Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to try arguing with what I actually said, rather than your deeply twisted variant. I don't think I've ever used the term "killing machine" for a start.

If you're having trouble understanding my words, perhaps a picture might help you to grasp the issue with this particular cycle lane.

Photo credit to Anto: https://twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776?s=19

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing:

* A path and road that date from - I think - the 1850s. Perhaps earlier.

* A concrete path with a clearly marked cycle lane.

* A delivery van parked on that cycle path.

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

Well there we go. The whole thread collapses in a puff of logic.
Good god.

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing:

* A path and road that date from - I think - the 1850s. Perhaps earlier.

* A concrete path with a clearly marked cycle lane.

* A delivery van parked on that cycle path.

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.

Or just cycle on the road where you can go 20-25 kph non-stop between your start point and your destination instead of stopping and starting every few meters and "just going round" every obstacle at walking pace like an idiot, tough decision.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

.

Yeah I used to be an inexperienced cyclist too. When I look at that photo, I see an old narrow pavement with some paint on it. I see cracks in the concrete and green moss (which makes the concrete slippy if wet, or lethal in winter if not gritted by the council)

On the other side of the wall I see a wide bus lane,which I'm perfectly entitled to use and I'm confident enough to cycle about a meter or so ou from the wall and I'm confident I can maintain 30+ kph up that hill. I'm confident I wouldn't delay any other vehicles no more than a few seconds.

In short, I don't see ANY reason to cycle on that pavement.

TaurenDruid

Thargor wrote: »

Or just cycle on the road where you can go 20-25 kph non-stop between your start point and your destination instead of stopping and starting every few meters and "just going round" every obstacle at walking pace like an idiot, tough decision.

If it's not blatant whataboutery, it's being utterly pedantic, putting words in people's mouths, or - as in this case - rampant exaggeration.

Though... no, wait, you're right. Having seen the utter inability of most cyclists to stop at traffic lights at all, never mind when they're every few metres like at the IFSC, yeah. You may have a point about cyclists' failure to obey the rules of the road. Glad to see you admitting it, finally.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yeah I used to be an inexperienced cyclist too. When I look at that photo, I see an old narrow pavement with some paint on it. I see cracks in the concrete and green moss (which makes the concrete slippy if wet, or lethal in winter if not gritted by the council)

On the other side of the wall I see a wide bus lane,which I'm perfectly entitled to use and I'm confident enough to cycle about a meter or so ou from the wall and I'm confident I can maintain 30+ kph up that hill. I'm confident I wouldn't delay any other vehicles no more than a few seconds.

In short, I don't see ANY reason to cycle on that pavement.

The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...

Hmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS2_pk7P_8M

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If it's not blatant whataboutery, it's being utterly pedantic, putting words in people's mouths, or - as in this case - rampant exaggeration.

Though... no, wait, you're right. Having seen the utter inability of most cyclists to stop at traffic lights at all, never mind when they're every few metres like at the IFSC, yeah. You may have a point about cyclists' failure to obey the rules of the road. Glad to see you admitting it, finally.

Oblivious much?

Get your crayons out for the fifteenth time:

Its not against the Rules of the Road to cycle on the road even if theres a cycle lane present.

Its Hard to explain these things when this is the level of understanding you're dealing with though:

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

Reactor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...

Hmm...

Have not been there for a couple of years but I believe the bike lane in the picture is a very short stretch that you have to stop and yield to get on and then stop and yield to get off and go back on the road again.

I have noticed the same problems down in Galway and Cork especially from taxi drivers, they tell me to use the bike lane but the bike lane never lasts long, their not joined up so Im going to be back on the road soon enough anyway. I find it safer to just keep moving.

TaurenDruid

Thargor wrote: »

Oblivious much?

Get your crayons out for the fifteenth time:

Its not against the Rules of the Road to cycle on the road even if theres a cycle lane present.

Its Hard to explain these things when this is the level of understanding you're dealing with though:

Still never said it was.

Sauce for the goose, like...

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...

Hmm...

That's right Dougal...we're getting there, another few years and this will all make sense to you.

