Cycling in Irish Cities

This is an article from the Indo, Aug 2005. It surprised me how short the sentence is for killing a cyclist.

Car thief gets five years for cyclist’s manslaughter

THE driver of a stolen car has been given a five-year jail sentence for the manslaughter of a cyclist during a high-speed stolen car escapade.

Derek Glennon (20), of Cooley Road, Drimnagh in Dublin, drove at up to 70mph in the wrong direction on one-way streets and at roundabouts around south-west Dublin, trying to escape from gardai. He pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to the unlawful killing of Neil King at Davitt Road on December 16, 2002.

“This is a tragedy for everyone concerned,” said Judge Bryan McMahon, who also disqualified Glennon from driving for nine years.

Detective Garda Ronan Rafferty told prosecuting counsel Luan O Braonain, BL, that he was on patrol in an unmarked car on Crumlin Road at about 12.55am when a Renault Megane car was seen crashing through a red light and doing a handbrake turn on to Windmill Road. Glennon, the driver, was startled to see the garda car come up to him, and took off at high speed down Crumlin Road with his two passengers. Det Gda Rafferty said he moved in the Naas Road direction in the belief Glennon was going there. But he was flagged down on Davitt Road by a pedestrian who was kneeling in the middle of the road beside Mr King’s body.

Mr King’s badly damaged bicycle was some distance away and he learned the dead man had been spun through the air when struck by Glennon’s car. He died later from brain injuries. Det Gda Rafferty said gardai went to a house on Cooley Road after getting information Glennon was living there. Glennon said he would have stopped if he had seen the victim and was sorry for what happened.

Hmmmm… I could spend a week jotting down my observations and feelings on this subject and still only be scratching the surface. A few to begin with:
DCC Director of Traffic (Eoin Keegan?) was reported as saying at the Velo-city conference in May that he believed that the cycle lane network in Dublin has not worked- numbers of cyclists have not risen despite the provision of a city-wide network. To which I would reply, it’s one thing to provide cycle lanes, another thing to maintain them. Daily I cycle the N11 and I can not recall it being cleaned even once- in fact, where the lane is ‘on road’, it regularly becomes the area into which broken glass etc. from the road is cleared. Not only that, the installation job was done so cheaply in the first place that the red tarmac surface has lifted in various places down through the years.
Also, wheelie bins, bus stops (with passengers and luggage) and parked cars are a regular feature of the obstacle course. For the record- parking on cycle lanes (full-time, or during their ‘active’ hours) is prohibited, end of story (Dublin parking regulations, 1962). I don’t care if you’re just popping in for two seconds to drop back that overdue DVD, or if you’re unloading a marquee and need to park right at the driveway of the house. Park somewhere else, somewhere legal.
However, I think part of the problem is that the N11 lane was so badly designed in the beginning. I once had a running argument with a motorcycle Garda (who had incorrectly accused me of breaking a red light) for a few hundred metres as I pointed out that the lane was an inconvenience to use- at each driveway, junction, patch of broken glass, parked car etc I’d say ‘inconvenience’, until after 15 or so instances of this he just sped off. Some ‘improvements’ have been made to the lane in the last few years, but it all still gives the impression that it was designed for the convenience of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists.
Finally (before this turns into a thesis), I wish cyclists would be more law-abiding. If you want to go against the flow of a one-way street, get off and walk. Red lights apply to all road-users, not just the motorised variety. Footpaths are for feet. If we are going to shout loudly that our rights aren’t being respected, we must make sure that we are respecting the rules of the road ourselves. Even minor infringements give motorists the ammunition they need to dismiss us all with one gesture (‘bloody cyclists’). And if a motorist does right by you (even if it’s just them acting lawfully), be grateful and show it. This is a PR matter as much as a legal one.

Now look what you’ve started, Devin. 😮
I’m sure I’ll be back soon.

@ctesiphon wrote:

However, I think part of the problem is that the N11 lane was so badly designed in the beginning. ….Some ‘improvements’ have been made to the lane in the last few years, but it all still gives the impression that it was designed for the convenience of motorists rather than for the safety of cyclists.
Finally (before this turns into a thesis), I wish cyclists would be more law-abiding. If you want to go against the flow of a one-way street, get off and walk.

N11 does seem like a poor joke in terms of serving the cyclist. If its design arose from form following function, then one can only suspect that the primary function was to clear the road of cyclists – not so much for cyclists, but for the convenience of motorists.
In particular I like the way cyclists are told to yield at points where, if they were cycling along the road, they would have had right-of-way; extra stops are so incentivising for usage :rolleyes: . And then there is the up-down special effect where, at vehicle entrances to residences, cycle lanes adhere to the contours of dropped curbs that were designed for pedestrians and motor vehicles, but never conceived for bikes. It is frustrating to watch that mistake being repeated again & again; after constructing new cycle lanes adjacent to the pre-existing lanes which had failed partly because of this along N11, Dun Laoghaire Co Co went ahead and repeated the same basic error from Whites Cross to the entrance to Leapordstown race-course 😡 (I wonder whether the engineers responsible ever themselves cycle – or do they just see bikes as playthings for kids, with the resulting consequences clear in subsequent sub-standard designs?)

I disagree as to cyclists having to get off bikes for one-way streets – more cycle contra-flows should be put in – Kilmainham (outside the gaol) works well 🙂 One ways are conceived primarily for motor vehicle movements; it is unfair, if not offensive, that cyclists needs come subservient to the car. Being both driver & cyclist, I have no problem with someone cycling contra to a one-way – provided they do so with care, on the left, & dismounting if needs be, such as at junctions.

What I would like to know is, what do people make of the new “dotty” lines on the right hand sides of the carriageways on the regenerated stretches of O Connell St?

@hutton”]I disagree as to cyclists having to get off bikes for one-way streets – more cycle contra-flows should be put in – Kilmainham (outside the gaol) works well <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt= wrote:

Oh I agree that more contra-flows would be ideal. I was thinking of cases such as, say, Baggot Street, where couriers (and others) constantly go against the flow on a two-lane road that is barely wide enough for two traffic streams. I have some sympathy, especially in this part of town, as it is a real pain to cycle legally from The Pembroke Inn/Kingston’s Hardware to Ely Place (i.e. via Leeson St)- so much more tempting to just chance Baggot Street/Merrion Row. However, I presume we all remember the tragic case a year or two ago of the courier who knocked down and killed the pedestrian who had only looked in the direction of oncoming traffic…
I still stick to my original point, though, that cyclists should obey the rules laid down, if for no other reason than the aforementioned public perception (though obviously for many other reasons too).

You are probably unusual, if not unique, Hutton, in not minding cyclists going against the traffic direction- could this be as a result of being a cyclist too? Most motorists would take this simply as another reason to tar us all with the same brush. I do think, though, that all motorists should have to cycle in city centres as part of their learning process, to see how the other (vulnerable) half live. (It has been said to me by some driver friends that cyclists should also know how it feels to be a driver- how invisible cyclists can be, how awkward to encounter, etc.)

