Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

magicbastarder

Charles Babbage wrote: »

However, since you mentioned it, nobody has ever been struck by a parked car and some people are significantly penalised for leaving a car in a location for a slightly longer period of time. Does any cycling fine for a moving violation exceed the cost of unclamping a car?

i'm - rather stupidly - going to run with this.
clamping and unclamping a car costs manpower. so that's certainly part of the equation; you've to factor in the cost of the time required to clamp the car, and then send someone out to unclamp it.
and parking illegally is essentially theft. paying for parking on a city street is paying for a service (and an incredibly cheap one, at that), so by parking without paying, you are stealing that service. so there's a punitive aspect involved too.
and that's not to take into account the factor of the sheer deterrent factor that you'd need to involve.

it's the same amount (in dublin) financially, AFAIK, to pay a clamping release fee, as it is for the financial fine of speeding.

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

Reclaim the Liffey and make it a cycle path. Thats what the Dutch would do

that's linear thinking, you need to think sideways.

https://www.shuttlebike.com/en/

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

The financial element should be a percentage of income, not fixed. The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it. (No, Andy, this is not a cue to post pics of illegally parked cars). But some look on that €80 as pocket change and just the parking fee they might or might not have to pay depending on how efficient the clampers are being.

Charles Babbage

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing as I hate cycling on the footpath but there is the odd justification like when a cycle path stops every 10 seconds to yield for a driveway or some just stop abruptly without reason and you have to use the path to get onto the road. This is particularly common on roundabout cycle paths. There are also way too many paths that cut right across the wait area/button for the green man

Criminals always do so because they find some benefit in it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm - rather stupidly - going to run with this.
clamping and unclamping a car costs manpower. so that's certainly part of the equation; you've to factor in the cost of the time required to clamp the car, and then send someone out to unclamp it.
and parking illegally is essentially theft. paying for parking on a city street is paying for a service (and an incredibly cheap one, at that), so by parking without paying, you are stealing that service. so there's a punitive aspect involved too.
and that's not to take into account the factor of the sheer deterrent factor that you'd need to involve.

it's the same amount (in dublin) financially, AFAIK, to pay a clamping release fee, as it is for the financial fine of speeding.

on the (off topic) topic, if you ask me, the financial element of fines for motoring offences should be abandoned and the points increased slightly.

As you point out, it is a question of finance, not safety.
Not paying for parking should be penalised by a ticket with payment associated with it.
The punitive element is wholly disproportionate to the lack of punitive measures for things like cycling on the footpath.

magicbastarder

cycling on the footpath is illegal. there's no specific FCPN associated with it, but the most likely punishment should a garda stop you, is the 'cycling without due care and attention one' which is a €40 FCPN. if he or she decides to do you more generally, that's a day in court.

but let's face it. illegal parking is rampant in dublin, the only policing of illegal parking is of paid public parking spots. you can leave your car anywhere else and the chances of being punished are so close to zero it's not worth arguing the toss.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The financial element should be a percentage of income, not fixed. The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it. (No, Andy, this is not a cue to post pics of illegally parked cars). But some look on that €80 as pocket change and just the parking fee they might or might not have to pay depending on how efficient the clampers are being.

I'd have thought penalty points would be a less controversial way of achieving the same objective - making it seriously unpalatable to be a repeat offender.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Reclaim the Liffey and make it a cycle path. Thats what the Dutch would do

They'd be more likely to reclaim the motorway and make it a cycle path I think.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think sean o'casey bridge should be demolished and a new multi-use bridge put back in it. Cyclists one one level and one level for pedestrians.

There is a plan for a new walking / cycling bridge further east, down at the Central Bank.

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299315352036421632

Hope the Garda didn't interrupt any interesting videos for the lads;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299452186481623046

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The parking fine of - what is it, €80? - is non-trivial for most people, so they don't do it.

it costs about €3 per hour to park your car on the street (citation needed) in many places in dublin.
if you park illegally, and there's a (say) one in thirty chance of being caught in every hour, it's trivial not to pay.
how trivial it is, is purely based on your chances of being caught.

breezy1985

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd have thought penalty points would be a less controversial way of achieving the same objective - making it seriously unpalatable to be a repeat offender.



They'd be more likely to reclaim the motorway and make it a cycle path I think.



There is a plan for a new walking / cycling bridge further east, down at the Central Bank.

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299315352036421632

Hope the Garda didn't interrupt any interesting videos for the lads;

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1299452186481623046

Cars being pulled by a bike. God that must have been a real kick in the insecurity

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In other news today, the 'provably best drivers in the world' are doing wonders for their reputation today;

Because this scumbag is representative of all Irish drivers, right?

How many Irish drivers do you think condone driving 9 times over the legal alcohol limit? And what is your evidence for said number?

