Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know one set of lights where this is (was? - used to see it on my commute) very common.
motorists breaking the lights 20, 30s after they'd gone red. regularly.
i have been beeped at multiple times for not breaking the red, i.e. holding up the motorists who do want to ignore the red.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3632057,-6.2223216,18.75z

note the proximity to clontarf garda station.

30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.

magicbastarder

ewc78 wrote: »

30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.

i am talking about a complete disregard for the light sequence, 30s was mentioned because sometimes it'd happen 30s after they'd gone red. about one morning in three or four, at a guess, you'd get one or multiple drivers driving through the red regardless of how long it had been red. and no, i am not exaggerating.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Irish drivers are not involved in fatal accidents at disproportionate levels. That is a fact.

this was not my point. my point was that if alternative forms of transport are discouraged or considered too dangerous to undertake (pun unintended), that people will gravitate towards other modes of transport.
hence my 'swimming in the shark infested pool' analogy from earlier in the thread.

in short - it doesn't really matter how safe driving is if people have been forced off their bikes into cars; the topic here (and i know the topic is a little freeform) is how safe *cycling* is, not how safe *driving* is.

monument

ewc78 wrote: »

30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.

Yet motorists keep running into trams and railway crossing gates....

magicbastarder

ewc78 wrote: »

30 seconds? I reckon you are exaggerating slightly.

worth noting that this has come up a few times for this junction, posted about by me:

"one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane. there was a car in front of me and one behind me. the lights went red when we were still (at a very minimum) 100m away. the driver in front drove straight through them. i pulled up at the lights, and the car behind pulled in behind me for a second or two, then pulled out around me and gunned it through the lights.

it's kinda comical how common it is."
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108852312&postcount=1627

"i don't know what it is about dublin port, but in the last month on my commute, i've seen four examples of drivers deliberately driving through red lights which have been red for more than 10 or 20 seconds, and all were between the clontarf end of alfie byrne road, and where east wall road meets the port road."
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103873402


this is one thing that many non-cycling motorists don't seem to appreciate - that cyclists, when stuck at lights, are usually *at* the lights and have a good view of the junction and RLJing. usually motorists only get this luxury if they're the first or maybe second car in the queue. cyclists have a much better idea of how much motorists break lights, than motorists themselves do.

ewc78

magicbastarder wrote: »

worth noting that this has come up a few times for this junction, posted about by me:

"one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane. there was a car in front of me and one behind me. the lights went red when we were still (at a very minimum) 100m away. the driver in front drove straight through them. i pulled up at the lights, and the car behind pulled in behind me for a second or two, then pulled out around me and gunned it through the lights.

it's kinda comical how common it is."
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108852312&postcount=1627

"i don't know what it is about dublin port, but in the last month on my commute, i've seen four examples of drivers deliberately driving through red lights which have been red for more than 10 or 20 seconds, and all were between the clontarf end of alfie byrne road, and where east wall road meets the port road."
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103873402


this is one thing that many non-cycling motorists don't seem to appreciate - that cyclists, when stuck at lights, are usually *at* the lights and have a good view of the junction and RLJing. usually motorists only get this luxury if they're the first or maybe second car in the queue. cyclists have a much better idea of how much motorists break lights, than motorists themselves do.

Yup it's wrong and dangerous, anyone breaking a red light motorist or cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road imo.
I've seen plenty of cars break red lights, never after 30 seconds though. Then im not from Dublin, maybe ye are all a bit more kamikaze up there.
I have seen plenty of cyclists zoom through red lights minutes after they have turned red without a care in the world also though.
Both wrong, both need to be stopped.

ewc78

monument wrote: »

Yet motorists keep running into trams and railway crossing gates....

How often are we talking here? 1 a week?
1 a day? Every hour?
No trams or railway crossings where I live so I wouldn't know.

07Lapierre

ewc78 wrote: »

Yup it's wrong and dangerous, anyone breaking a red light motorist or cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road imo.
I've seen plenty of cars break red lights, never after 30 seconds though. Then im not from Dublin, maybe ye are all a bit more kamikaze up there.
I have seen plenty of cyclists zoom through red lights minutes after they have turned red without a care in the world also though.
Both wrong, both need to be stopped.

So what your sayin is we need more/better enforcement of all ROTR for all road users? ... OK with me!

ewc78

07Lapierre wrote: »

So what your sayin is we need more/better enforcement of all ROTR for all road users? ... OK with me!

Yeah exactly. Also everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions.
Now I need to sleep. Have to do a long run in a cycle lane in the morning

07Lapierre

ewc78 wrote: »

Yeah exactly. Also everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions.
Now I need to sleep. Have to do a long run in a cycle lane in the morning

Wear headphones and listen to some music while you run! Helps with pacing.

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think they're there for his sake rather than yours.