Agreed too that cyclists needs should not be subservient to the car. In fact, a friend pointed out to me a while back that cyclists are common law users of the road, whereas motorists are licenced road users- so if there’s a hierarchy at play here, it is actually the other way around. How many motorists know or care? And if you were to stand your ground in a confrontation, there’s no debate about who would come off worse- a boxy ton of metal versus the unenclosed tubular nag? No contest. Sadly, sometimes discretion really is the better part of valour, even when the law is on our side.

Is the marked lane in the middle on both sides of the island in O’Connel street is where a cyclist is meant to be? there are often cyclists simultaneously cycling on both sides of the road. in front of both lanes of traffic.
Also when coming onto O’Connel street, how is the cyclist supposed to get into the middle of the road . .. . traversing traffic is treacherous.
I think there should be a contra flow cyclist lane from the Ambassador up to Waltons, there are always cyclists on the footpath outside the Gate. Maybe this might be part of the Parnell Sq rejuvenation?

Finally (before this turns into a thesis), I wish cyclists would be more law-abiding. If you want to go against the flow of a one-way street, get off and walk. Red lights apply to all road-users, not just the motorised variety. Footpaths are for feet.

As a motorist and a cyclist, I disagree with this sentiment. I would consider myself an extremely law-abiding and careful motorist but when I cycle, I routinely break red lights, use footpaths, cycle the “wrong” way up one way streets, stay out of cycle lanes and cycle through pedestrian streets. Why is it reasonable to expect cyclists to abide with the rules of a system (the motorised traffic system) which isn’t at all appropriate for bicycles? This system is specifically engineered to control and aid motorised flows through the city without consideration for cyclists. For example, when Stephen’s Green was “re-engineered” a couple of years ago, I doubt that even 5 minutes was spent thinking about how the change would affect cyclists while I imagine every possible impact on motorised traffic flows was minutely examined and evaluated while the impact on pedestrians was probably also carefully examined. The “system” ignores the existence of cyclists so, when cycling, I’ve no problem ignoring it back. If I stuck to all the rules (which are designed for cars), many of my cycle journeys would take longer than walking would have.

And before anyone mentions cycle lanes, the majority are much worse than useless and many are downright dangerous and were obviously designed by someone who has never cycled through the city.

In my UCC days back in the early 90’s, I used to cycle home from college, usually late — down Washington Street, Patricks Street, McCurtain Street, and then Lower Glanmire road onto the dual carraigway to Glanmire (footpath where possible!), negotiate the main roundabout (the scariest part by far), and then on through what must have been the blackest stretch of road to Glounthaune!
And I lived to tell the tale! Just proves that there is a God after all.
I plastered my bike with flouroscent adhesive tape so that the bloody cars could see me, as my flashing lights were obviously not making an impact. Once a Garda stopped to me to ask what I was doing — turns out he only wanted a chat!!!

jimg-
If you are not a law-abiding and careful cyclist, why bother being a law-abiding and careful motorist?
I can think of very few instances in a city centre (or even more broadly) where breaking a red light would not jeopardise somebody, whether pedestrian, other cyclist or yourself, i.e. most red lights are at junctions, at which different streams of traffic (motorised, cyclist, pedestrian) come together, so it stands to reason that when you have a red light, somebody else has a green one.

I agree that the rules of the road as they stand are designed almost exclusively for motorists, but I don’t agree that this gives you the right to wilfully ignore them and do as you please. Your argument seems to stem from the fact that you believe you have a right to get to your destination as quickly as you please, regardless of the regulations. Where walking would be quicker than cycling a legal route, you choose instead to cycle illegally. Does this not depend on all (or most) other road users abiding by these same rules to permit you to break them as you require? Or put another way, how would it be if everyone did it? (A trite sentiment, I know, but bear with me.) This is one of the cornerstones of any legislative provision or regulatory intervention, that a free-for-all would be unproductive or even counter-productive (the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ in simple economic terms). I’m guessing that you would be against your next-door neighbour developing a 24-hour quarry in his back garden (tell me if I’m wrong)- I don’t see any real difference between that example and the cycling one.

I fully agree with you that cycling has been largely ignored in road developments down through the years, and where it has been considered, it has been tokenistic and downright laughable. Where I disagree with you is in your chosen method of rebellion. As I said above, the perception is crucial, and your actions are jeopardising my safety at a temporal distance, i.e. you are one of the cyclists that gets law-abiding cyclists like me a bad name. Your actions are thus ultimately detrimental to the cause of safe cycling in the city.

Finally, your selective quotation from my earlier post conveniently stopped short of including the crucial element that the quoted part prefaced:
@ctesiphon wrote:

If we are going to shout loudly that our rights aren’t being respected, we must make sure that we are respecting the rules of the road ourselves.

A point well made; at the best of times cyclists have an exceptionally hard time negotiating their way through cities without having to incur the wrath of other motorists ignited by other careless parties. It is of the utmost importance that cyclists maintain a ‘good name’ for themselves, more so than any other road users.

A careless cyclist is also much more dangerous than a negligent pedestrian – the speed of a bike makes it near-impossible for motorists or pedestrians to stop in time, or otherwise make a good judgement in an unsafe situation.

I’ve often wondered what it is like to use the new cycle infrastructure in and around Beresford Place/Matt Talbot Bridge/Moss St in Dubli – anyone have any experience of it?

There’s new cycling infrastructure there? Matt Talbot has always been one of my cycling black spots- coming from Gardiner St direction onto the west-bound south quays is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres in the city that I know, especially cycling over the bridge with two lanes of moving traffic on either side. I haven’t done it in a while, so maybe the new lanes will help, or maybe I’ve done it since their installation and just didn’t realise. :rolleyes:
If you fancy a backer on my next outing, Graham, just let me know.

hi ctesiphon.

If you are not a law-abiding and careful cyclist, why bother being a law-abiding and careful motorist?

Being careful and law-abiding are independent. I am a very careful cyclist. I certainly don’t have a death wish. If I am breaking a red light, using a footpath or cycling against the flow on a one-way street, I do so with extra care and will often stop (but not dismount) if I feel any anything could go wrong.

I’m not sure what you expect in answer to “why bother being a law-abiding and careful motorist?” I haven’t thought about it much but I guess, like most people, I’m generally law abiding because laws (not just traffic laws) are generally reasonably fair and are beneficial for society. It’s patently obvious that you need laws to govern motorised traffic and the laws we have are largely reasonable.

I do not believe that everyone should break every law but I am arguing that it’s reasonable to ignore stupid, arbitrary, unfair laws if doing so does nothing to endanger my fellow citizens. Also, I think the legal situation isn’t as clear cut as you’d imagine; a solicitor friend told me that he doesn’t think that it’s against the law for a cyclist to go the wrong way up a one-way street.

i.e. you are one of the cyclists that gets law-abiding cyclists like me a bad name. Your actions are thus ultimately detrimental to the cause of safe cycling in the city.

This is backward thinking in my opinion. Are you implying that I am to blame if a passing motorist sees me using a footpath and develops psychopathic tendencies towards cyclists as a result?

