Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

No because he is supposed to park parallel to the kerb unless signposted otherwise.

So if he parks parallel to the kerb, with the rear 2/3rds of the vehicle parallel to the kerb (like this guy) and the front 1/3 of the vehicle sticking out into the junction, will you be jumping to his defence and saying that there's nothing wrong with that parking?

Tea drinker

Spook_ie wrote: »

Look at the picture, there IS NOT a cycle path marked there, the tarmac is unpainted, there are NO signs. Doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise the pictures show the facts.

I've seen this rage IRL, at traffic lights in Dundrum road / bird avenue, cyclist banging on car door and mirror, fantasising about a non existent blocked cycle lane, and no room for a car and a bike to co-exist on that piece of tarmac.
Could only be better if she was screaming "I'm a vulnerable road user."

magicbastarder

just my daily check in to see if this thread has veered towards any constructive comment, and whoah, based on the above, that's a no.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So if he parks parallel to the kerb, with the rear 2/3rds of the vehicle parallel to the kerb (like this guy) and the front 1/3 of the vehicle sticking out into the junction, will you be jumping to his defence and saying that there's nothing wrong with that parking?

There is NO junction there!

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is NO junction there!

Because there is no cycle lane, there would be if there was a spare bit of white paint left over but as it is there ISN'T.

I wouldn't expect some one to park here because ( though it could do with some paint ) there IS a marked cycle path across the junction

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

Look at the picture, there IS NOT a cycle path marked there, the tarmac is unpainted, there are NO signs. Doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise the pictures show the facts.

There is also no sign to say that the cycle lane has ended.

kenmm

magicbastarder wrote: »

just my daily check in to see if this thread has veered towards any constructive comment, and whoah, based on the above, that's a no.

I'm addicted at this stage!

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

just my daily check in to see if this thread has veered towards any constructive comment, and whoah, based on the above, that's a no.

I think the pandemic might have passed before this thread runs it course.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because there is no cycle lane, there would be if there was a spare bit of white paint left over but as it is there ISN'T.

I wouldn't expect some one to park here because ( though it could do with some paint ) there IS a marked cycle path across the junction

Some people would use that photo as an example of a perfectly adequate cycle lane.

breezy1985

Spook_ie wrote: »

No my interpretation is should pedestrians be able to take the law into their own hands, you seem to condone acting in defiance of the law, therefore should pedestrians have the same mindset or is it just limited to some cyclists on here?

If you park a bike to a railing and the owner of said railing isn't happy he will cut your lock in two. Is that criminal damage?

Tea drinker

magicbastarder wrote: »

just my daily check in to see if this thread has veered towards any constructive comment, and whoah, based on the above, that's a no.

I'd say you were fairly shocked to see we aren't all giving virtual hugs to each other. Sorry I can't type a longer reply as am driving at the moment

Pinch Flat

Tea drinker wrote: »

I'd say you were fairly shocked to see we aren't all giving virtual hugs to each other. Sorry I can't type a longer reply as am driving at the moment

Yeah I nearly dropped my phone while cycling over the sean o'casey bridge earlier.

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

I'd say you were fairly shocked to see we aren't all giving virtual hugs to each other. Sorry I can't type a longer reply as am driving at the moment

Thanks for the update, Phil.

Now throw a hang and cheese sanger on the George Foreman and I'll be over for lunch.

breezy1985

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah I nearly dropped my phone while cycling over the sean o'casey bridge earlier.

Ha I was laughing so much at this I almost didn't see the 2 pedestrians on front of me as I was cycling furiously down the footpath

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because there is no cycle lane, there would be if there was a spare bit of white paint left over but as it is there ISN'T.

I wouldn't expect some one to park here because ( though it could do with some paint ) there IS a marked cycle path across the junction

I like the way you used a photo where the lines for the cycle lane have been worn away by the vehicles entering and exiting wherever that is.

One might say there is no cycle lane there at all.

Spook_ie

micar wrote: »

I like the way you used a photo where the lines for the cycle lane have been worn away by the vehicles entering and exiting wherever that is.

One might say there is no cycle lane there at all.

I did say it could do with some paint, but then many lane markings need redoing all over Ireland, I'll be sure (NOT) to find some pristine lines for any further examples!

Spook_ie

breezy1985 wrote: »

If you park a bike to a railing and the owner of said railing isn't happy he will cut your lock in two. Is that criminal damage?

I would think that if there are notices informing you to not lock bicycles etc. to private property railings then as long as reasonable care is taken of the property and the lock is returned to the owner up on claiming it, then no.

It would seem to be a similar situation to DCC and abandoned bicycles, excepting they tag your bicycle first rather than a property owner tagging the railings.



A grey area but graffiti is clear cut criminal damage.

breezy1985

Spook_ie wrote: »

I would think that if there are notices informing you to not lock bicycles etc. to private property railings then as long as reasonable care is taken of the property and the lock is returned to the owner up on claiming it, then no.

It would seem to be a similar situation to DCC and abandoned bicycles, excepting they tag your bicycle first rather than a property owner tagging the railings.



