Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

kenmm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

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

Sometimes, yeah it is only a minor irritation.

Sometimes it's a massive pain in the hole as it inconveniences a few hundred cyclists which then goes on to inconvenience a few hundred other road users as everyone shuffles around to avoid the parked car.

Sometimes it becomes downright dangerous (a few illegally parked cars in a row).


If I were in charge of policy I would have illegally parked cars towed tight away. No clamping (keep that for legally parked but expired parking), straight to tow. That would stop it happening right away.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

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

In the UK they think its a big deal...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/31/consultation-begins-on-banning-pavement-parking-in-england

07Lapierre

kenmm wrote: »

Sometimes, yeah it is only a minor irritation.

Sometimes it's a massive pain in the hole as it inconveniences a few hundred cyclists which then goes on to inconvenience a few hundred other road users as everyone shuffles around to avoid the parked car.

Sometimes it becomes downright dangerous (a few illegally parked cars in a row).


If I were in charge of policy I would have illegally parked cars towed tight away. No clamping (keep that for legally parked but expired parking), straight to tow. That would stop it happening right away.

Steady on! your recommending ENFORCEMENT of existing ROTR? That's a bit radical no?

Stark

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!"

Maybe have a look at what's behind the car coming out of the car park.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

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

in many cases, yes.
however, seeing as it's endemic, it in many places essentially renders the cycle lane non-existent. forcing cyclists out into the road, a road which has often been designed without cyclists in mind (precisely because the provision for cyclists was included with the unusable cycle lane).

i could name plenty of places where the cycle lane is unusable because of fly parking. i cannot name any footpaths which are unusable because of cyclists.

PeadarCo

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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.

Depends on what you mean by a "non-issue"? Anything can be a world ending problem if defined correctly. If you define it as how dangerous it is to pedestrians it is a non issue. It been the guts of two decades since a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. Cars on the other hand kill a pedestrian every few weeks if not more often.

If you want to talk about cycling and footpaths and especially teenagers and adults cycling on footpaths you need to ask why they are on the footpath and not on the road. The minute you start asking why one of your answers is driver behavior real or perceived and how it endangers cyclists. These people consider the road too dangerous then cycle on the footpath. So if you are serious about stopping cycling on footpaths you have to look at driver behaviour and enforcing the rules of the road full stop.

So if you want cyclists to stop cycling on footpaths driver behaviour is automatically included in the conversation when it comes to stopping it as uncomfortable as that is.

TaurenDruid

So if you are serious about stopping cycling on footpaths you have to look at driver behaviour and enforcing the rules of the road full stop.

So if you want cyclists to stop cycling on footpaths driver behaviour is automatically included in the conversation when it comes to stopping it as uncomfortable as that is.

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!

PeadarCo wrote: »

These people consider the road too dangerous then cycle on the footpath.

Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!



Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

So people who cycle on the path are too lazy to follow the rules of the road.???? You have ignored the biggest problem for cyclists on the road which is a small subset of drivers who feel anyone slower than them whether it be car/bike/pedestrian etc should not be on the road. For anyone serious about tackling the issue enforcement of the rules of the road is very important. That means tackling the rampant red line breaking, speeding, dangerous overtaking, illegal parking etc etc. Now once you get that sorted you will get cyclists off the footpath. The reason being which I appreciate for non cyclists can be very difficult to understand, the road is faster than the footpath the vast majority of the time. Footpaths are not designed for bikes and with all the pedestrians generally are a place where bikes can't go any sort of speed and ending up in hospital after an accident. It should tell you a lot about certain portions of the population perceive drivers when they would prefer to take a slower and more obstacle laden foot path than share the road with drivers.

Cyclists are not a major danger to pedestrians at least when compared to cars. To repeat its the guts of 2 decades since a pedestrian was killed by a bike. On the other hand pedestrians are killed every couple of weeks by cars. Sometimes even more often. If you are really serious about keeping pedestrians safe you need to look at the vehicles and drivers that kill them on a regular basis.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yeah. Those motorists on Sean O'Casey Bridge are a ****ing menace. Someone should do something about them!