Yeah, sometimes I wish people just didn't reply to or even read my multiple quoted posts.

ewc78 wrote: »

How often are we talking here? 1 a week?
1 a day? Every hour?
No trams or railway crossings where I live so I wouldn't know.

Maybe every month or two or sometimes every few weeks trams.

Spook_ie

micar wrote: »

Not a shared cycle lane

This, from the article, might explain that for you.


"The pedestrian, a software engineer, was crossing the cycle lane from the pedestrian lane in order to exit the park."

" I started to cross over. I don't remember a collision... the only memory I have is lying on the ground," he said.

None of there occurred on a footpath..

Are you reading a different article?

A man in his 70s died in hospital on Wednesday after a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian on Monday evening on the N24 on Glenconnor Upper on Clonmel, according to Gardaí.

Reporting yesterday, tipperarylive.ie said Clonmel Garda Station spokesperson confirmed this morning that the pedestrian, a Clonmel resident aged in his mid-70s, died at South Tipperary General Hospital.

The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths.

On Monday after the collision, Sean Brosnan at the Garda press office said: “Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for witnesses following a serious road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a pedestrian that occurred at approximately 6.35pm on Monday 6th January 2020 at the N24, Glenconnor Upper, Clonmel, County Tipperary.”

He said: “A male pedestrian in his 70s was taken to South Tipperary General Hospital with serious head injuries and is currently in a critical condition. Forensic Collision Investigators have carried out a technical examination of the scene.”

“Gardaí at Clonmel are appealing for anyone with information in relation to this collision, particurly any road users who may have camera footage who were travelling in the area at the time, to come forward,” he added.

Gardai said that anybody with information is asked to contact Clonmel Garda Station on 052 6177640, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.

monument

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

I've already warned somebody on the other side of the debate about cutting out nonsense. So, this is the last warning on this: Stop the name calling or action will be taken.

-- moderator

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Are you reading a different article?

Seriously, from the article you just quoted: "The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths"

So his exact same point applies given there's no mention there of a footpath.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws.

But I will say it's quite eye opening and pathetic that anyone gets involved in this thread to whinge about kids out having fun from the standpoint of a motorist (of which I'm one too)

Actually I don't think I whinged anywhere about kids having fun, I think the matter I'm concerned with is the fake news from people arguing about cars being parked on footpaths being relative to 18 people being killed on the roads.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Seriously, from the article you just quoted: "The collision happened on the bypass of the town — although at this point it is unclear if it happened on the roadway or one of the paths"

So his exact same point applies given there's no mention there of a footpath.

Which is what I said, there is no mention of how the collision happened or if it was on the road or in the [pictured] shared pedestrian/cycle lane, perhaps if someone could clarify if the picture is of the actual scene or just a generic N24 Google Maps shot it might help clarify things for the other poster.

In fact if someone could actually point him towards the correct article he should be reading, then maybe it would also become clearer.

Charles Babbage

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which, considering the basis of the topic is cars parked on footpaths and cyclists on footpaths I think Thelonius is just a tad incongruous in pointing out deaths so far this year.

Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.

Spook_ie

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Actually this thread was about cyclists on paths, car parking was only introduced as the usual diversion to prevent substantive discussion on the topic. It has suceeded only too well as all that is left is endless whataboutery.

I absolutely agree with you, the standard of debate and discussion in the C&T forum at times is more suited to AH.

magicbastarder

Charles Babbage wrote: »

to prevent substantive discussion on the topic.

what substantive discussion is possible, though?
yes, many people cycle on the footpath and nothing is done about it, and if you ring the gardai, they won't send someone, and if they did, the cyclist would be a mile or two away by the time they arrived.

and that's about it.

Seth Brundle

ewc78 wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group?
Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes?


As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:

Why be a prick? Honestly why the need?

Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I?
And your last sentence is just the height of prickness it really is.
Do you honestly think cyclists, be them teenagers or adults should not be responsible for their own actions? Really?

So rather than actually answer my questions you just resort to name calling and a bit of releasing what you actually said?
Well done on being you! :rolleyes:

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?

This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.

magicbastarder wrote: »

this was not my point. my point was that if alternative forms of transport are discouraged or considered too dangerous to undertake (pun unintended), that people will gravitate towards other modes of transport.
hence my 'swimming in the shark infested pool' analogy from earlier in the thread.

in short - it doesn't really matter how safe driving is if people have been forced off their bikes into cars; the topic here (and i know the topic is a little freeform) is how safe *cycling* is, not how safe *driving* is.

Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.

Thargor

Where are people even seeing all these footpaths that are suitable for cycling on? Footpaths are an even bigger joke than bike lanes in this country.

TaurenDruid

RoversCeltic wrote: »

Under what law

The citizens advice website isn't clear

Google it. Or search this thread, the exact law has been pointed out by several posters now, including quotes of the relevant text.

Wishbone Ash

SeanW wrote: »

...Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018....

