclists out.

Tell me how

The Specialist wrote: »

What a quango this will be. Will it stop the Lycra clad pricks dangerously cycling through red lights or disobeying whatever rules of the road they feel like? Of course not.

Red Light Jumpers

The ratio, to be precise, is 8.4 driver detetections to every 1 cyclist caught.

The latest Garda figures, which cover the period to October 6th, reveal there have been a total of 1,450 red light offences so far in 2016.

Motorists account for 1,296 of those detections and cyclists account for 154.

The Specialist

So what is your point? Cyclists break red every day, enforcement is just not practiced enough.

07Lapierre

The Specialist wrote: »

So what is your point? Cyclists break red every day, enforcement is just not practiced enough.

Keep up will Ya!


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108930936&postcount=19

Tell me how

The Specialist wrote: »

So what is your point? Cyclists break red every day, enforcement is just not practiced enough.

Read it slowly. You'll get there.

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fair enough...I obey the ROTR,I use lights when cycling in the dark and I wear a helmet ( only because if I don't...in the event of a driver crashing into me, the non wearing of a helmet could be used to limit the drivers responsibility)

What else do you suggest I do???

It's a general "yourself". Another poster was shot down for suggesting that cyclists take personal responsibility, I was merely trying to suggest that his point of view, and the opposing point of view, could, in fact, be held at the same time. There's a 1,000 + post these here about wearing hi vis. I wear it if I'm out at night, be it walking the dog or cycling or whatever, because if there's even a chance that having it on will help a driver notice me more, why wouldn't I wear it. Same with a helmet. If there's even a low percentage chance that it absorbs some impact if I'm unfortunate enough to be in a collision, then to me it makes sense, especially as it does me no harm to wear it, just like the hi vis stuff.

It does seem, however, from my limited time around this forum, that people are more concerned with their point of view being correct than actually discussing a given topic.

I won't even bother to respond to grassy's comment

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: "The Specialist" has been banned, please do not respond to that posters posts as they cannot respond.

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

It's a general "yourself". Another poster was shot down for suggesting that cyclists take personal responsibility, I was merely trying to suggest that his point of view, and the opposing point of view, could, in fact, be held at the same time. There's a 1,000 + post these here about wearing hi vis. I wear it if I'm out at night, be it walking the dog or cycling or whatever, because if there's even a chance that having it on will help a driver notice me more, why wouldn't I wear it. Same with a helmet. If there's even a low percentage chance that it absorbs some impact if I'm unfortunate enough to be in a collision, then to me it makes sense, especially as it does me no harm to wear it, just like the hi vis stuff.

It does seem, however, from my limited time around this forum, that people are more concerned with their point of view being correct than actually discussing a given topic.

I won't even bother to respond to grassy's comment

Wear what you like at night if it makes you feel safer, but descent lights are a much better option. Maybe canvas your local TD to have speed ramps installed on your road? Why not campaign for greater enforcement by the Gardai of all road laws?

Or.....just wear a yellow vest safe in the knowledge that by wearing it the driver that just misses hitting you "should" have seen you and probably would have seen you if they were not travelling at 100kph while texting?

I suspect this new office will be a quango...hopefully I'm wrong and it ends up being a positive development.

Tell me how

cletus wrote: »

It's a general "yourself". Another poster was shot down for suggesting that cyclists take personal responsibility, I was merely trying to suggest that his point of view, and the opposing point of view, could, in fact, be held at the same time. There's a 1,000 + post these here about wearing hi vis. I wear it if I'm out at night, be it walking the dog or cycling or whatever, because if there's even a chance that having it on will help a driver notice me more, why wouldn't I wear it. Same with a helmet. If there's even a low percentage chance that it absorbs some impact if I'm unfortunate enough to be in a collision, then to me it makes sense, especially as it does me no harm to wear it, just like the hi vis stuff.

It does seem, however, from my limited time around this forum, that people are more concerned with their point of view being correct than actually discussing a given topic.

I won't even bother to respond to grassy's comment

People are concerned that the implication is that the cyclist should be the one being mostly responsible for their safety.

Do you think every pedestrian should wear a hi-viz at all times?
Do you think car occupants should wear helmets?

In both cases, doing so would likely result in some people not getting injured. Many injuries from car accidents are head injuries which would definitely be expected to be reduced if helmets were involved. But, you probably think these are excessive measures but choose to ignore the realities of what cyclists experience because you think they are choosing to get injured.

Let's me be clear on my position. An equal percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists will likely be inclined to break the law because doing so is driven by their personality rather than by their mode of transport. But, cyclists are more vulnerable than motorists and given that they occupy the same space, more consideration should be given to ensure that the cyclist is safe.

Hopefully the new office will strike the right balance in communicating that it is not a battle between cyclists and motorists and/or pedestrians as well as their duty in funding allocations.