My “actions” allow me to navigate the city on a bicycle and are necessary. Your regular routes through the city may not require you to take such actions; if so lucky you. I refuse to sit in stationary traffic for 10 minutes to travel 100 meters instead of using the footpath (when it’s clear). I refuse to cycle an extra mile to get to a point 100 meters away from me because of a one-way system designed and implemented to improve access to the city streets for cars.

Hi Graham.

A point well made; at the best of times cyclists have an exceptionally hard time negotiating their way through cities without having to incur the wrath of other motorists ignited by other careless parties.

This is unreasonable. If motorists are “wrathful” towards a particular cyclist just because they were irritated by a cyclist earlier in the day, the blame lies completely with the motorist. If I am driving and an idiot in a Fiesta (for example) does something that could endanger me, I DO NOT go ballistic with the next Fiesta I see. Such behaviour would be completely out-of-order yet you’re indirectly suggesting that it’s somehow understandable if the other party is on a bike?

It is of the utmost importance that cyclists maintain a ‘good name’ for themselves, more so than any other road users.

This is also unreasonable, I feel. Why would you single out cyclists over pedestrians, bus drivers, car drivers or lorry drivers for example? Try substituting any other class of road user into your sentence above. If I was paranoid, I’d say that this (and your earlier point) are manifestations of the general view that cyclists should meekly accept third-class status in Dublin.

A careless cyclist is also much more dangerous than a negligent pedestrian – the speed of a bike makes it near-impossible for motorists or pedestrians to stop in time, or otherwise make a good judgement in an unsafe situation.

Again you seem to single out cyclists among all road users for particular criticism without any attempt at balance or objectivity. A careless driver is a thousand times more dangerous than a careless cyclist and the statistics in terms of road deaths and casualties are there to prove it. In terms of cyclist/pedestrian “interactions”, from anecdotal evidence and personal experience I’d say that in most cases the cause is the pedestrian and they generally occur as a result of crossing the road carelessly. The classic is a pedestrian crossing multiple lanes where one or two is stationary or simply stepping off the kerb without noticing a cyclist. If a cyclist “took out” a pedestrian while belting along a footpath, they’d probably be beaten to death by an outraged mob of other pedestrians and no doubt a few motorists would jump out of their cars to help. I’ve never seen it happen anyway. In contrast, I’ve seen a cyclist go over their handlebars and badly cut an elbow and hands after being “taken out” by a pedestrian stepping onto the street straight into their path; yet people who stopped just viewed it as an unfortunate accident.

I’ve often wondered what it is like to use the new cycle infrastructure in and around Beresford Place/Matt Talbot Bridge/Moss St in Dubli – anyone have any experience of it?

I didn’t even notice it the last time I cycled over that bridge. I was too busy watching traffic and trying not to be killed.

Is it illegal to cycle on footpaths?

What is implied in the notion of giving cyclists a bad name is blatently unsafe practices like breaking lights, not indicating, shooting out from junctions, and particularly weaving through traffic. Cycling on a footpath in most cases is hardly ranking high in the scheme of dangerous cycling I think you’ll agree!

But yes you do make a good point about other careless road users being equally dangerous – though the sheer speed of unsafe maneuvers by cyclists does tend to rank them higher in the danger stakes than stupid pedestrians.

Certainly cycling offers you much greater freedom of movement within urban centres and is probably the primary attraction of the mode for most people, but it has to be done carefully – not just for the sake of the cyclist him/herself, but for all other roadusers, something that is often not considered.

Ctesiphon I was referring to the newish (about a year) lights and islands etc at the Moss St junction at the south of the bridge – quite a large intersection there of cycle and pedestrian lanes; likewise on the Custom House side. Just wondered how user friendly there are for cyclists. Also the raised stripey kerbline that surrounds part/all of Beresford Place seems useful in separating cyclists from the heavy goods traffic around here on what could be a dangerous curve with traffic inclining towards the cycle path on the bend.

Is there a cycle lane going over the bridge itself though – can’t think now…
As for the bar, I think one person on a bike on Dublin’s quays is dodgy enough thanks 🙂

Indeed on that issue, it’s a bit morbid I know but do city cyclists here think a lot about the dangers they’re often faced with – i.e. that you just might not make it home one day, or end up seriously hurt?
I think it would be constantly on my mind in Dublin in particular – it’s bad enough being a pedestrian!

As 16 of the 21 cycle fatalities in the Dublin City Council area the past 7 years involved HGVs I’m hoping my own journey will be safer when the tunnel opens.

Couple of observations on Matt Talbot area too
Coming from Gardiner St direction, over the bridge (there is a cycle lane) and swinging left down the quays the cycle lane runs up onto the path behind a pedesrtian crossing. If you (pedestrian) want to press the button for the green man you have to stand on the cycle lane. Needlessly dangerous – particularly as bikes pick up a bit of speed coming down from the bridge. Also if the green man is signalled there’s a red for the cars – but there’s no red light for the bikes.

There’s a fixed kerb seperating the bikes from the cars around the custom house (as Graham mentioned) – but not enough space for one bike to overtake another safely. Also if there’s a pot hole or a chuck of rock or broken glass or a filled domestic refuse sack in there (I’ve seen all these) there’s no option to manouver around it.

Why not build a cycleway along by the strand parallel to the N11? Better view, less smoke. That would be easier than most other roads when it comes to building green routes. the N1, N2, N7 and N81 are all sourrounded by buildings which makes building specialised cycleways very hard indeed.

It appears that the attitude of cyclists to motorists with which they are forced to share space with in the city centre needs to change as much as the attitude of the motorists to cyclists.

I fail to see the sense in the argument that breaking the law to facilitate a safe passage from point A to point B is any more acceptable for a cyclist protecting himself from motorists than it would be for the motorist to do the same to protect himself from SUV’s , Artic’s or buses.

Surely by routinely breaking red lights, the cyclist is putting their own safety at risk, the safety of pedestrians at crossings at risk and possibly in some cases motorists at risk.

Ideally there would be physical separation between the cyclist / pedestrian / motorist, but the majority of space in the city centre has to be shared by at least two parties.

However I do agree that little thought has gone into cycle route design. While there are design standards in place, these seem to be implemented in a lazy fashion and the detailing of junctions and points of conflict between the various modes of transport is poor. In many cases the cyclepaths dissapear with no safe way for cyclists to transfer from say an off road cyclepath to the carriageway.

Incidentally have cyclists been catered for in any meaningful fashion on O’Connell St in the redevelopment works?

irjudge, you make the common mistake to assume that it is safer if cyclists follow the rules designed for motorised vehicles. Most non-cyclists think this but it is patently not the case. I’ve actually thought about this because in most other areas of my life I am happy to obay laws, regulations, etc..