Be specific.

When I defend Irish drivers, I specifically refer to evidence and data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

I expect you to do the same in your association of this scumbag with Irish drivers as a whole.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

@Seanw you say you were almost killed twice by cyclists, can you expand on that? I've almost been killed on the bike twice by motorists through no fault of my own.

- On one occasion I was T-boned by a van & hospitalised for a sever concussion and a neck injury. Hit & run.

- On the second occasion I was rear ended by a car and hospitalised for a bruised kidney and a massive muscle tear on my glut. Driver took me to hospital and legged it.

What exactly happened on the two occasions you were almost killed? What injuries did you receive & what was the outcome? I find it fascinating that you've almost died twice at the hands of cyclists.

Naturally, I sincerely hope you've recovered and are well.

Any update? Again, hope you recovered well and are back on the road.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

When I defend Irish drivers, I specifically refer to evidence and data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

You sure do! When talking about "Irish Cyclists" however, well it's rather more personal non provable/disprovable opinion and Joe Duffy really, isn't it ?

I did, in the name of balance, try to find a post , any post from you that might give you some credit that you were attempting balance. Even by away of vague acknowledgement that "Irish Cyclists" are also, by "evidence and data" incredibly safe. Alas, I had no joy finding one.....

SeanW wrote: »

...deflecting from the appalling behaviour of Irish cyclists ....

SeanW wrote: »

I hear what you're saying, but I've found it difficult not to generalise about cyclists given how many of them...

SeanW wrote: »

I also posted a Liveline recording where yet more people talked about their experiences sharing footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers/

Side note: Joe's show is considered evidence now ?

SeanW wrote: »

.... Irish cyclists are totally unregulated and it shows. That does not change the fact that Irish cyclists are totally unregulated, and it shows in their appalling behaviour.

SeanW wrote: »

Nothing special about you, I'm afraid, dealing with lawbreakers on two wheels is just a hazard you have to live with as an Irish pedestrian.

SeanW wrote: »

No, we don't "know this very well" because it's a load of cobblers. But the cynics among us might suggest all this whataboutery by cyclists to distract from the appalling behaviour of cyclists is somewhat self-serving. :rolleyes:

SeanW wrote: »

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show ....

SeanW wrote: »

As someone who has had the misfortune of being a pedestrian in Ireland's main cities, yes Irish cyclists are - in the main - profligate lawbreakers. Totally unqualified to point the finger at others.

SeanW wrote: »

So she drives the way the average Irish cyclist cycles. ...

SeanW wrote: »

If motorists drove their cars the way Irish cyclists cycle, you can be sure I'd have some harsh words for them.

SeanW wrote: »

The standard excuse from cyclists for their lawbreaking is ...

SeanW wrote: »

As pedestrians, we put up with this crap from Irish cyclists as a matter of general routine ....

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

at least they've started on a segregated cycle path along griffith avenue. seemed to start quickly and not a lot of progress on it though, from what little i've seen.

there has been some progress:



still seems unnecessarily narrow (for a two way cycle lane) given the space available. more permanent looking than the rest of the cycle lane works DCC have been undertaking recently. the kerb is a little 'organic' looking, seems to have been shaped by hand rather than by a mould.

TaurenDruid

"What do we want?"

"SEGREGATED CYCLEPATHS!"

"When do we want them?"

"NOW!"

"Ok, here you go..."

...

"What do we want?"

"SEGREGATED CYCLEPATHS WITH UNIFORMLY EVEN KERBS!"

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Because this scumbag is representative of all Irish drivers, right?

How many Irish drivers do you think condone driving 9 times over the legal alcohol limit? And what is your evidence for said number?

Be specific.

When I defend Irish drivers, I specifically refer to evidence and data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

I expect you to do the same in your association of this scumbag with Irish drivers as a whole.

So you'll be specific about not linking the cyclists who cycle near you on footpaths with 'lawbreaking scum' and 'menacing with intent'?

You expect me to treat drivers a whole lot differently to how you treat cyclists apparently. There's only one of those groups that kills 2 or 3 people each week on the roads. It's not cyclists, btw.

AndrewJRenko

For anyone still struggling to understand the issues on the North Strand

https://twitter.com/EmesSav/status/1300077229267996673?s=19

magicbastarder

this cannot be; that cycle path is the most perfectly adequate cycle path in dublin.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

For anyone still struggling to understand the issues on the North Strand

https://twitter.com/EmesSav/status/1300077229267996673?s=19

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand! Go, you!

The terrible crime that's being committed is apparently someone coming out of a car park?

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users? What happens in this cycletopia, when cyclepaths need to cross each other? There could be a one-way system, I suppose. Oh, wait, no... I've seen what happens when some cyclists are presented with a one-way system - "**** that, it'd take me out of my way! Hup! There we go, nice footpath!"