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

Wear what you like at night if it makes you feel safer, but descent lights are a much better option. Maybe canvas your local TD to have speed ramps installed on your road? Why not campaign for greater enforcement by the Gardai of all road laws?

Or.....just wear a yellow vest safe in the knowledge that by wearing it the driver that just misses hitting you "should" have seen you and probably would have seen you if they were not travelling at 100kph while texting?

I suspect this new office will be a quango...hopefully I'm wrong and it ends up being a positive development.

Where did I say I don't use a light? Again, it's possible to actively campaign for better driving, safer roads, speed bumps, enforcement of current legislation, and still wear a hi vis vest because it doesn't hurt me, and just might help me. How is that so hard to understand from what I'm saying. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

cletus

Tell me how wrote: »

People are concerned that the implication is that the cyclist should be the one being mostly responsible for their safety.

Do you think every pedestrian should wear a hi-viz at all times?
Do you think car occupants should wear helmets?

In both cases, doing so would likely result in some people not getting injured. Many injuries from car accidents are head injuries which would definitely be expected to be reduced if helmets were involved. But, you probably think these are excessive measures but choose to ignore the realities of what cyclists experience because you think they are choosing to get injured.

Let's me be clear on my position. An equal percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists will likely be inclined to break the law because doing so is driven by their personality rather than by their mode of transport. But, cyclists are more vulnerable than motorists and given that they occupy the same space, more consideration should be given to ensure that the cyclist is safe.

Hopefully the new office will strike the right balance in communicating that it is not a battle between cyclists and motorists and/or pedestrians as well as their duty in funding allocations.

I'm not disputing what you've said. I'm simply saying that it's possible to have that opinion, and being aware that some people will drive like assholes, cyclists should take as much precaution for their own safety as possible, regardless of whether they should have to or not. Not much point in being right if you're dead

Just to point out, I am making these arguments as a cyclist, and I don't think anybody, cyclist or pedestrian is "choosing" to get injured

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

Where did I say I don't use a light? Again, it's possible to actively campaign for better driving, safer roads, speed bumps, enforcement of current legislation, and still wear a hi vis vest because it doesn't hurt me, and just might help me. How is that so hard to understand from what I'm saying. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

If you using descent lights your hi viz vest is irrelevant. Wear it if you wish, your choice.

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

If you using descent lights your hi viz vest is irrelevant. Wear it if you wish, your choice.

So, that just dismisses the original point I made then. It's been reduced to hi vis or no

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

So, that just dismisses the original point I made then. It's been reduced to hi vis or no

Yes... I mean no! No hi viz...use lights.

cletus

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yes... I mean no! No hi viz...use lights.

Grand

flatface

cletus wrote: »

I don't think it's so difficult to meld the opposing viewpoints here. Surely it's possible to campaign for better understanding from drivers regarding cyclists, while at the same time taking every precaution to keep yourself safe and seen, knowing that there's always a chance that some asshole will be driving behind you. I don't see why it's viewed as one or the other on this forum (granted I'm very new here, so maybe there's something I'm missing).

In my mind it's kinda like walking down a street at night and up ahead there's a bunch of scumbags. Am I entitled to continue walking down the street? Absolutely. Would it behove me to perhaps take a different route, cross the street, take some action that will prevent me becoming involved in an incident where I could be hurt or injured? Probably. Should I have to do that? No, but I'd prefer that to ending up hurt and blaming the the other guys afterwards

I agree with your example and agree to do your personal best to avoid dangerous situations, but the problem I see with the current state of affairs is that it’s like the scumbags are coming onto pedestrian forums and saying to avoid getting hurt don’t walk down our streets - clearly this is wrong headed. When the media and the Garda and the RSA join in its maddening.

tomasrojo

cletus wrote: »

Pedantism much?

We prefer the term "pedantry".

cletus

tomasrojo wrote: »

We prefer the term "pedantry".

Well, preference for one synonym over another is a personal choice, I suppose

magicbastarder

it's quite simple. based on the campaigning from the RSA, the logical conclusion for an alien visiting earth would be that the biggest issue facing cyclists in terms of safety was the issue of hi-vis jackets. and it's *not*. it quite simply is not.
so when you hear motorists parrot this line that cyclists have only themselves to blame for not wearing hi-vis, is galling for cyclists as it's a red herring taking away from what the authorities *should* be doing. the other actions which make a difference can only be suffering as a result.

so most people here will wear helmets, and i suspect most wear some sort of more highly visible clothing, but they can do that and still bristle at the suggestion that there is some sort of a moral obligation on them to do so.

and anyone who is in any way familiar with the forum will know that we regard not using lights at night as something akin to granny mugging.

07Lapierre

Where will this office be? Will it have bike parking outside? Will the manager have a company car and free parking? 😂

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

33% increase in funding to 10% of Department total capital expenditure on public and sustainable transport in 2019.