Some of them consider the road too dangerous, maybe. (One wonders how they made it into the city centre in that case...)

But some of them are pricks who are just too lazy to follow the ROTR, and the "danger" they'd face on the road is the oncoming traffic on the one-way street that they're cycling against! So rather than do that they'll hop up on the footpath and the pedestrians are expected to get out of their way...

Why don't you do something about it? why not email your local TD or maybe the Local Garda Station and request greater law enforcement?

AndrewJRenko

I'm just oozing with pride for the drivers of Dublin

https://twitter.com/lhgluke/status/1300454165139927041?s=19

Thelonious Monk

PeadarCo wrote: »

Cyclists are not a major danger to pedestrians at least when compared to cars. To repeat its the guts of 2 decades since a pedestrian was killed by a bike. On the other hand pedestrians are killed every couple of weeks by cars. Sometimes even more often. If you are really serious about keeping pedestrians safe you need to look at the vehicles and drivers that kill them on a regular basis.

There was a pedestrian killed in Phibsboro at the weekend by a motorist. Someone on twitter was saying their kids saw the body. A couple of people killed in car accidents too in the last few days. Barely amounts to any discussion anywhere. People go raving mad over a few bikes on footpaths though, I don't understand it.

breezy1985

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ok, let's try this, then:

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

When its something like a post man well he has to stop somewhere so I dont mind and wouldnt even call it an irritation. But when its somewhere like by Limerick train station where cars have decided to completely ignore the new parking spaces because they are too fat and lazy to park down the road and walk then ya its a problem as every evening its 3 to 4 cars and taxis when I pass.

Also happens when Garryowen rugby play despite a huge free carpark across the road at the Crescent shopping centre because again fat and lazy

07Lapierre

breezy1985 wrote: »

When its something like a post man well he has to stop somewhere so I dont mind and wouldnt even call it an irritation. But when its somewhere like by Limerick train station where cars have decided to completely ignore the new parking spaces because they are too fat and lazy to park down the road and walk then ya its a problem as every evening its 3 to 4 cars and taxis when I pass.

Also happens when Garryowen rugby play despite a huge free carpark across the road at the Crescent shopping centre because again fat and lazy

just watched "big life fix" on RTE. A woman who is visually impaired featured on it and it made me realise that even postmen parking for a few minutes on the pavement could be a huge inconvenience for the visually impaired, wheelchair users, the elderly (who might have to walk with a cane) and even adults pushing prams etc. Cars parked illegally never really bothered me, as I'm able to see them and can manoeuvre around them. others are not so lucky!

kenmm

07Lapierre wrote: »

just watched "big life fix" on RTE. A woman who is visually impaired featured on it and it made me realise that even postmen parking for a few minutes on the pavement could be a huge inconvenience for the visually impaired, wheelchair users, the elderly (who might have to walk with a cane) and even adults pushing prams etc. Cars parked illegally never really bothered me, as I'm able to see them and can manoeuvre around them. others are not so lucky!

Ye exactly. Stroll around town alongside someone in a wheelchair and you will know what inconvenience is. Especially ones that bump up on the corners, usually where the dropped kerbs are, causing wheelchair users to go massively out there way or to bounce off and potentially aggravated whatever injury/disability they have.

07Lapierre

kenmm wrote: »

Ye exactly. Stroll around town alongside someone in a wheelchair and you will know what inconvenience is. Especially ones that bump up on the corners, usually where the dropped kerbs are, causing wheelchair users to go massively out there way or to bounce off and potentially aggravated whatever injury/disability they have.

It makes you think about that so called cycle lane in North Strand. North Strand is a "mature" residential area. How many elderly people live in that area? (I assume quite a lot). Makes you wonder why anyone would think putting a cycle lane on a narrow pavement that's frequently used by the elderly (and judging by the photos posted recently, kids also use it) was a good idea. The answer of course is that there was zero consideration given to pedestrians or cyclists and the main priority was to direct cyclists off the road, regardless of the consequences.