Take a simple example – breaking red lights. Given two options when approaching a junction to make a right turn:

1. Follow the rules designed for cars. Try to navigate across a lane of moving traffic to cycle into the right turning lane and stop behind the car ahead of you in the lane. Wait for the lights to change and then move forward with the traffic in your lane. Eventually as cars in front of you go straight through or turn right, you end up in middle of the junction. You are now in the situation every cyclist hates – stopped (or moving slowly) in the middle of a junction with cars, vans and trucks whizzing by a couple of feet to your left and oncoming traffic doing the same on your right. It’s not melodramatic to say that stumbling could mean your death. Eventually when a gap appears in oncoming traffic you make a dash for it; sometimes this will involve crossing two or more lanes of oncoming traffic.
2. The lights are red and pedestrians are crossing. You think, great all the cars are stationary (so they cannot kill me), here’s my chance. You cycle between the two lanes to get to the front of the queue and enter the junction and execute the right turn slowing or stopping to allow any pedestrians to cross before completing your right turn. NO WHIZZING traffic and no danger to anyone.

Cycling is actually impossible for many people in Dublin because, understandably, they find being in situation 1. above to be so terrifying that navigating the city following the rules of the road for cars is impossible without having to dismount at junctions. The idea of cyclists being forced to dismount and mount at every junction probably appeals to people who view cycling as a menace. On my usual journey to work every day I break two particular red lights in order to avoid this situation.

Take another example – using footpaths. I don’t cycle on the footpath in order to scare grannies. I use them if the road is too narrow. If the traffic is stationary, you are either stuck behind a vehicle or you’re navigating the variated gap between wing mirrors and the kerb – constantly worried that a car will squeze in or open a door. Alternatively if the traffic is moving a queue of cars builds up behind you because the road is too narrow for the driver to do a safe overtake; so either you’re holding up a queue of traffic and tempting a driver to do a rash overtaking manouver. In both these scenarios, I have no problem mounting the footpath assuming it isn’t busy with pedestrians.

I am a rational person with a strong sense of self-preservation. I cycle in a manner to ensure my safety. I refuse to follow a set of rules designed for a DIFFERENT MODE OF TRANSPORT if the rules put my life in danger and I make no apologies for breaking such rules when they make no sense or would endanger me. Dublin simply does not accomodate cyclists in any meaningful way either by providing the facilities for cycling or even recognising (through reasonable rules of the road) that cycling is different to driving a car.

Scenario three you get off your bike and walk like the rest of the pedestrians and remount when you are beyond the junction. It has to be said that a lot of the behaviour of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians is dangerous to themselves as well as others.

@hutton wrote:

N11 does seem like a poor joke in terms of serving the cyclist. If its design arose from form following function, then one can only suspect that the primary function was to clear the road of cyclists – not so much for cyclists, but for the convenience of motorists.

I always thought about how close this route is to the hospital; it needs to be it is lethal.

JIMG,

I have no doubt that you are a rational person. The reason we have rules of the road is to cater for the irrantional people. Why have a legally enforceable 50kph speed limit in built up areas? Because there are idiots out there who believe 80kph / 100kph is quite reasonable if you have to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, and as we all know the law doesn’t prevent some idiots from speeding anyway.

So we change the law so that cyclists can pass through a red light if it is safe to proceed! Where does this leave pedestrians? Once there is any doubt things become messy. The rule in the mind of many irrational cyclists may well become “red light doesn’t mean a lot I can safely pass between those pedestrians and get across the junction before the light goes green again.”

I do symphatise with cyclists and while I do not cycle anymore I did a couple of years ago in a provincial town. I bought a bike again just over a year ago brought it out on a country road a couple of mornings, gave it up as too dangerous, so I can only imagine what it is like cycling in Dublin.

The basic lack of respect for road users by road users is the real problem. All motorists are not ignorant, cyclist hunting morons. Many motorists, cyclists and indeed pedestrians show blatant disregard for others and this can only be solved by education and provision of the correct infrastructure. Our problem is we lack the provision of both in equal measure.

I probably haven’t convinced non-cyclists but if you want to understand my perspective, consider your own behaviour as a pedestrian. Do you ever “break” red lights? I.e. cross the road when the red man is displayed? Do you ever cross the road away from pedestrian crossings? Do you ever step off the footpath and walk on the edge of the street to get past a crowd or “overtake” slower pedestrians? Do you ever cross a street away from a crossing to save yourself a 300 yard walk? If you answer yes to any or all of these questions, I suggest your outrage at the idea of cyclists not following the letter of the law is hypocritical.

Pedestrians are often forced to break regulations. I used to live in an apartment off Capel St. and there wasn’t a SINGLE pedestrian crossing anywhere around the entire block. If I were to obey the letter of the law, I would have had to call a taxi to ferry me from that block to across the street. Instead I waited ’til there was no traffic and then crossed the street. Would this have outraged any observing motorists? Possibly. Did I care about “giving pedestrians a bad name”? Absolutely not – I was simply responding to the environment I found myself in.

Pedestrians and cyclists are in a very different category to motorised vehicles. It’s tolerable, in my opinion, for cyclists or pedestrians to deviate from the letter of the law because the risks associated with their actions are assumed by them alone. You could get pedantic with this point but statistics will prove that effectively this is the case. Motorists, while guiding several tonnes of machinery at speed, assume very little personal risk by being reckless around cities especially with the safety features of modern cars. Because of this there is NO equivalence, in my mind, between a pedestrian or cyclist doing something reckless and a motorists doing something reckless.

Fair points, jimg.

Why does cycling work so much better in Amsterdam than here? I felt safe and found it much more enjoyable. A lot of the bike lanes seemed to be physically separated from the road by a curb. I can’t put my finger on what the other differences were. Maybe there were fewer trucks and also the drivers were more aware of bikes.

Anyhow, maybe we should admit that we’ve made a mess of bike lanes and pay the dutch to come over and sort it out.

Hi all,
Looks like Devin touched a nerve here, no?
Some of the points made by jimg and Devin are interesting, but I’m not yet converted to the guerilla cause. Put simply, I disagree that taking the law into your own hands, even in a careful, non-threatening way, is required, never mind the debate on the morality of it. I’ve been cycling every day since friday paying particular attention (on foot of this discussion) to the dangers, temptations and inconveniences of the journeys, both within Dublin city centre and on the N11, and I can say that I never really had to consider breaking the law. I wonder whether the flexible interpreters of the law have a secret desire to see themselves as urban renegades? The cycling equivalent of Parkour? 😉

jimg-
I do still think that motorists by and large have a tendency to tar all cyclists with the same brush, and so I still think that anyone cycling with abandon is to blame- each in a small but by no means non-exixtent way. Also, I don’t see the equivalence between the cyclist and the Fiesta- you compare brands with modes.
You make some good points about accidents between cyclists and pedestrians- when I expressed a desire for more law abiding cyclists above, it could just as easily have been applied to pedestrians. Again, as with cyclists, I have a measure of sympathy for pedestrians at junctions such as the Trinity interchange on Dame Street, but it still drives me nuts to see it. A bell makes a significant difference, but there are still many times when I think “If I see one more gormless stare from a flat-footed gombeen stuck like a bunny in the headlights…”. 😡 (If you’d guessed by now that I always [in town] wait for the green man before crossing the road as a pedestrian, you’d be right.)
I was impressed on a visit to Berlin last year to see how well the system worked there. A fairly well-designed bike lane network, good footpaths and well-located pedestrian crossing points, and users who stuck to their patch and were generally patient and courteous. Amsterdam is due a visit too in the near future.
Anyhow, I don’t mean to single out your points, but some of them were directly addressed and thus deserved response. One last thing- afaik, the rules of the road allow that, where a pedestrian crossing is not provided in easy reach, a pedestrian can cross legally at a break in the traffic. (I’ll have to check this.) Hope the taxis weren’t too expensive. 🙂