Seems like a good thing no?

Seems like it. But how much is focused on rural greenways and how much on urban infrastructure?

magicbastarder wrote:

so most people here will wear helmets, and i suspect most wear some sort of more highly visible clothing, but they can do that and still bristle at the suggestion that there is some sort of a moral obligation on them to do so.

The main reason I wear it on my commute is that I'm not having some inattentive untc get off killing me by some ignorant of the actual requirements of the law judge if I come a cropper. There is zero reason the lights I use aren't enough.

07Lapierre wrote:

Where will this office be? Will it have bike parking outside? Will the manager have a company car and free parking?

Will it just be lead by an RSA type "road safety expert", whose only qualification is an advanced driving licence more to the point.

flatface

If this goes ahead And offers value then Shane Ross will have gone up 10000% in my estimation.
Unfortunately he has started from such a low base he still barely registers. He 99% useless bluffer but maybe he can have one or 2 achievements to time in office. I would have thought minister for transport is an easy gig relative to the others where you can effect some decent change.

buffalo

cletus wrote: »

I'm not disputing what you've said. I'm simply saying that it's possible to have that opinion, and being aware that some people will drive like assholes, cyclists should take as much precaution for their own safety as possible, regardless of whether they should have to or not. Not much point in being right if you're dead

Just to point out, I am making these arguments as a cyclist, and I don't think anybody, cyclist or pedestrian is "choosing" to get injured

You didn't respond to either of the poster's direct questions:

Do you think every pedestrian should wear a hi-viz at all times?
Do you think car occupants should wear helmets?

If not, why not?

magicbastarder

flatface wrote: »

If this goes ahead And offers value then Shane Ross will have gone up 10000% in my estimation.
Unfortunately he has started from such a low base he still barely registers. He 99% useless bluffer but maybe he can have one or 2 achievements to time in office. I would have thought minister for transport is an easy gig relative to the others where you can effect some decent change.

he happened to announce this on the day opposition TDs took a motion calling for extra allocation for cycling in the dail.
so it's a reasonable to argue that the opposition TDs were making him do his job, basically rendering him redundant.
it's not just transport where he's struggling to keep his head above water: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/atmosphere-between-ross-and-tourism-chiefs-chillier-than-a-white-christmas-1.3738507

Thinkingaboutit

Responding to banned poster

Chips Lovell

Poster cannot respond

cletus

buffalo wrote: »

You didn't respond to either of the poster's direct questions:

Do you think every pedestrian should wear a hi-viz at all times?
Do you think car occupants should wear helmets?

If not, why not?

I had not really intended to post in this thread anymore, but I'll answer these questions.

First of all, however, it was not my contention that safety necessarily be mandated, but that, along with advocating for better and safer driving, cyclists should take personal responsibility to keep themselves as safe as possible. That those two ideas were not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As a pedestrian, I wear hi vis in the evenings or nights when I'm out, especially as I live in the countryside, and share the same space as cars on some of the roads (i.e. there is no path). Do I think everyone should do this? I think that pedestrians should take every precaution possible to be safe and seen when they could be potentially in contact with vehicles, which is basically how I feel about cyclists.

Do I think people in cars should wear helmets? No, and I'm not sure where this red herring has come from re this argument. Car occupants are legally obliged to wear safety equipment, and modern cars are fitted with a range of safety features, from crumple zones to airbags.

Cyclists share the same road space with cars for a greater amount of time than pedestrians, so why are people being vilified for suggesting that cyclists should try and be as safe as possible. This does not have to mean that I think cyclists are to blame in accidents, that they shouldn't be allowed on the road, or that they are all traffic weaving red light breakers.

As I said before, I am a cyclist myself

Weepsie

cletus wrote: »

In my mind it's kinda like walking down a street at night and up ahead there's a bunch of scumbags. Am I entitled to continue walking down the street? Absolutely. Would it behove me to perhaps take a different route, cross the street, take some action that will prevent me becoming involved in an incident where I could be hurt or injured? Probably. Should I have to do that? No, but I'd prefer that to ending up hurt and blaming the the other guys afterwards

It's nothing like this at all. Not even remotely.

07Lapierre

cletus wrote: »

As a pedestrian, I wear hi vis in the evenings or nights when I'm out, especially as I live in the countryside, and share the same space as cars on some of the roads (i.e. there is no path). Do I think everyone should do this? I think that pedestrians should take every precaution possible to be safe and seen when they could be potentially in contact with vehicles, which is basically how I feel about cyclists.

Do you not think it should be the other way around? Do you not think it should be up to motorists to take every possible precaution to ensure they don't kill people? Personally, I think we should remove airbags and seat belts from cars. All safety features on cars should be for the protection of everyone except the occupants! Nothing like a bit of "Self Preservation" to concentrate the mind!