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Still never said it was.

Sauce for the goose, like...

So... what are you whining about then?

EDIT: Oh wait you switched to some other shyte mid-stream about traffic lights up at the IFSC because you didnt like the way your current whinge-fest about the alley blocked by a van being totally the same as cycling on the main road beside it was going, I see now...

TaurenDruid

Thargor wrote: »

So... what are you whining about then?

EDIT: Oh wait you switched to some other shyte mid-stream about traffic lights up at the IFSC because you didnt like the way your current whinge-fest about the alley blocked by a van being totally the same as cycling on the main road beside it was going, I see now...

I responded to someone's ****e who said they'd have to stop and start all the time. Like that was some sort of terrible imposition, and not something every road user is supposed to do, all the time, when required.

Thargor

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I responded to someone's ****e who said they'd have to stop and start all the time. Like that was some sort of terrible imposition, and not something every road user is supposed to do, all the time, when required.

Except the amount of times you have to stop start when using a main road compared to using our pathetic cycle lanes is miniscule as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple different people with multiple examples over and over again , come on Dougal you're nearly there...

07Lapierre

Thargor wrote: »

Except the amount of times you have to stop start when using a main road compared to using our pathetic cycle lanes is miniscule as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple different people with multiple examples over and over again , come on Dougal you're nearly there...

Not to mention maintaining right of way, better road surface, less chance of lights being red, more direct route from A to B, etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.

Others have capably addressed the main issues, so I'll just focus in on this particular issue. Parking on the footpath is never 'unavoidable', whether for deliveries or any other purpose. Yes, deliveries must be made, but they don't have to be made from outside the front door. They can be made from the nearest safe, legal parking or loading bay and moved by trolley to the shop. That's how it's done when you keep pavements for their intended purpose, and don't put the convenience of delivery crews before the safety of vulnerable pedestrians, and (in this case) cyclists.

FarmerBob wrote: »

Those new cycle lanes are generally empty.

The reason why they're generally empty is because cyclists don't take up much space, so they don't great traffic jams. Cycle lanes that appear to be generally empty compared to backed up traffic lanes is not a good measure of throughput.

meeeeh wrote: »

we meet obstacles on the road in all forms of transport.

Grand, so there's no problem with the bus being slowed on the mad dash to the next set of red lights for a few seconds by a cyclist then.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's how it's done when you keep pavements for their intended purpose, and don't put the convenience of delivery crews before the safety of vulnerable pedestrians, and (in this case) cyclists.

Wait, is this Andy finally, finally admitting that footpaths should be kept to their intended purpose, i.e., use by pedestrians?! HALLELUJAH! Took you a while, but you got there in the end!

Well done, lad!

micar

Can this thead be closed as it's not going anywhere and has achieved, as expected, nothing.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Wait, is this Andy finally, finally admitting that footpaths should be kept to their intended purpose, i.e., use by pedestrians?! HALLELUJAH! Took you a while, but you got there in the end!

Well done, lad!

You seem to have missed a bit of that post - here it is again for you: " and (in this case) cyclists".

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

The standard excuse from cyclists for their lawbreaking is "nobody died, get over it" same thing is true here. And the hundreds of pics Andy has posted of inconsiderate parking (nobody died), so ... no big deal.

As pedestrians, we put up with this crap from Irish cyclists as a matter of general routine, why should we be bothered by the occasional gob****e doing it in a car, given both how that played out and more broadly, the statistics that show pedestrians are very safe on our streets?

The key difference that you unfortunately still seem to be missing is that motorists do kill people on the roads, 2 or 3 people each week, mostly other motorists and passengers, but also a bunch of pedestrians and cyclists – while cyclists don’t kill people, or at least kill people very, very rarely – about once per decade.

SeanW wrote: »

I suspect that it's 2020 that will be the outlier. The pandemic upset everyone's life and changed everyone's travel patterns, that's likely to have had some impact.

You’re probably right about 2020, though I’m also probably right about 2019, which looked to be in outlier territory even before 2020 started.

