Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

where did all the horses come from?
any horserider i know who hacks out on the roads would not go out in subdued light, they've even more stories about motorists than cyclists would.

Did you not see the horses approaching the thread, even with all the day glow and reflective clothing, you mustn't have been looking in the right direction.

Spook_ie

Stark wrote: »

I still think it's crazy that our expectations for drivers have gotten so low that even a horse has to be dolled up in hi-viz. If someone can't see a large animal on the road, what business do they have having a license?

All this time on thread and you've learnt ****all about visibilty as an actual thing Vs a percieved thing

John_Rambo

I think there's a cohort of 'modern, important and busy' people that genuinely feel that there's no place for anyone on the road other than cars. A militant grouping or motorists that think roads were built just for them.

They believe pedestrians, kids, cyclists, horse riders, mobility vehicles etc.. should either adhere to their stringent clothing, safety & lighting etiquette or simply give up the ghost and all revert to cars.

Pinch Flat

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think there's a cohort of 'modern, important and busy' people that genuinely feel that there's no place for anyone on the road other than cars. A militant grouping or motorists that think roads were built just for them.

They believe pedestrians, kids, cyclists, horse riders, mobility vehicles etc.. should either adhere to their stringent clothing, safety & lighting etiquette or simply give up the ghost and all revert to cars.

The preaching though is quite admirable.

John_Rambo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The preaching though is quite admirable.

Monstrously long boring, non sensical, desperate, nit-picking, straw grasping, barrel scraping & blame shifting posts.

The games up.

Pinch Flat

John_Rambo wrote: »

Monstrously long boring, non sensical, desperate, nit-picking, straw grasping, barrel scraping & blame shifting posts.

The games up.

I'm just dissappointed that one of my posts didn't get distmantled into one of those multi-quote replies

micar

SeanW wrote: »

As to hi-vis, if a motorist does things that put you in danger when you're wearing hi-vis, that's on them. To be clear, a motorist should be doing their best to observe things going on around them at all times, but if you've put in the effort to make sure that you do not blend in to the background, then you should expect motorists to give you a wide berth.

When you refer to hi viz, do you mean at all times? Cos, I would wear one going to work when it's dark.

There is no need for a cyclist to wear one during the day.

If you're observing correctly then you don't need a cyclist to wear a hi viz.

However, if you need a cyclist to have hi viz on during the day order for you to see them then you need to go into the nearest garda station to hand in your licence and the keys to your car.

Tell me.....what colours should cyclists not wear?

Seth Brundle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm just dissappointed

Life is too short - don't let it get you down.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

that one of my posts didn't get distmantled

Is it the removal of your posts context or just the use of multi-quotes for the one post that you don't like?

Pinch Flat wrote: »

into one of those multi-quote replies

Be grateful. Those posts can be a pain to read at times.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Be happy! Turn that frown upside down

AndrewJRenko

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think there's a cohort of 'modern, important and busy' people that genuinely feel that there's no place for anyone on the road other than cars. A militant grouping or motorists that think roads were built just for them.
They believe pedestrians, kids, cyclists, horse riders, mobility vehicles etc.. should either adhere to their stringent clothing, safety & lighting etiquette or simply give up the ghost and all revert to cars.

And they also fiercly resist any suggestion that THEY should adhere to stringent clothing, safety and lighting etiquette, or indeed, that they should adhere to things like speed limits, which seem to be nothing more than a mild inconvenience for them?

Spook_ie wrote: »

I already suggested that cyclists if they want to be seen should invest in Daylight Cycling Lights or if they don't want to go HI Tech then consider hi viz as a poormans alternative that will still have an effect on their visibilty.

And you’ve also suggested that hi-viz doesn’t apply to you personally when you’re walking, just to other people. And it definitely doesn’t apply to your car while parked, or perhaps even when crashed.

SeanW wrote: »

but if you've put in the effort to make sure that you do not blend in to the background, then you should expect motorists to give you a wide berth.

Unless of course, you ARE a motorist, in which case there is no expectation of you putting in any effort to avoid your black/blue car blending into the black/blue background at night, when it is parked with no lights, and no reflectors on three out of four sides.