Stark

Sure cyclists "menacing" pedestrians is only an issue when there's no sign there.

Quite telling that the only people defending it are the ones obsessing over the issue of cyclists on footpaths. Almost like they care more about having an excuse to rant than actually improving conditions for pedestrians.

Like in all of those pictures posted of cars blocking the cycle lane, the immediate response from those playing the pedestrians' white knight is to go around on the footpath part rather than go around on the road.

AndrewJRenko

07Lapierre wrote: »

just watched "big life fix" on RTE. A woman who is visually impaired featured on it and it made me realise that even postmen parking for a few minutes on the pavement could be a huge inconvenience for the visually impaired, wheelchair users, the elderly (who might have to walk with a cane) and even adults pushing prams etc. Cars parked illegally never really bothered me, as I'm able to see them and can manoeuvre around them. others are not so lucky!

A friend of mine who is blind, and uses the white cane, would regularly show me the cuts and bruises on his shins from hitting off parked cars, where the sweeping motion of the cane missed the vehicle until it was too late.

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

So people who cycle on the path are too lazy to follow the rules of the road.???? You have ignored the biggest problem for cyclists on the road which is a small subset of drivers who feel anyone slower than them whether it be car/bike/pedestrian etc should not be on the road.

/snip wall of text

No, I haven't.

/snip other wall of text

Reminder, this is a thread about cycling on footpaths.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm just oozing with pride for the drivers of Dublin

https://twitter.com/lhgluke/status/1300454165139927041?s=19

Is this the bit in the cycle (HA see what I did there?!) where some of us go #notalldrivers and then when someone criticises cyclists, you get irate again and go #notallcyclists?

TaurenDruid

breezy1985 wrote: »

When its something like a post man well he has to stop somewhere so I dont mind and wouldnt even call it an irritation. But when its somewhere like by Limerick train station where cars have decided to completely ignore the new parking spaces because they are too fat and lazy to park down the road and walk then ya its a problem as every evening its 3 to 4 cars and taxis when I pass.

Also happens when Garryowen rugby play despite a huge free carpark across the road at the Crescent shopping centre because again fat and lazy

Yup, places like that need a few weeks of good, strong, enforcement and ticketing. Commonly see all decency flouted outside GAA grounds, widely reported on social media, and nothing happens. I've called the council several times about a local all weather pitch where there'd be cars parked outside, on the cycle lane and buslane, despite a free car park being literally 100 metres away. The council put in bollards, so now they just park on the bus lane... :rolleyes:

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

It makes you think about that so called cycle lane in North Strand. North Strand is a "mature" residential area. How many elderly people live in that area? (I assume quite a lot). Makes you wonder why anyone would think putting a cycle lane on a narrow pavement that's frequently used by the elderly (and judging by the photos posted recently, kids also use it) was a good idea. The answer of course is that there was zero consideration given to pedestrians or cyclists and the main priority was to direct cyclists off the road, regardless of the consequences.

It is by no means a narrow pavement.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A friend of mine who is blind, and uses the white cane, would regularly show me the cuts and bruises on his shins from hitting off parked cars, where the sweeping motion of the cane missed the vehicle until it was too late.

I've told a cyclist busy unlocking his bike from a bus stop on George's Street that it was a bit of a dick move locking his bike to it. "What? What the **** are you talking about?!" Pointed at the blind woman with guide dog approaching, who regularly uses the stop. Light dawns in the guys' eyes. "Oh. Er, yeah, sorry."

Parts of the footpath on some city centre streets are so narrow (actually narrow, not pretend narrow for hyperbole reasons like Lapierre talking about North Strand) that people have hung "Please do not lock a bike to this" signs on poles. And they get ignored.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is by no means a narrow pavement.

True...it's wide enough for a van!

https://mobile.twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776/photo/1

jackofalltrades

PeadarCo wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by a "non-issue"?

I've haven't used the word, except to quote you.