Graham-
Your ‘morbid’ point was an interesting one. I ‘m always acutely aware of the dangers on the road and it regularly crosses my mind that something very nasty might happen. When I say ‘regularly’, I mean hardly a minute passes, at least in the city centre, when it’s not on my mind. Not in a morbid way, but just as a means of heightening my alertness to all the potential hazards in the environment. At this stage I know most of the pot-holes on my usual city centre routes, but the drivers opening doors, pedestrians stepping out, cars changing lanes without indicating, motorcycles in the bike lane, cyclists on the wrong side of the road- these all change daily. It’s essential to be attuned to the indicators of possible danger. Like a computer game, but with much higher stakes. I do sometimes think that I’ll expire in the saddle, but I’d like to think it’ll happen when I’m 110 years old, cresting a peak in the Pyrenees, on a tandem with a beautiful lady (she on the anterior seat).

I think irjudge’s point about education was a very good one. Do all parties- pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, motorist- know the rights and duties they and others have? A little less bullishness from us all might be a start.

Regards (for now).

On a more light-hearted note…
Sometimes I map my journeys around town. This from May 2002.
(A clue: the isthmus is South Great George’s Street in Dublin.)

Fair enough ctesiphon, if you generally wait at pedestrian crossings for the green man even when the road is clear, I don’t think we’ll ever see eye to eye on this. I think it might reflect a general attitude to rules and regulations. For example, you say you often have thoughts like “If I see one more gormless stare from a flat-footed gombeen stuck like a bunny in the headlights…” when you see pedestrians blocking your path while cycling. Funnily enough that sort of thing never bothers me all that much (even when I’m driving); it’s just pedestrians doing what they do; they’re not doing it to piss me off – and what’s the big deal if I have to slow down a little bit? – the extra few seconds added to my journey time is hardly going to affect my life. Even motorists would have to do a lot to get me annoyed. For the most part, simple mistakes can be understandable. For example, the other day: I’m flying along a short section of bicycle lane which uniquely for that part of town didn’t have any cars parked on it, driver trying to turn left from a minor road, main road chock a block, driver doesn’t glance right before advancing into a gap in the stationary traffic, spectacular braking/skid on my part ending with a “reverse wheelie” inches from the bonnet, driver gestures profuse apologies and looks as shaken as I am and I just cycle on. What’s to be achieved by getting worked into a frenzy of indignation in a situation like this?

As Devin says, it’s not a cause or anything like that. My motivations are simple – get from A to B as safely, quickly and comfortably (in that order) as possible.

Yikes jimg, if that incident didn’t put you off cycling nothing will!

I have the utmost sympathy for cyclists, especially in urban environments, and especially in Dublin! And most of the behaviour that I see daily is impressive: most are exceptionally cafeful (if only to protect themselves :)) including stopping at lights and indicating etc.
I really don’t know about the practice as described by yourself and Devin of cutting around junctions when lights are red; as neither a driver in the capital, nor a cyclist, it’s difficult to see the impact of this from a purely pedestrian perspective. The dismounting and use of pedestrian crossings seems a good compromise.
What does affect you though is cyclists turning corners directly into you without looking or slowing, and the practice of shooting out from junctions – a nasty, dangerous move.

As a seasoned pedestrian :), personally I’ve no problem at all with cyclists using pedestrian spaces where the alternative is a dangerous road, or where provision simply has not been made for cyclists. As street users cyclists are much closer in nature to pedestrians than motorised traffic, and accordingly will gravitate towards such environments if forced to.
Non-mass level use of pedestrian areas by cyclists, including pavements, is acceptable up to a point I think – but crucially as long as the cyclist exercises a duty of care, which you are promoting jimg.

The classic location in Dublin is the newly paved areas of St Stephen’s Green, an area that has roadways that are a nightmare for cyclists, but conversely has the most mouth-wateringly tempting pavements to race along 🙂

And this is exactly what constantly happens: cyslists boot it along here scaring the living daylights out of pedestrians, often leaving one spinning like a top in the wind generated and the fright induced – a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
I’ve every sympathy for cyclists forced to use the death trap that is the Green, and would be quite willing for them to use the pavements until/if this is sorted, but only as long as they respect other users.
As has been pointed out by everyone by now, this of course applies to all road users.

As for pedestrians waiting for the little green man, it really is a must in a city like Dublin. People are so so stupid in the city centre it never fails to astound how two or three people aren’t killed every day, rather than that amount every year seemingly being the case.
If as a pedestrian you decide to break a light, everyone else follows suit, putting others in danger whatever about yourself.

Another classic location is O’Connell Bridge outside Ballast House. The people on the Westmoreland St side can’t see the traffic moving round from behind them, so any time the people on the bridge side decide to move en masse upon seeing a brief window in the traffic, the Westmoreland side follow suit, despite not being able to see the incredibly dangerous buses and taxis swinging around this corner.

One’s short-sighted rushing across from the bridge is encouraging others to put themselves in extreme danger, potentially including motorists. This senario can be replicated right acorss the city and country at large.

To state the obvious, all road users must have their wits about them and exercise common sense.

i find the multi storey bike parks in amsterdam very amusing. storey after storey of bikes. i have never seen anything like it elsewhere.

The safest bicycle lane in Dublin at the moment is the Luas tracks. Its the easiest way to negotiate the quays and its a joy on Harcourt street.

Serioulsy though the absence of a dedicated bicycle lane on O’Connell Street is a disaster. Isn’t it supposed to be the widest main street in Europe or something and yet cannot accommodate bicyles. I guess we will have to wait until all multi personal motorised transportation machines (cars) are banned from a 1K radius of the spire for the streets of Dublin to be enjoyed again by all.

There actually is a supposed cycle lane on O’Connell Street – it’s a narrow band beside the median (both northbound and southbound). Unfortunately, it doesn’t extend the full length of the street, and it’s so badly marked that hardly anyone knows it’s there – probably added to by the fact that it’s the ‘outside’ (right hand) lane, rather than on the left as in most other cases.
For cyclists, it’s next to useless – motorists just drive in it.