SeanW wrote: »

I have to negotiate with two-wheeled lawbreakers all the time as a pedestrian and on more than one occasion, I've had to jump out of the way of a red light jumping scumbag.

You seem to be avoiding the question. You said yourself that ‘intent matters’. Are you saying that all these menacing cyclists on the pavements are cycling with intent to menace you and other pedestrians?
Have you ever had to negotiate with four-wheeled lawbreaking scumbags on the roads or pavements? Ever had to negotiate around a vehicle parked on a pavement by a lawbreaking scumbag driver? Or ever had to take evasive action on the road to negotiate around a lawbreaking scumbag driver speeding, or lane-jumping, or red-light jumping?

SeanW wrote: »

WTF are you even talking about? It was clearly accidental!
And yet, you have no evidence of any of that. But there's good reason to believe it was as simple as "old person does something stupid, because they're old"

Isn’t it funny though, how you have zero evidence to support your conclusion that it was ‘accidental’ but you’re quite happy to jump to that conclusion and sweep it under the carpet and rely on the driver having to cop-on to moderate their own future activities?

SeanW wrote: »

Most people - especially cyclists - would point to the Netherlands as an example of a country that is getting a lot of things right. And I'm inclined to agree. Yet per vehicle-kilometre, more people die on Dutch roads than Irish roads.

They still have a once-in-a-lifetime driving test in the Netherlands though, right? Why would anyone think that a once-in-a-lifetime test was a good idea for such a lethal activity? Every regulated profession now (doctors, lawyers, engineers) have mandatory CPD programmes to ensure that important skills are kept up to date. But nothing for those responsible for a few tonnes of metal sharing space with our elderly parents, our children, our siblings.

SeanW wrote: »

Two reasons:

• All people have the right to fear overregulation that is unduly burdensome and desired only for the sake of causing hardship. And it seems to me that this is the only justifiable reason for your suggestion. You want to hurt people by bogging them down with stupid, excessive, over the top regulation, that would accomplish nothing.
• International evidence shows that countries that do have multiple tests for motorists actually have more road fatalities, not less. Compare Ireland v. Canada.

Just to be clear, the idea of regular testing isn’t “desired only for the sake of causing hardship”. I’ve no idea how you came to that conclusion. It’s been fairly clear from everything I’ve said that the objective of such testing is to reduce road deaths.
But what multiple tests are you referring to in Canada? I can’t find any reference to multiple tests for Canadian drivers. Can you please clarify?

SeanW wrote: »

Very simple:

1. Have laws that are fair and sensible.
2. Enforce them.

It’s good to see that we have at least some small piece of common ground on the need for extra enforcement of traffic laws for motorists. This is indeed a huge issue, a cultural issue, a resource issue.
But really, we should expect more from drivers than to require the State to put huge resources into policing them. Drivers should be paying the full costs of the Garda Roads Policing unit, the RSA, the vast amounts of Court service and Prison service time that go to dealing with motorists who couldn’t be arsed.

SeanW wrote: »

Cars are lit up like Christmas trees. Not just at night, but increasingly during the day.

Not when they’re parked, they’re not. And not when the idiot driver doesn’t know how to use their DRLs. So why are you so resistant to mandatory hi-vis stripes on all sides of all cars? Surely it would be an improvement on whatever level of visibility they currently have?

SeanW wrote: »

When Spook posted that picture of the jockey earlier that should have ended any debate about hi-vis. That it didn't, tells me all I need to know.

Which that hi-vis has no value for dark cars stored in dark places?

Here's the kind of hi-vis I'd be thinking about for horse riders.
https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/new-hi-viz-jackets-photograph-motorists-431719

SeanW wrote: »

Any fatal accident that was caused solely by human error or unexpected road conditions. Also, all vehicular suicides. You can't stop someone from deciding that crashing into a tree at 100MPH is going to solve all their problems.