There are many other reasons for the reduction such as car design, wearing of seatbelts, falling pedestrian activity, construction of foothpaths, education etc.. I went to primary school in the 1970's and road safety was a constant theme then - safe cross code, free arm bands, cycle training, introduction of the 'lollipop women', bus safety etiquette etc.

(The figures from 1972 are pro-rata even worse than they seem as there were a lot less journeys made then. Many families didn't have a single car nevermind two and long journeys were rare. A commute of 10 miles then would have been considered long).

ixoy

magicbastarder wrote: »

"one of my favourite junctions - outbound from fairview towards clontarf approaching the alfie byrne junction, in the right-turning lane.

I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?

c.p.w.g.w

J_E wrote: »

Then when you're on the road, you're using too much of it, you're a danger by slowing motorists down, you should have a license to use the road etc etc.

Your'd love me, I often cycle in the middle of the lane when going through cities or towns it's much safer for me

TaurenDruid

ixoy wrote: »

I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?

Nope, just a ****/entitled driver who doesn't know the rules of the road - or really terrible observation. I've experienced the same as a pedestrian crossing a road in town, with a cyclist insisting the lights meant he could cycle through a pedestrian crossing on a pedestrian green light. I suspect just poor observation in that case.

Wishbone Ash

ixoy wrote: »

I remember crossing that junction, with the pedestrian light, and a car turning right there and coming through the lights. I called out to him that it was a green man and he shouted back that he had a right to turn?! Is there some unusual legislation about that junction or something?

Carelessness and lack of knowledge on the driver's part. He had a 'straight ahead' only green arrow which he assumed meant he was good to go. He should have waited for either a full green or a right turn green. It's a frequent problem at some junctions.

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

This is actually a more interesting question that I at first thought. I suggest the answer should be "as low a number as can be attained with reasonable measures."

And reasonable should be the operative word. And that should take into account the law of diminishing returns. As reasonable and effective measures are taken to great effect, additional action can increasingly only be burdensome and of lesser and lesser effectiveness.

Take the year 1972 as a basis, when Ireland lost 640 people on the roads. The main reasons for that in my view was that drink-driving was commonplace and that most journeys were undertaken on all-purpose single carriageways. The two most effective and proportionate measures taken since then were to build motorways and to crack down on drink-driving, to what was then the legal limit of 0.08%. I credit this with the majority of the reduction in fatalities from 640 in 1972 to 149 in 2018.

But those were the easy ones, and the ones that made the most difference. None of the measures taken since, or proposed today, will gain as much improvement for as little impact on people as these. We have things like the NCT, a noteworthy regulatory burden for people which may have saved some lives, and so may be a reasonable trade-off between saving lives and burdensome/expensive regulation.

Then we go into things where the need for the measure is at best unclear and at worst totally disproportionate. In recent years, we've had new laws that say a driver is "drug driving" if they have any THC in their system whatsoever. What this means in practice is a motorist is "drug driving" if they indulged in the forbidden herb any time in the previous month because trace amounts remain, but AFAIK there is zero evidence that someone who so indulges is impaired for anything like that amount of time. Likewise you have people demanding very large scale reductions in speed limits, like blanket reductions to 30kph - not just in residential areas or core urban centres, but all over the place, and also things like (as they define it) Strict Liability, which would hold motorists accountable for accidents caused by cyclists or pedestrians.

There's no evidence that any of these measures would improve road safety the same way as the millenium-era clampdown on drink driving or the construction of motorways, and IMHO they are disproportionate.

However, you can still reduce the number of "acceptable" fatalities - IF the measures you propose are reasonable, proportionate and effective.

And this is why I keep referring to Canada. They have much more strict laws regulating motorists than Ireland but they have MORE fatalities, thus it does not even follow that just crapping on motorists with stupid, excessive and disproportionate rules will even have a great impact on road safety.

Yes, I saw that, which is why I deleted the post you quoted. Unfortunately this thread was hijacked by people just taking a dump on motorists in general so that's where the majority of my focus has been.

What should be the target of road deaths is zero.

How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?

Why when I go out cycling should I feel so at risk because of other road users?

Why should anyone who is caught using their phone while driving be allowed behind the wheel again?

People all over the world were dying because of people smoking in bars. The idea that people can do that any more is seen as insanity.

The reality is though that there is no political will to hold motorists accountable for most of their crimes. Driving licences are issued by the state subject to compliance by the holder. Sadly, too many seem to think there is a right to be driving in this country.

liamog

One thing that really winds me up is the paths with a tarmac cycle lane and a concrete path. We've quite a few of them in my area. I never understand some pedestrians insistince on walking in the cycle path, or some cyclists inability to stick to the cycle lane. I'm not talking about moving into the other to avoid a hazard, it's just a complete lack of ability to follow simple guidelines when it comes to lanes that manifests itself at all levels of road user.