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand!

*psst*, there's two.
perhaps you cannot see the silver car which has pulled up on the inside of the wall on the other side of the emerging car, so i have news - there's a silver car which has pulled up inside the wall, on the far side of the far side of the emerging car.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

*psst*, there's two.
perhaps you cannot see the silver car which has pulled up on the inside of the wall on the other side of the emerging car, so i have news - there's a silver car which has pulled up inside the wall, on the far side of the far side of the emerging car.

Yes, there is. A case of illegal parking. Deserves a ticket.

No - is it far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and around the illegally parked car; or to cycle out on the road with a double-decker or three following him up the hill?

I'm gonna go out on a limb, here - but I'm gonna say the former.

McHardcore

Why am I not surprised that it is a Fastway courier that is parked on the cycle path.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oh, well done! One of the photos is even of North Strand! Go, you!

The terrible crime that's being committed is apparently someone coming out of a car park?

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users? What happens in this cycletopia, when cyclepaths need to cross each other? There could be a one-way system, I suppose. Oh, wait, no... I've seen what happens when some cyclists are presented with a one-way system - "**** that, it'd take me out of my way! Hup! There we go, nice footpath!"

You do realize that one way streets only came into existence because of cars? That’s one of the great advantages of cycling.... you can go anywhere. There are lots of examples of contra flow bike lanes which reflect this.

( you really do know feck all about cycling for a so called “cyclists” )

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No - is it far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and around the illegally parked car; or to cycle out on the road with a double-decker or three following him up the hill?

I'm gonna go out on a limb, here - but I'm gonna say the former.

You don't have to go out on a limb to say that it would be far, far, far safer for that pictured kid to cycle up the path and not have to go around the illegally parked car and van.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What's your problem with that? You want sacrosanct cyclepaths that are never crossed by or never cross other road users?

My problem with that is that it should be the exception rather than the rule. Nothing is sacrosanct on the roads or paths, but it would be nice to think that
a) the cyclist has a reasonable chance at having a clear run on the cycle path most days, and
b) the driver has a reasonable chance of getting a ticket when they do park illegally.

Neither of these are true.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

You do realize that one way streets only came into existence because of cars? That’s one of the great advantages of cycling.... you can go anywhere. There are lots of examples of contra flow bike lanes which reflect this.

( you really do know feck all about cycling for a so called “cyclists” )

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

jackofalltrades

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reason the thread has gone away from the original complaint is one because bar children I don't think anyone here agrees with it. So nothing to argue about and two even for the cyclists who do cycle on the foothpath(who aren't children) it not really an issue/there are far bigger dangers for pedestrians. When you go looking for statistics you find very little/none. If it was a major problem you would have information.

I imagine the complaint was correct. Anecdotally I've noticed more people cycling on footpaths primary children/teenagers. My guess is its related to the restrictions imposed by the Covid crisis. The vast majority of them in my experience are not going faster than the average jogger. So it's an non issue.

And if you want to get adults off the foot path onto the road (the place I agree where they belong) you have to start asking why they don't cycle on the road. Talk to any inexperienced cyclist the biggest complaint/fear about cycling on the road is driver behaviour. So you can see where that leads the thread.

The reason the thread has gone away from the original complaint is because it was hijacked. Plain and simple.
It barely got started before it was intentionally derailed with whataboutery and deflection. Then the title was altered to legitimise this behaviour.
If the thread was going to die through lack of disagreement then it should have been left go that way.
If cyclists wanted a thread to discuss cycling issues then they should have set up a new one.
If you think it's a "non-issue" then good for you, but others should be allowed the space to discuss the matter.
It all reeks of ganging up to silence criticism.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

And why were the street pedestrianised in the first place?

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

And there are lots of examples of pedestrianised and one-way streets that don't have contra-flow bike lanes, too, yet cyclists still seem to cycle down them, or cycle down them the wrong way.

You really do know feck all about cycling etc...

So what? After all nobody died right?

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

So what? After all nobody died right?

Yes, that is apparently what it boils down to for some cyclists justifying their lawbreaking, and apparently now it's more than just Andy... :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, that is apparently what it boils down to for some cyclists justifying their lawbreaking, and apparently now it's more than just Andy... :rolleyes:

Wrong. Nobody is justifying lawbreaking. Although even you agree that a toddler/kid can cycle on the pavement (even though its illegal). The rest of us accept that cyclist break the ROTR all the time. All road users break the ROTR, that's not the issue. The issue is the severity of the law breaking. Cycling on the pavement is a minor irritation. nothing more.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cycling on the pavement is a minor irritation. nothing more.

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

Parking on a cycling lane is a minor irritation. Nothing more.

Agreed! doesn't bother me in the slightest because i cycle on the road!