Is there any chance that you could be just a little more specific by referring to particular road death incidents, which are generally well documented?
And btw, you CAN stop someone from deciding that crashing into a tree at 100 MPH. The first question would be why we allow cars to be sold that are capable of driving at 100 MPH when our speed limit is 120 kmph? So that’s one simple step that could be taken – we do it for trucks and coaches – why don’t we do it for domestic cars?

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

As to hi-vis, if a motorist does things that put you in danger when you're wearing hi-vis, that's on them. To be clear, a motorist should be doing their best to observe things going on around them at all times, but if you've put in the effort to make sure that you do not blend in to the background, then you should expect motorists to give you a wide berth.

Really ? It's on them?

Cool so. I'm just off to the garda station now to ask them to pass that on to my wife and young kid for me when the next knuckledragger sees me dutifully decked out in my hi-viz on a rural road, decides to put me in my place with a close 80kph pass and judges it slightly wrong. I'm sure they'll be grand when they hear those soothing words.

magicbastarder

some gardai might not give you the time of day.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113792385&postcount=1617

Hurrache

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I'm just dissappointed that one of my posts didn't get distmantled into one of those multi-quote replies

They're the virtual equivalent of non high vis wearing threads that cause me to plough on straight through them with no attention given.

So maybe you were and just didn't notice.

TaurenDruid

Duckjob wrote: »

Really ? It's on them?

Cool so. I'm just off to the garda station now to ask them to pass that on to my wife and young kid for me when the next knuckledragger sees me dutifully decked out in my hi-viz on a rural road, decides to put me in my place with a close 80kph pass and judges it slightly wrong. I'm sure they'll be grand when they hear those soothing words.

I think you may have completely misunderstood who the "them" was in SeanW's post.

Andy just saw a post giving out to SeanW so auto-clicked his thanks...

TaurenDruid

Not getting the hate for a recommendation to be better lit. The AA a few years ago started running a campaign to use dipped lights in daylight. I wondered why. I checked it out. Turned out it drastically cut the number of RTIs. So I now have the lights on in daylight. Costs me nothing. Well - something like a tenner a year in extra fuel. Bikes having lights in daylight costs them nothing, either. But FWIW totally agree you shouldn't need hi viz in daylight.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

As to hi-vis, if a motorist does things that put you in danger when you're wearing hi-vis, that's on them. To be clear, a motorist should be doing their best to observe things going on around them at all times, but if you've put in the effort to make sure that you do not blend in to the background, then you should expect motorists to give you a wide berth.

Honestly, you would look a lot smarter here if you reasoned that maybe, just maybe, people with everyday experience of what it's like to ride a bike on Irish roads (many of whom also have experience of what's like to drive the same roads),

...that maybe, just maybe, those people have a wider and more informed view of what where the real dangers on the road are for them.


For example, on the hi-viz helmet issue above:

I've been going out regularly doing local rides with MrsD and kids.

When I go on those rides I don't wear any hi-viz, because it's usually a bright sunny day. I don't wear a helmet because we toddle along pretty slowly. On those roads, we get motorists being patient, very respectful - waiting behind, no revving of engines, nice controlled wide passes etc etc.

The other day after the family ride I went back out for a fast ride by myself. Wore helmet and reflective jacket. On the same stretch of road I earlier rode with family (about 1.5 minutes in total at the speed I was going) I had 4 close passes - between 1-3 ft past me at at least the 60kph speed limit. No approaching traffic, plenty of space on the other side of the road,

This was not an isolated few incidents or a bit of bad luck. I know this because every time I go out by myself I will have at least one such pass, and usually a couple of them.

In my experience there is a very dangerous breed of driver on Irish Roads that not only dislikes cyclists (which I couldn't care less about, each to their own) but also makes it their business when they see one to "put them in their place, show them who's boss", using 2 tonnes of metal moving at high speed.

I wouldn't expect you to be aware of this, because unless you spend some time out of a bike, particularly as an adult male, you simply won't have had any experience of it.

That's why, going back to my earlier point I would encourage you to reflect and conceed that maybe, just maybe others might have more experience and deeper understanding of what makes them safer on a bike.

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

AndrewJRenko

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

Do the 98% of drivers that break urban speed limits give the other 2% of good drivers a bad name too?