And two buses cannot fit comfortably side by side on the street without consuming it too – what a disaster.
Don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone using it – cyclists just fit in on the roadway where they can.

i’ve never liked the argument that road users should be pigeonholed into two types – pedestrians and everyone else. it’s that attitude which has led to road design in ireland being the way it is. there’s a continuum of types of road users, and i’d place cyclists somewhere between pedestrians and motorists. there are laws for trucks and buses which do not apply to cars. this is seen as safe and sane. yet to argue that there should be laws differentiating cars and bikes is seen as reactionary and dangerous. cyclists have a tiny fraction of the protection and of the weight of a moving car, and an minor fraction of the top end speed. yet we are treated as being as dangerous as a car. which is demonstrably untrue.

essentially, it’s a compromise between the rules of the road and my safety. i will not pay heed to someone quoting the rules of the road at me when the design of the road in question has made no allowances for my safety. and the “get off and walk” argument is simply an admission that road design has failed some of those who are legally entitled to use the road. for example – cycling out the n11, and wanting to take a right up brewery road – it’s only a very fit cyclist who will always be able to accelerate uphill and cross three lanes of traffic to get to the filter right lane. everyone else has to use the pedestrian lights. i’m not saying there should be right of way given to a cyclist across the n11, i’m just using it as an illustration that the rules of the road simply cannot apply to cyclists in that case.

mb-
That’s a fair point about Brewery Road. I pass near the cross roads every day so know it well. Also, if coming out of Farmleigh (the estate opposite the end of Brewery), the lights don’t go green for cyclists, meaning (I presume) that they’re on some kind of sensor that’s not sensitive enough for bikes. So I end up going through John of God’s and crossing at the pedestrian lights at H.R. Holfield- it’s one of the few times I ever bend a rule, i.e. by going the wrong way along the southbound bike path.
However, by applying Devin and jimg’s justification of self-preservation to your conundrum then the logical thing to do is either:
a) cross at the pedestrian lights at the bottom of Brewery; or
b) cross at the John of God’s pedestrian lights and go along the old Stillorgan Road parallel to the N11.
I realise this is very case specific, but similar solutions can be applied to most similar scenarios.

You’re right- the

“get off and walk” argument is … an admission that road design has failed

but I don’t think anyone is arguing that road design is a success for cyclists. And if in doubt, I’d rather walk and live than be a dead hero.

Could I ask- what are people’s cycling black spots in cities? I’m only familiar with Dublin, but there must be some in all urban areas.
For my part, more than once I’ve had very near misses on Cuffe Street with cars (well, usually taxis) exiting from Mercer Street. I’m guessing they look to their right and when they don’t see a car (or car headlights if it’s night-time) they just keep going, i.e. it seems they only yield rather than stop at the t-junction. This is one junction at which I’m always prepared to swing right out into the middle of the road at a split second’s notice, by checking in advance if there’s anything coming behind me.
(Beofre it’s brought up, I do always use front and back lights and a yellow wally band at night.)

Black spots for cyclists in Dublin
South Quays
North Quays
D’Olier / College Street / Westmoreland Street Axis
North Strand Road (esp at Canal Bridge)
Cycle Land from Finglas (going towards town – v steep downhill shared with footpath)
O Connell Street
Wexford Street (v narrow with parked cars)
Stephens Green East (parked cars always reversing trying to get out)
And thats just for starters!

aha ctesiphon, there was me thinking you were an “Uncle Tom” cyclist but it seems you’re a rebel at heart 😀
one of us, one of us, gooboo gaaboo, one of us…

Black spots; lots but ones that immediately spring to mind: coming onto Stephen’s Green from Hume Street, the Matt Talbot bridge to Moss Street (already mentioned), cycling through College Green can be dodgy – particularly going from Pearse St to Dame Street, the junction at Christ Church is awful for cyclists, basically anywhere optimised for motorised traffic flow – e.g. Beresford Place, pretty much any right turn but especially on multi-lane one-way streets (one-ways are generally bad because drivers seem to go faster).

However, the most dangerous situations for cyclists are not specific to location, in my opinion. The worst situations are left turning cars when the cyclist is going straight ahead, cars pulling out of minor roads and doors opening on parked/stopped cars. My intuition, from experience both as a cyclist and a driver is that you’ll probably never be hit from behind by a car – it’s the cars on front of you that are the danger from a cyclist’s point of view. Even for a good driver it is easy to miss the fact that a cyclist is behind you or alongside you but you’ll always notice one on front of you. As a result, even though it may seem contradictory, you are generally safer IN FRONT of the traffic. Therefore, for example, at a red light I will always squeeze between lines of cars to get to the front of the junction (especially a multi-lane dodgy junction like the one at Christ Church) before the lights change – in this way I’m guaranteed to be seen by the cars waiting to go and will be given due consideration. I also will assume that no driver in front of me has seen me and cycle defensively on that basis. This is also the reason why rear view mirrors are useless on bikes.

Shhhhhhh jimg, you’ll blow my cover! 🙂
That’s a very good point about general danger. I fully agree with you about the examples cited, i.e. left-turning cars, cars exiting from side roads and doors opening (on the last one, I think tinted/reflective windows, and maybe even oversized headrests on seats, should be banned, as they obscure a cyclist’s view of the driver or passenger who might be about to open a door). I’d add to your list cars coming in the opposite direction and turning right across stationary traffic- bikes on the inside will still be moving, especially if there’s a bike lane, but cars just sail on through. My brother ended up on a car bonnet on Pearse St a couple of years ago for just this reason.
And your point about behind/in front is spot on too. I’ve often wondered what the value of a back light is (and I do have one)- wouldn’t we be better with two front ones?

When I mentioned black spots, I was thinking of specific locations that are particularly bad- we’ve established by now that city cycling is a dangerous habit. Not to knock your suggestions, Richards, all of which are on the money, but more along the lines of your Stephen’s Green one was what was on my mind. I guess what I was thinking of was trying to establish a kind of catalogue of spots at which we must pay extra attention.

Turning right from Leeson St onto SSG- the merging is a disaster, so I usually lurk among the ‘bollards’ between the two streams until a break occurs.
As you mention, jimg, Pearse to Dame requires a brass neck and a (speed) kick like a mule.

one of my favourite spots for bad cycle lane design (which i haven’t cycled on in two years, so it may have changed) was where the off-road cycle path dropped down onto the road on the inside of the bend where the lower kilmacud road took a 90 degree swing.

@jimg wrote:

Therefore, for example, at a red light I will always squeeze between lines of cars to get to the front of the junction

it annoys the hell out of me that where space in front of the cars has been designated for cyclists to wait at lights, that most drivers simply ignore this and sit over the area.

Watching cyclists battle it out in the city over the past few days – really and truly I am in awe of you all!
How you return in one piece to post here I do not know 🙂

St Stephen’s Green seems to be a disaster all round – specifically why does the cycle lane along the Green south outside Iveagh House etc suddenly come to an end round about outside the (new) Dept of Justice?! It just cuts out to nothing, leaving the cyclist with nothing between here and the junction with Harcourt St!
And on the doorstep of the offices of the DTO!

The reason as to why the cycle lane juts out by Iveagh House is so that the ministers car can park

So I see 22nd September is EU car-free day. I see also that Dublin is not participating. Presumably they think nobody can be “In town, without my car!” for a day, or even a few hours. Congrats to Cork and Dundalk though, for at least trying.
I guess we’ve done alright without DCC’s help for long enough now, one more day won’t hurt. Are they afraid it might give us… y’know… notions?

EU car-free site

Another Raon Rothar classic. Cyclists are forced to partially dismount in order to negotiate the sudden 90 degree turn. No warnings; just a ton of concrete plonked on the path.