A grey area but graffiti is clear cut criminal damage.

Lock is returned? its broken in 2 whats the point of returning it.

How the council does it works fine as notice is given and its about clearing abandoned bikes from bike spaces.

I would never write on a window like that but leaving a note is fine
Also in my local shopping centre they use these hard to get off stickers if you park illegally which I am a big fan of.

Spook_ie

breezy1985 wrote: »

Lock is returned? its broken in 2 whats the point of returning it.

How the council does it works fine as notice is given and its about clearing abandoned bikes from bike spaces.

I would never write on a window like that but leaving a note is fine
Also in my local shopping centre they use these hard to get off stickers if you park illegally which I am a big fan of.

Because at the end of the day it would still be the property of the owner and is up to them if they want to bin it.

DCC will remove bikes attached to any DCC property but what of the privately owned railings belonging to the various Georgian era buildings, if you own something and have put up warning signs that anything locked to the railings will be removed, where do you think you'll stand, as long as you've been warned and everything is returned to you.

Anyways you are tracking well away from the case of someone causing criminal damage to a parked motor vehicle, that doesn't appear to be breaking any actual parking law and even if it was breaking any restrictions I wouldn't condone vigilante action such as that. Though it would appear that certain posters on here not only condone it but would actively go as far as going equipped to do it.

07Lapierre

I'm beginning to realise that this "blocked pavements" issue is no big deal really.

I mean look at this example...
nobody died....the only people inconvenienced by this behaviour are people who walk or maybe drive wheelchairs or maybe are pushed in prams etc. None of these people pay tax and sue probably can't drive either! Muppets!

https://twitter.com/dochara/status/1297536503695003654?s=21

breezy1985

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because at the end of the day it would still be the property of the owner and is up to them if they want to bin it.

DCC will remove bikes attached to any DCC property but what of the privately owned railings belonging to the various Georgian era buildings, if you own something and have put up warning signs that anything locked to the railings will be removed, where do you think you'll stand, as long as you've been warned and everything is returned to you.

Anyways you are tracking well away from the case of someone causing criminal damage to a parked motor vehicle, that doesn't appear to be breaking any actual parking law and even if it was breaking any restrictions I wouldn't condone vigilante action such as that. Though it would appear that certain posters on here not only condone it but would actively go as far as going equipped to do it.

So if a railing doesnt have a sign then its criminal damage?

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

if you park illegally which I am a big fan of.

could have worded that better!

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Every hour that a Garda spends chasing cyclists is an hour that could be spent reducing the death toll on the road by enforcing traffic law on those who kill two or three people each week.

I had a really disappointing weekend, to be honest. Brought my 2.75 tonne death machine out three times, after fitting wheel scythes, but didn't get to deploy them at all. Scored zero for the whole weekend, and I usually manage one or two kills. Tomorrow will likely be a write-off too, everyone staying indoors cos of the rain, I'll really have to work to keep my three deaths a week average up! :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

breezy1985 wrote: »

So if a railing doesnt have a sign then its criminal damage?

Go ask a solicitor, if there are no signs then I would imagine so, what has locks and railings to do with writing graffiti on a car, which according to Garda.ie IS criminal damage.

TaurenDruid

Spook_ie wrote: »

Go ask a solicitor, if there are no signs then I would imagine so, what has locks and railings to do with writing graffiti on a car, which according to Garda.ie IS criminal damage.

It's not too long ago since the gardaí were going around cutting the locks on a load of legally locked-up bikes around Dublin city centre and taking away the bikes, because some British royals were due to walk around bits of town...

SeanW

07Lapierre wrote: »

I'm beginning to realise that this "blocked pavements" issue is no big deal really.

I mean look at this example...
nobody died....

Well, that's literally the standard being employed by some here "if you don't die or nobody dies, you have no reason to complain."

Spook_ie

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It's not too long ago since the gardaí were going around cutting the locks on a load of legally locked-up bikes around Dublin city centre and taking away the bikes, because some British royals were due to walk around bits of town...

https://www.thejournal.ie/bikes-royal-visit-dublin-gardai-4122028-Jul2018/

And it looks like they were legally empowered to, and it was two bikes not loads according to the news report, anyway how many bikes did they need to remove in 1995

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/1101/828356-president-clinton-meets-the-people/

Or in 2011

https://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2011/0524/301443-obamacoverage/

breezy1985

Spook_ie wrote: »

Go ask a solicitor, if there are no signs then I would imagine so, what has locks and railings to do with writing graffiti on a car, which according to Garda.ie IS criminal damage.

You said a note written on an illegally parked car is criminal damage.
Breaking the equipment of an illegally parked bike is then also criminal damage.

You made a comment that only cyclists seem to take the law into their own hands in these matters so i challenged that and it seems petty clear to me that you are far more appalled by lipstick on a car than the irreparable breaking of bike equipment

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

could have worded that better!

Ha the dangers of paraphrasing

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Well, that's literally the standard being employed by some here "if you don't die or nobody dies, you have no reason to complain."

Could you point to any actual examples of where some here employed literally that standard please?