SeanW wrote: »

The statement is misleading. A clearly loaded term, it implies that the motorists actions were responsible for the fatality in all cases. This is clearly false. In many of those cases, the pedestrian killed themselves by being a muppet and the motorist was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A more accurate statement would be that:
"27 pedestrians (that) lost their lives on Irish streets/roads under various circumstances" or something to that effect, but this statement has less punch than "Motorist killing pedestrians"

Ah, the old passive voice – trusty servant of bureaucrats everywhere to avoid any sense of personaly responsibility – they ‘lost their lives’. They were killed by motor vehicles. That’s an indisputable fact. The question of culpability is worthy of further discussion, but the simple fact is that cars, vans and trucks are bloody dangerous, especially when the driver is looking at the phone instead of the road, like the lady in Stillorgan in the video I posted above.

SeanW wrote: »

If you have a problem with the 70% figure I suggest you take it up with the RSA. They don't have a mandate to cover for bad drivers so it's safe to assume they didn't pull it out of their backsides.

Given that they pulled €4 million out of their backsides to spend on hi-viz, despite by their own admission, having no evidence to show that it is effective, I’d have less confidence that you that they didn’t take a similar approach here. The absence of any definition of culpability is a fatal flaw in any research report. The absence of a research paper, one that has been peer reviewed, is an even more fatal flaw (if there is such a thing). A PowerPoint presentation on its own is not a good way to present important research.

SeanW wrote: »

They deemed the driver to be solely culpable in 26% of cases, joint culpability was 2% and unknown culpability was also at 2%. Even if we assign full fault to motorists in those cases, that still leaves 70% of fatalities caused by the pedestrian in some way.

Though we’ve no definition of what is meant by ‘culpability’ in this case. It could well be, given the RSA’s absolute fetish for hi-viz, that the failure to wear a hi-viz jacket in daylight hours or on well-lit streets is considered ‘culpable’ by the RSA. It really tells us very little.

SeanW wrote: »

Well, for one thing, pedestrians spend most of their time on footpaths, whereas cyclists in theory are supposed to be on the street/road. And you all keep complaining about how horrible and dangerous it is for you to cycle with all the horrible Irish drivers that are out to get you :rolleyes: so it would seem to me that you should have at least some protection in the case of a collision. Like how motorists have crash-worthy car design, airbags and seat belts, I'd assume that having something between your head and the pavement or a car bumper would be a good idea.

That’s not really the question you were asked though. You did a nice statistical calculation of the risks to pedestrians to show why they don’t need helmets, so I was simply suggesting that you apply the same statistical model to cyclists. Why would you be shying away from this?

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Irish drivers are among the safest in the world. Provably so, and by a very large margin.

That’s a relative measure. It tells you nothing about whether Irish motorists are taking responsibility for their vehicles or not. That fact that 98% of them are breaking urban speed limits would suggest that they’re not taking responsibility in law.

SeanW wrote: »

So the trucker is responsible for the cyclist veering out in front of them with zero warning? Kind of like how every fatal collision between a motorist and a pedestrian is an example of a "motorist KILLING pedestrians" ...

Have you ignored the question about whether the truck had brakes? Would that not be the appropriate reaction when something like that happens in front of you on the road? It didn’t seem like the truck braked at all.

Stark

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Wait, is this Andy finally, finally admitting that footpaths should be kept to their intended purpose, i.e., use by pedestrians?! HALLELUJAH! Took you a while, but you got there in the end!

Well done, lad!

Has anyone ever argued otherwise?

All that's been argued is the issue is blown way out of proportion given the number of "cyclists" one actually encounters cycling on footpaths.

If it was genuinely as serious an issue as you claim, then there is absolutely no way you would tolerate the example of the North Strand cycle lane given the danger/annoyance it would pose to pedestrians using the same stretch of footpath. Ergo, this thread is just pointless cyclist-bashing rather than trying to achieve anything useful.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The key difference that you unfortunately still seem to be missing is that motorists do kill people on the roads, 2 or 3 people each week, mostly other motorists and passengers, but also a bunch of pedestrians and cyclists – while cyclists don’t kill people, or at least kill people very, very rarely – about once per decade.