The footpath has been closed with temporary blue hoardings so cyclists should expect to see some confused pedestrians all shuffling past the informative concrete block.

Cripes Morlan- that sure is a fine example indeed. And not just concrete anti-terrorist blocks in the way, but well-meaning photographers too. 🙂
Devin-
Those are some good examples of locations for contra-flow lanes. However, each has a couple of problems. First, it would take more than just laying some red tarmac to turn them into bike lanes. The junction leading to each would also require a comprehensive redesign to allow bike traffic free passage onto the lane. I’m thinking specifically of the Bleeding Horse, where one or other traffic stream is always moving, and where bikes would have to cross four or five lanes to access any contra-flow.
Secondly, installing a bike lane at all of the locations mentioned would require permanently removing kerbside parking- what are the odds?
As you said yourself, nothing short of a comprehensive redesign would suffice. I think we’ve established by now that this piecemeal intervention mentality of putting in bike lanes only if they fit (and don’t upset the cars) has not worked.
However, as long as Eoin Keegan is in charge at DCC I think it will be an uphill battle. I get the feeling that cycling provision is too much of a headache for him- witness his Velo-City comments in May about the bike lane network having failed. No, Mr Keegan, it is you who has failed.
Maybe DCC need a cycle planning officer?

Because Dublin City Centre is one big complex of one-way streets all controled by Traffic Lights it is almost imposable to put in place comphrensive 2-way cycle lanes. This would require an expensive rethink on how traffic flows thru Dublin.

I am not so sure that the so called cycle frendly Owen Keegan would be prepared to accept such radical change since the cost could be quite large and every lobby group such as ibec, truckers, Dublin Bus etc are all asking for better traffic flows, no tolling, bus lane usage etc.

I do think the idea of a kind of cycle czar would be a good idea for Dublin. – A good first step

Do contraflow bike lanes require a kerb to separate bikes from car traffic? It would seem dangerous to cycle against traffic without it.

Edit: accidental post.

Excerpt from an Irish Times article by Paul Cullen from early June (forgot to note the date on my cutting).

---

TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC CHIEFS CLASH OVER PROMOTION OF CYCLING IN CITY
The head of the Dublin Transportation Office, John Henry, and the director of traffic at Dublin City Council, Owen Keegan, have clashed over the city’s efforts to promote cycling.
Mr Keegan yesterday criticised the promotion of cycle lanes, saying they had failed to achieve their primary objective of halting the decline in cycling.
Promoting cycle lanes was the most controversial traffic measure promoted by the council, with “huge levels of opposition” from the general public, he told the Velo-City conference on urban cycling.
Mr Henry said Mr Keegan was being pessimistic and expressed confidence that “we’ve turned the corner” in relation to cycling numbers. Increased investment in recent years in a 300km network of cycle lanes around the city would eventually encourage more people to use bicycles as a means of transport.
Mr Keegan said an exclusive reliance on improving cycling infrastructure “does not work”. While the publichad accepted and were often enthusiastic about improvements in pedestrian and bus facilities, this was not the case with cycling infrastructure.
Reducing the number of car lanes to facilitate the installation of cycle tracks at busy junctionshad resulted in massive opposition.
Local politicians stood for election every five years and there was a limit to the number of “unpopular interventions” that could be imposed on them, Mr Keegan told a conference debate on transport in Dublin.
“We have failed to sell the cycling project to the general public. They have bought into other aspects of traffic management but not into cycling.”
Cycling was suffering a haemorrhaging of young users and if this continued, “there won’t be any cyclists because young people won’t know how to cycle”.

---

I said it in my first post to this thread, but maybe it bears repeating- cycle lanes must be provided in the interests of cyclists (rather than to facilitate motorists) and they must be maintained. It’s poor design, lack of respect by other road users for the lanes, broken glass, parked cars etc. that are off-putting for potential users. Solve those problems and I’d venture a change will come. It’s not a case of providing the bare minimum, it’s a case of making it an attractive option- a viable alternative.
Even if people get a bus from home to town, they could still use a bike for around-town travel. This might interest IBEC- there’s an economic advantage to be gained from bike lane provision, not just the economic problems they see in reduced car access to the city centre.

I would imagine that some kind of kerb or bollard would be required to seperate cyclelanes and general traffic.

Often wondered do people ever use cycle lanes to cycle in the ‘wrong’ direction, and have you found it to be safe?
Is there any rule against this?

I cycle between Dalkey and Leaporsdtown and there are a good few cycle lanes, including the crappy one from Whites Cross and its amazing the amount of people who go the wrong direction on them. I don’t think they’re even aware of what they’re doing. It’s esp. prevalen when the cycle lane is part of the footpath. The latter never work very well, pedestrians are always walking in them blissfully unaware. They’re actually quite dangerous.

Correction duly noted, Devin. Cheers.
However, I still have concerns about Owen Keegan’s comments, as he seems to be saying “We’ve failed, and that’s that,” rather than “We’ve failed so far, but there is a solution.”

Re cyclists going the wrong way on bike lanes- I often wondered if some cyclists think that bike lanes are actually designed to facilitate this practice, i.e. they think cyclists going in the direction of the traffic should be on the road and that ‘with flow’ lanes are supposed to be contra-flow lanes for them.
Either way, I do see an awful lot of it (and, as I said above, I even do it myself for about 30m. of the N11 every morning).

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Often wondered do people ever use cycle lanes to cycle in the ‘wrong’ direction, and have you found it to be safe?
Is there any rule against this?

Do cyclists actually follow rules per se??? The next time I nearly get mowed down by a cyclist going through a red light or pedestrian crossing I’m simply going to push them over. Cyclists are so badly behaved that they do not deserve special treatment. Feck the cycle lanes, I’m buying a hummer.

Who said drivers aren’t antagonistic towards cyclists? 🙂

There’s bad eggs burge eye. There’d be more motorist bad eggs too were it not for the contraints put on that mode of transport.
But yes you do always encounter poor cyclists – only the other day walking through the Coombe on a pavement a cyclist lashed past causing me to stop in fear of him crashing into me. It’s not this that was irritating, but rather there as a brand spanking new wide cycle lane running alongside the kerb! AND the road was empty! :rolleyes:

There is a contraflow cycle lane running from Sir John Rogersons quay to City Quay – along the south side of the Liffey in front of the new Sean O Casey bridge. I’ve been using it for maybe 2 years – it only occurred to me recently as a result of the direction of the “bicyle diagram”, that it is contraflow.

Its excellent and fast. I think that is because it is one of the only cycle lanes that isn’t half of a car lane.

@burge_eye wrote:

Do cyclists actually follow rules per se???