If you want to talk about cycling and footpaths and especially teenagers and adults cycling on footpaths you need to ask why they are on the footpath and not on the road. The minute you start asking why one of your answers is driver behavior real or perceived and how it endangers cyclists. These people consider the road too dangerous then cycle on the footpath. So if you are serious about stopping cycling on footpaths you have to look at driver behaviour and enforcing the rules of the road full stop.

I'm happy to hear the stories of cyclists who use paths due to a fear of their safety.
These posts, while an important part of the discussion, are in a tiny minority.
Drowned out by others determined to take the thread off topic.

kenmm

Ok so back on topic:

It's acknowledged a few dicks cycle on paths/pavements. These people are dickheads.

Is that it? I mean I feel the thread has reached a conclusion, but I don't really want to see it go yet, it's been such a constant in my life.

magicbastarder

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm happy to hear the stories of cyclists who use paths due to a fear of their safety.

i don't think that's a large number of people, if you simply compare it to the number of people who do not want to cycle at all, for fear of their safety. which is the bigger concern.

a stat i'm constantly repeating - more female secondary school students drive to school, than cycle, based on the last census returns. IIRC, i think the total is less than 600 nationwide (which i would hazard a guess is an average of less than one student per school, but i don't know how many secondary schools there are in the country).

07Lapierre

kenmm wrote: »

Ok so back on topic:

It's acknowledged a few dicks cycle on paths/pavements. These people are dickheads.

Is that it? I mean I feel the thread has reached a conclusion, but I don't really want to see it go yet, it's been such a constant in my life.

That’s it and nobody gives a toss as their are bigger issues to be concerned about.

magicbastarder

i do see the occasional cyclist on the footpath outside my house, and i suspect it's a combination of safety and laziness/convenience. i live on a wide road, one of the main ones in and out of dublin (i.e. it's one that is retaining the 50km/h limit), with an on-road cycle lane lane, bus lane and two traffic lanes in each direction, on it. and there's a not insignificant junction near me.

rather than having to negotiate that junction, and then a few hundred yards later take a right across the road, which many will want to do, and which if you're a confident cyclist, involves pulling out across the bus lane, and two lanes of traffic, to get into the right filter lane; some cyclists opt to take the footpath instead (which is about 3m wide). they probably don't feel safe pulling out across the traffic in the manner i described. i've been beeped at numerous times for daring to be out of the cycle lane on that road, in order to make that right, and i'd be doing at least 35km/h each time.

the obvious argument is that when the cyclist reaches the right hand turn, they could dismount and use the light controlled pedestrian crossing, but i'd argue that if you're going to be sending signals to cyclists that they should revert to being pedestrians for their own safety, you're blurring the lines between pedestrians and cyclists and it's probably inevitable that that blur leads some people to cycle on the path.

breezy1985

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I've told a cyclist busy unlocking his bike from a bus stop on George's Street that it was a bit of a dick move locking his bike to it. "What? What the **** are you talking about?!" Pointed at the blind woman with guide dog approaching, who regularly uses the stop. Light dawns in the guys' eyes. "Oh. Er, yeah, sorry."

Parts of the footpath on some city centre streets are so narrow (actually narrow, not pretend narrow for hyperbole reasons like Lapierre talking about North Strand) that people have hung "Please do not lock a bike to this" signs on poles. And they get ignored.

It is important to make sure your bike isn't causing an obstruction which is why I'm really happy to see that in Limerick to council are now converting parking spaces for cycle racks rather than sticking them on paths

Thelonious Monk

https://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run-north-wall-quay-5192182-Sep2020/

Cyclist hit by some c*nt in a car who drove off last night, in serious condition. Pedestrian killed at weekend. Barely makes the news.
This is why some of us can't take complaints of the odd person cycling on a footpath, harming no one, seriously.
This is a joke of a thread. I cycle on the path sometimes, usually to get around cars that might kill me. If there were people on the footpath I'd go at walking speed or dismount. No one is getting hurt by bikes on footpaths.