Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

breezy1985

SeanW wrote: »

Actually it was. It's called "off the road". Though the comparison between bicycles and houses in this regard is interesting :P

Last I checked, houses did not travel and they remain off the road most of the time.

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au7gmWjhfR8

If sitting in your living room was as dangerous as some cyclists claim their cycle trips are, then that might not be a bad idea.

That house isnt wearing a helmet

07Lapierre

breezy1985 wrote: »

And sure everyone knows that all them houses do be breaking the red lights all the time

Nah, they tend to park illegally on the pavement!

AndrewJRenko

breezy1985 wrote: »

That house isnt wearing a helmet

Those dark brown bricks are impossible to see at night. All of us on (or bordering on) the road need to take responsibility for our own safety.

kenmm

breezy1985 wrote: »

I dont know that route but in general everybody needs to start treating cycle lanes like roads and not be goin down em the wrong way, walking in them or not looking for traffic before crossing

For sure.

That section tho, It's a very badly "designed" section. It's barely possible to distinguish the footpath from the cycle lane, especially as the section immediately south of it has double the cycle lane width, clearly separated.

You see cyclists on the footpath and vice versa all the time.

Stark

SeanW wrote: »

Rest assured though, when houses are travelling down the road, they do require things like enhanced visibility. (See video).

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

p_haugh

Came a cross this gem of a cycle track on the n11 the other day

07Lapierre

p_haugh wrote: »

Came a cross this gem of a cycle track on the n11 the other day

Still, its better than this one!...

https://scontent.fdub4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/116255332_3244275428928725_7766705148008481815_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Lkfwj2tBCcUAX8YogGY&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&oh=71d2176083d2c5ba1a46461fe874e379&oe=5F59EDA0

kenmm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Still, its better than this one!...

https://scontent.fdub4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/116255332_3244275428928725_7766705148008481815_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=Lkfwj2tBCcUAX8YogGY&_nc_ht=scontent.fdub4-1.fna&oh=71d2176083d2c5ba1a46461fe874e379&oe=5F59EDA0

Thats a unicycle lane obviously. Only one wheel on that!

magicbastarder

Stark wrote: »

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

https://twitter.com/kenfoxe/status/1293139090691559425

SeanW

breezy1985 wrote: »

That house isnt wearing a helmet

Does the roof count?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Those dark brown bricks are impossible to see at night. All of us on (or bordering on) the road need to take responsibility for our own safety.

Nope, just those on the road. When I'm walking, I only have to worry about what's on the footpath. Like two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom.

Stark wrote: »

Not exactly a glowing endorsement for the average driver's observational skills is it?

Wide loads are always going to cause a safety hazard, e.g. taking up both sides of the road and requiring very wide turns. So, yes, they're going to need to be announced, accompanied etc.

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kenfoxe/status/1293139090691559425

Little should I wonder. Ireland didn't have a functional driver testing system until a few years ago (and even at that, our system today only barely functions) that's bound to have left a few legacy issues.

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Little should I wonder. Ireland didn't have a functional driver testing system until a few years ago (and even at that, our system today only barely functions) that's bound to have left a few legacy issues.

My lad applied for his theory test last week, waiting list February 2021 :eek:

TaurenDruid

Decent segment on The Last Word on cycling earlier. Conor Faughnan from the AA, the vice-chair of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, and a motoring correspondent. Balanced debate, worth a listen.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Decent segment on The Last Word on cycling earlier. Conor Faughnan from the AA, the vice-chair of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, and a motoring correspondent. Balanced debate, worth a listen.

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

kenmm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

That's very unfair tbh.










They do house insurance as well :pac:

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would you include a motor insurance salesman in a discussion about cycling?

****'s sake. Maybe because he's a cyclist? :rolleyes:

Try listening to the piece before commenting. He's firmly in favour of more cycling. Seriously, dude. The battleground mentality isn't doing you any favours.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

****'s sake. Maybe because he's a cyclist? :rolleyes:

Try listening to the piece before commenting. He's firmly in favour of more cycling. Seriously, dude. The battleground mentality isn't doing you any favours.

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

kenmm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've heard him enough times before thanks - all in favour of cycling, once it doesn't impinge on the customers of his insurance business at all - all against very basic safety measures like the 30kmph limit around the city.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

Can I ask that we not open that set of debates again re 30 kmph. It's getting really tiresome.

Welfare, immigrants and 30kmph speed limits.. it's all there is these days in boards.

kenmm

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Pinch Flat

kenmm wrote: »

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Did we do insurance yet? Or "road tax"? Apologies if i missed it

AndrewJRenko

kenmm wrote: »

Actually, is there a point to this thread at all anymore? It seemed to start out about people who ride bikes on pavements and us now general random topics vaguely related to cycling with all the usual tired old arguments.

Was there ever any point in the first place?

SeanW

Spook_ie wrote: »

My lad applied for his theory test last week, waiting list February 2021 :eek:

Yikes, is that for his driving test or just the theory test?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO CYCLISTS! How many times do you have to be told this? Geez!

Spook_ie

SeanW wrote: »

Yikes, is that for his driving test or just the theory test?

Just the theory

kenmm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Did we do insurance yet? Or "road tax"? Apologies if i missed it

Insurance yes, some were surprised that a lot of cyclists have it already, some didn't believe they did and of course it isn't mandatory anyway etc

Weepsie

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And quite right too. It's not a housing estate. Parts of the city, absolutely, it's needed, but not so on the main traffic routes. Even the cyclists don't keep to it on the quays!

If there was a strictly observed 30kph spped limit in the city journey times would probably in fact increase.

It's about traffic flow and it being predicable, and manageable. We'd need to entirely cut out the amber gambling though as every car that does that disrupts the expected flow and helps cause little tailbacks.

TaurenDruid

Weepsie wrote: »

If there was a strictly observed 30kph spped limit in the city journey times would probably in fact increase.

It's about traffic flow and it being predicable, and manageable. We'd need to entirely cut out the amber gambling though as every car that does that disrupts the expected flow and helps cause little tailbacks.

In theory, absolutely. Can't see it working in practice, though, when some light sequences literally let two or three cars through at a time and that's it. That really removes any incentive to stop on amber. (Disclaimer: I've only started commuting by car regularly since covid and I know DCC have changed a lot of the signal timings since it started. It might be better when the original settings are restored).

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

If there was a strictly observed 30kph spped limit in the city journey times would probably in fact increase.

It's about traffic flow and it being predicable, and manageable. We'd need to entirely cut out the amber gambling though as every car that does that disrupts the expected flow and helps cause little tailbacks.

Did you mean to say that journey times would probably decrease?

Marcusm

07Lapierre wrote: »

SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO CYCLISTS! How many times do you have to be told this? Geez!

In a sense you are right in that it is impossible to accurately judge their speed. However, they can be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “riding... without reasonable consideration” each of which could be used against a cyclist in excess of the speed limit. I imagine such furious cycling occurs infrequently although cyclists (like all road users) are regularly furious!

kenmm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

In theory, absolutely. Can't see it working in practice, though, when some light sequences literally let two or three cars through at a time and that's it. That really removes any incentive to stop on amber. (Disclaimer: I've only started commuting by car regularly since covid and I know DCC have changed a lot of the signal timings since it started. It might be better when the original settings are restored).

Sorting out the amber gambling (which is evolving into 3-4 solid red light running) would be a major help in Dublin.
And yes, it means someone from planning has to get their finger out and do more analysis of light sequencing.