Well, since your misleading phraseology eliminates any question of fault or cause - which are wildly different in each case - we can safely assume this is a lie. Or at the very least, an intentional gross over-simplification.

Ah, the old passive voice – trusty servant of bureaucrats everywhere to avoid any sense of personaly responsibility – they ‘lost their lives’.

Passive, yes, but it has the benefit of not being intentionally misleading.

They were killed by motor vehicles. That’s an indisputable fact.

This is misleading. Sentences in the English language that describe ones actions typically follow the form of Subject > Verb > Object. So when you take a statement like "motorist killed pedestrian" the implication is clear. The motorists was the primary actor and their actions lead to the death of another.

In probably about 8 of the 27 cases last year, this was likely to be true. In the others where pedestrian culpability was a factor, if not the factor, this statement is misleading. When addressing all the cases collectively, it is most accurate to use neutral terminology because the causal factors in each case are likely to have been different.

The question of culpability is worthy of further discussion

Except when you use loaded and intentionally misleading terminology like "motorist killed pedestrian" that closes off any question of culpability and makes clear your view that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.

but the simple fact is that cars, vans and trucks are bloody dangerous,

And cyclists are dangerous too, pedestrians routinely have to jump out of their way or be hit. Leading to examples such as another poster on here who has been hit by cyclists twice in the past 18 months.

But since that poster didn't die - according to you - they have no reason to complain :rolleyes: the same is true in this case.

The absence of any definition of culpability is a fatal flaw in any research report. The absence of a research paper, one that has been peer reviewed, is an even more fatal flaw (if there is such a thing). A PowerPoint presentation on its own is not a good way to present important research.

Interesting how "RSA Research" is gospel when it proves your case, but "fatally flawed" when it doesn't :rolleyes:

That’s not really the question you were asked though. You did a nice statistical calculation of the risks to pedestrians to show why they don’t need helmets, so I was simply suggesting that you apply the same statistical model to cyclists. Why would you be shying away from this?

Well, 8 pedal cyclists died last year, but are much smaller proportion of the Irish population than pedestrians, so yes, you are at higher risk.

That’s a relative measure. It tells you nothing about whether Irish motorists are taking responsibility for their vehicles or not. That fact that 98% of them are breaking urban speed limits would suggest that they’re not taking responsibility in law.

Not just relative it translates to absolute figures as well, as my calculations showed. In absolute terms the chance of a person dying on Irish roads overall is 0.003% per year. (150/5,000,000) * 100.

This clearly shows that Irish drivers are safe, not just in relative terms but in absolute terms as well. And that's ignoring collisions caused by non-motor road users.

As to the question of "speeding in urban areas" there are relevant points being ignored.

1. Ireland has some strange definitions of "urban area"
2. The fact that Irish road fatalities are so low indicates that most motorists do not take the piss.

Also, the fact that hit-and-run collisions are rare indicates that motorists who do cause accidents typically do "take responsibility in law" for them. So that claim is also false.

So why then, all this concern about speed? Because it sounds to me very much like what you're saying is: "motorists are not obeying the rules and I want them to obey the rules or be made to obey the rules, because rules are rules and I want to cram down rules for no reason other than to cram down rules. Road safety? That's just a talking point."

Have you ignored the question about whether the truck had brakes? Would that not be the appropriate reaction when something like that happens in front of you on the road? It didn’t seem like the truck braked at all.

I didn't re-watch the video, but it looked like the cyclist acted too late for the trucker to slam on the brakes. Also, because the truck driver is a human being, they might have panicked and did what they could think of in the 0.5 seconds they had to react. The cyclist was clearly at full fault.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...

the weird* thing about that bus lane is that it quite explicitly is for the use of bikes too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,48.9y,183.22h,94.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

* i.e. not weird in the slightest

Thargor

magicbastarder wrote: »

the weird* thing about that bus lane is that it quite explicitly is for the use of bikes too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,48.9y,183.22h,94.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

* i.e. not weird in the slightest

Just for anyone not familiar with the area, this is the "cycle lane" that apparently cyclists should be using instead of the perfectly legal adjacent road and bus lane, it starts here like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,43.4y,201.66h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



and a few doors up, less than 30 seconds riding later it spits you back into traffic here in a way that would embarrass a county council in Somalia:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3567953,-6.2438098,3a,75y,85.19h,71.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9gT1bRYXTuWyE028COTquw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



How could anybody actually struggle to grasp this?