Hurrache

Duckjob wrote: »

For example, on the hi-viz helmet issue above:

I've been going out regularly doing local rides with MrsD and kids.

When I go on those rides I don't wear any hi-viz, because it's usually a bright sunny day. I don't wear a helmet because we toddle along pretty slowly. On those roads, we get motorists being patient, very respectful - waiting behind, no revving of engines, nice controlled wide passes etc etc.

The other day after the family ride I went back out for a fast ride by myself. Wore helmet and reflective jacket. On the same stretch of road I earlier rode with family (about 1.5 minutes in total at the speed I was going) I had 4 close passes - between 1-3 ft past me at at least the 60kph speed limit. No approaching traffic, plenty of space on the other side of the road,

This was not an isolated few incidents or a bit of bad luck. I know this because every time I go out by myself I will have at least one such pass, and usually a couple

Absolutely reflective of my experiences. I'd add that when I go out by myself wearing normal clothing, summer shorts and t-shirts, no helmet, taking it easy on the way to the shop or to find the kids, I experience more patience and space

Certain clothing (I don't own lycra) is a red rag to a bull for some people, many are visitors to this thread, and become morons for some idiotic reason. Small dick syndrome or something that they feel like they have to race you and punish you for daring to have them think of you.

In relation to the Garda close pass that was linked to, I haven't had the cameras on my bikes since March. I charged both on Friday with the way things have been going back to.

Pinch Flat

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

I see it a lot around me as well. Mainly families with kids on bikes and teenagers. Ever wondered why people do this? I mean we'eve some decent roads around us.

Anyway I saw someone else at this morning. An elderly gentleman in Castleknock village. Terrorized the whole village on a Sunday morning*. Thankfully he was wearing hi-vis so everyone could jump into the ditch to avoid him.





* mandatory cycling hyperbole

Duckjob

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Not getting the hate for a recommendation to be better lit. The AA a few years ago started running a campaign to use dipped lights in daylight. I wondered why. I checked it out. Turned out it drastically cut the number of RTIs. So I now have the lights on in daylight. Costs me nothing. Well - something like a tenner a year in extra fuel. Bikes having lights in daylight costs them nothing, either. But FWIW totally agree you shouldn't need hi viz in daylight.

I honestly don't think you'll find much genuine opposition from anyone to being lit with good lights. However:

1) Modern led bike lights aid visibility many times more than hi-viz which is dependent on weather conditions, light sources from cars etc etc.

and

2) My own experience (and I believe many others) is, to the type of driver I described in my last post, the wearing of hi-viz while cycling instantly makes you less of a person and more of a "cyclist" and this justifies them to modify their driving behavior towards you for the worse.

I have noticed on an ongoing basis that if I go on the bike with no hi-viz / no helmet /ordinary clothes - in general then I get more space and care from passing drivers than when I make myself a cyclist. Getting those high speed
close passes is also noticably rare.



Point 2 is an answer to the argument of "ah sure, it can only help to wear hi-viz", but this point is generally (and understandably) not very clearly understood by those who only drive.

LeinsterDub

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

And yet if the council painted a white line and bike on the footpath you'd have people demanding people who cycle use the 'cycle lane'
https://twitter.com/Photaculous/status/1164292578600214530

ewc78

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

Well said.

Hurrache

ewc78 wrote: »

Well said.

You can't even troll good.

micar

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Cycling on pavements has become an absolute blight around me (Dublin, supposedly "respectable" if not outright "well-to-do" area).

They do it whether or not there are cycle lanes, at a decent clip, and rely on pedestrians getting out of their way to avoid collisions. Just no regard for anyone else. I'd love to say I am sure they're the small minority giving others a bad name but that is not my impression.

Anyway, nothing will be done about it. It's just a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour.

You live in a nice part of Dublin......lucky you......but what relevance is that. Perhaps the people cycling (majority would be kids) should be driven/driving around in their Ranges Rovers or their Audi Q7 or their Volvo XC90.......only peasants should be cycling.

What do you define as a "decent clip" .... have never seen anyone cycle 20km + per hour on a footpath.

You're saying that there are more cyclists on the footpath than on the road........well, that nonsense for a start.

"a symptom of widespread deterioration in manners and decent behaviour" .......ffs

Took the dogs for a walk last night.... live beside a cemetery and today is supposed to be the blessings the graves, that's off due to covid but people are still attending to the graves .........one motorist parked their car on the footpath, on a double yellow line and opposite a continuous white line. All despite a car park with spaces available at the other end of the cemetery

Would you call that a lack of "manners and decent behaviour" ?

boardise

Duckjob wrote: »

Honestly, you would look a lot smarter here if you reasoned that maybe, just maybe, people with everyday experience of what it's like to ride a bike on Irish roads (many of whom also have experience of what's like to drive the same roads),

...that maybe, just maybe, those people have a wider and more informed view of what where the real dangers on the road are for them.


For example, on the hi-viz helmet issue above:

I've been going out regularly doing local rides with MrsD and kids.

When I go on those rides I don't wear any hi-viz, because it's usually a bright sunny day. I don't wear a helmet because we toddle along pretty slowly. On those roads, we get motorists being patient, very respectful - waiting behind, no revving of engines, nice controlled wide passes etc etc.

The other day after the family ride I went back out for a fast ride by myself. Wore helmet and reflective jacket. On the same stretch of road I earlier rode with family (about 1.5 minutes in total at the speed I was going) I had 4 close passes - between 1-3 ft past me at at least the 60kph speed limit. No approaching traffic, plenty of space on the other side of the road,

This was not an isolated few incidents or a bit of bad luck. I know this because every time I go out by myself I will have at least one such pass, and usually a couple of them.

In my experience there is a very dangerous breed of driver on Irish Roads that not only dislikes cyclists (which I couldn't care less about, each to their own) but also makes it their business when they see one to "put them in their place, show them who's boss", using 2 tonnes of metal moving at high speed.

I wouldn't expect you to be aware of this, because unless you spend some time out of a bike, particularly as an adult male, you simply won't have had any experience of it.

That's why, going back to my earlier point I would encourage you to reflect and conceed that maybe, just maybe others might have more experience and deeper understanding of what makes them safer on a bike.

Perhaps , just perhaps , we could all just let cyclists do what they like and bugger the rest of us. That seems reasonable.

Duckjob

boardise wrote: »

Perhaps , just perhaps , we could all just let cyclists do what they like and bugger the rest of us. That seems reasonable.

Great, thanks for contributing.

ewc78

boardise wrote: »

Perhaps , just perhaps , we could all just let cyclists do what they like and bugger the rest of us. That seems reasonable.

Sure that's what they do anyway!

Thelonious Monk

ewc78 wrote: »

Sure that's what they do anyway!

Yep, and it causes zero problems. Just annoys a few motorists, and that makes me kind of happy. So let's carry on as is.

AndrewJRenko

boardise wrote: »

Perhaps , just perhaps , we could all just let cyclists do what they like and bugger the rest of us. That seems reasonable.

I suppose it depends on your definition of buggery - does it involve killing 2 or 3 people each week?

boardise

Duckjob wrote: »

Great, thanks for contributing.

No problem .
I might contribute again if I survive the appalling behaviour of cyclists I see everyday -flashing past me within inches on footpaths in city or in suburbs -frequently when there is a cycle lane running right alongside the footpath. What kind of moronic carry-on is that -to campaign

( rightly) for cycle lanes and then in so many case to use adjoining footpaths instead. Only last night again on a walk in a nearby village I beheld two experienced looking cyclists with all the kit and gear persisting in staying two abreast and holding up a lane of traffic in a display of sheer selfishness /thoughtlessness. That's what I see going on -why would I make it up ?

I'm all for cycling for all the well known reasons but from what I constantly witness -too many cyclists are behaving irresponsibly and the matter needs to be urgently taken in hand -by the civic authorities and /or the cycling organisations.
I'm afraid that just because cyclists collectively wear a kind of environmental halo by virtue of not being evil motorists - they can't be given a free pass when it comes to proper courteous use of the roads and footpaths.