TaurenDruid

Thargor wrote: »

Just for anyone not familiar with the area, this is the "cycle lane" that apparently cyclists should be using instead of the perfectly legal adjacent road and bus lane, it starts here like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3575428,-6.2426755,3a,43.4y,201.66h,79.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slkdrUtOqjAmE5k9muezhVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



and a few doors up, less than 30 seconds riding later it spits you back into traffic here in a way that would embarrass a county council in Somalia:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3567953,-6.2438098,3a,75y,85.19h,71.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9gT1bRYXTuWyE028COTquw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192



How could anybody actually struggle to grasp this?

/looks at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall

/looks at road with cars and buses

/looks back at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall

/looks back at road with cars and buses

You're right, it's a mystery to me. How could anybody struggle to grasp this?!

TallGlass2

TaurenDruid wrote: »

/looks at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall

/looks at road with cars and buses

/looks back at clear cycle path protected from road by stone wall

/looks back at road with cars and buses

You're right, it's a mystery to me. How could anybody struggle to grasp this?!

You've never cycled this patch.

Point blank you don't leave that part of the road, end of.

I done it once and it was a ****ing disaster.

Plus the wall is a good leg rest when stopped.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

You're right, it's a mystery to me. How could anybody struggle to grasp this?!

I've asked you twice, and explicitly, to explain to me why you think it's easier and safer for me to cycle on that path rather than stay in the road?
The lane is explicitly provided for cyclists. It's on the sign demarcating the lane.
In terms of ease, staying in the lane is the brain dead choice. Choosing to leave the lane and then merge back into it where I explicitly have less priority would be an idiotic thing to claim is easier.
And in terms of safety, how anyone can claim that it's safer to choose to yield priority, leave the lane, and then have to merge back into it - on the *inside* of left turning traffic - is astounding.

One of the absolute golden rules of safe cycling in the city is to not find yourself on the inside of left turning traffic. That if you're carrying any decent speed, to take the lane through the junction. Now, maybe whoever designed that thought it might be a nice alternative for a nervous cyclist who wasn't going to be able to take that hill at a decent pace and were worried about being squashed up against the wall. If that cyclist wants to take that option, let them. But I won't. I've been at this long enough to know I'm safer and faster in the road.

Pinch Flat

Just Checking in - what's going on longer? The pandemic or this thread?

micar

Just saw this

https://twitter.com/ArranBolger/status/1286676542744145921?s=19

kenmm

micar wrote: »

Can this thead be closed as it's not going anywhere and has achieved, as expected, nothing.

Ah come on - if we done that there would be no more boards

Thargor

magicbastarder wrote: »

I've asked you twice, and explicitly, to explain to me why you think it's easier and safer for me to cycle on that path rather than stay in the road?
The lane is explicitly provided for cyclists. It's on the sign demarcating the lane.
In terms of ease, staying in the lane is the brain dead choice. Choosing to leave the lane and then merge back into it where I explicitly have less priority would be an idiotic thing to claim is easier.
And in terms of safety, how anyone can claim that it's safer to choose to yield priority, leave the lane, and then have to merge back into it - on the *inside* of left turning traffic - is astounding.

One of the absolute golden rules of safe cycling in the city is to not find yourself on the inside of left turning traffic. That if you're carrying any decent speed, to take the lane through the junction. Now, maybe whoever designed that thought it might be a nice alternative for a nervous cyclist who wasn't going to be able to take that hill at a decent pace and were worried about being squashed up against the wall. If that cyclist wants to take that option, let them. But I won't. I've been at this long enough to know I'm safer and faster in the road.

It's a 100m stretch of painted uneven footpath and they've been arguing about how great it is for days now

Imagine a Dutch person reading this thread...