Could not agree more. I have never been hit by a car, but twice I have been hit cyclists. Thats aside from all the other times I move to avoid being hit at a pedestrion crossing thats in my favour. Cyclists appear to be a law unto themselves. Now I find my self looking both ways when crossing a one way street incase I’m hit by a fast moving cyclist. Not mention those who cycle on the path of the quays to avoid crossing a bridge, as they are on the wrong side to the direction they wish to travel in. 😡

@crestfield wrote:

Could not agree more. I have never been hit by a car, but twice I have been hit cyclists. Thats aside from all the other times I move to avoid being hit at a pedestrion crossing thats in my favour. Cyclists appear to be a law unto themselves. Now I find my self looking both ways when crossing a one way street incase I’m hit by a fast moving cyclist. Not mention those who cycle on the path of the quays to avoid crossing a bridge, as they are on the wrong side to the direction they wish to travel in. 😡

Take it from someone who has earned their living cycling around Dublin ,without exaggeration it is a WAR for space on those mean streets! Every mode of transport from shank’s mare to the juggernaut is competing for the limited access poor transport planning has created in Dublin. I could gripe about every other mode of transport you could mention and they would be legitimate greivances but it is pointless. My suggestion-unless someone is seriously out of order- just get on with it! If you can’t handle it move to a more civilised society. My suggestion would be a medium sized Dutch city of your choice!

tommyt- quick question. I’ve heard the phrase ‘shank’s mare’ before, but do you know where it came from?
Ta.

PS Rather than move to a more civilised society, couldn’t we just create one here instead? By, say, not cycling across ped crossings when the peds have a green man? It would be a start.

: : : : what does “ride the shank’s mare” mean. And Also what is the origin of this phrase. I have but 1 hour to find this information out. So PLEASE EMAIL me back with the information

: : : I dont know the origin but your phrase means to go on foot, to walk.
: : : The link below may help with the origin.

: : From “A Hog on Ice” (1948, Harper & Row) by Charles Earle Funk: “To ride shanks’ mare (or pony) — This means to walk; to use one’s own legs, for the shank is the part of the leg below the knee. It has been a jocular expression for two hundred years or so. Possibly it arose from playful allusion to a Mr. Shank who had no other means of conveyance, but more likely it was an invention of some Scottish wit.”

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/6/messages/245.html

Agree with the cyclists and ped crossing observation.However the shoe does fit on the other foot.Try cycling through any busy ped junction when the little man is red,e.g. jnctn of Abbey &lwr O’connell sts..It is a question of manners alright ,not just rules and regulations.Unfortunately a significant proportion of citizens possess neither courtesy nor common sense in their everyday urban interactions-not however, a subject worthy of discussion on a forum dedicated to built environment matters…

@tommyt wrote:

My suggestion would be a medium sized Dutch city of your choice!

Interesting that holland should be brought up. I have been to both Amsterdam and the Hauge and found conditions for pedestrians even worse. Little distingtion is made between raodways/ cycle paths/ tramways and pedestion paths. The conduct of the cyclists I found to be similiar to those here, just there was a lot more of them and therefore more dangerous.

People often speak of Amsterdam being a good model for an urban environment. I can’t agree cause even though cars dominate Dublin at least we pedestrions have the paths to our selves (with the exception of the quays as mentioned) . As well as that, pedistrian areas are not dominated by cyclists here either.

I’m not implying that cyclists are the only ones to blame, I see reckless behavoir by pedestrians and motorists (I have never driven a car by the way) every day. Its just that cyclists appear to protray themselves like upstanding people being hindered by other road users. Instead their just as bad as the rest!

@crestfield wrote:

Its just that cyclists appear to protray themselves like upstanding people being hindered by other road users. Instead their just as bad as the rest!

Not guilty to the latter]do[/I] have a place on a board such as this, I’d have thought. Not just in posts, but as rules of thumb for citizen interaction. I don’t think you can divorce the citizen from the city.

ctesiphon.
(Fresh from nearly being knocked down by a BMW SUV and one of those stupid steroid Minis at Donnybrook church. Front and back lights, 4 reflectors and a wally band, if you must know. 😡 )

:rolleyes:

No doubt if you were wearing a novelty hat with a siren and flashing LEDs they wouldn’t have seen you.

One thing that’s very noticable in Dublin is the level of Chinese people who cycle relative to the ‘natives’. I did a truly gruelling project a couple of years ago, involving standing about in the city centre for hours on end getting various opinions from cyclists. The amount of Chinese cycling was and is extraordinary – they accounted from what I experienced at the time (outside major rush hours) for about 40-50% of all cyclists!

They come from a cycling culture, and evidently think nothing about cycling around Dublin upon arriving here – by contrast Dubliners just don’t do it! It served to demonstrate for me that while yes, there are impediments for many people to taking up the bike in Dublin, there clearly is a cultural issue too given the level of Chinese cycling in exactly the circumstances. We all live in the same city after all – they’re not experiencing anything different to ourselves!

Of course one factor to take on board is that they are for the most part students, so naturally are more inclined to cycle, but even so they pull way above their weight in the cycling population. Even the other day I was watching all the cyclists pouring down from South Richmond St towards Portobello Bridge on the commute home – a considerable number were again Chinese.

Given an option between a car (including the cost of running one) and a bicycle, I am sure that a Chinese student would go for the car option!

Probably true, Richards. They are certainly abandoning the bikes in Beijing as fast as humanly possible- coming to view them as a sign of a ‘backward society’ that doesn’t tally with their new hi-tech Olympic image. I heard Richard Rogers on the telly not so long ago tell a story about being in Beijing and commenting to the mayor (?) about how great it was to see the number of bikes in the city (9 million, if Katie ‘litejazz’ Melua is to be believed 🙂 ), and the mayor misunderstood and pretty much said ‘I know, but we’re doing something about it, they’ll be gone before too long.’ RR’s point was that they are the ultimate form of sustainable city transport.

I agree, Graham, the number of Asian cyclists in the city is remarkable. However, quite a few of them are pretty bad cyclists- meandering along roads, wrong way on one way streets, wrong way in bike lanes, and few lights/reflectors. I’m guessing it’s in large part due to the fact that they come from a very different cycling culture where bikes have freer reign in towns. Hard to make these points without attracting the wrath of some right-on wet-lib, but I don’t think my eyes deceive me. I do welcome them onto the streets, as the more cyclists there are the more visible we all are, but their behaviour still frustrates me as a fellow cyclist.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

No doubt if you were wearing a novelty hat with a siren and flashing LEDs they wouldn’t have seen you.

You’re probably right. Now where did I put that receipt for Hector Grey’s?

Could not agree more. I have never been hit by a car, but twice I have been hit cyclists.

I know what you mean, but you’ve missed the real villians. I’ve only been hit by a cyclist once but I’ve been bumped into by other pedestrians over twenty times while innocently walking the streets of Dublin. They really are a law of their own: always breaking the law ignoring lights, no consideration for anyone, never looking where they are going and yet they are constantly whinging about cyclists and motorists. :rolleyes:

I walk (daily), cycle (daily), drive (only about once a week – I’m going to sell it given how little use I get out of it) and use public transport (a couple of times a week). Doing so, I think, gives a bit of a more balanced view of the city and the interactions between people using different modes. You certainly don’t develop an attitude that pedestrians/cyclists/motorists (whatever is “other” to you) are a bunch of bastards; each has a different perspective and most within each group are reasonable. There are ignorant rude people in each category believe me; if you really believe that there are more rude cyclists than pedestrians or motorists, your view is seriously skewed.

@crestfield wrote:

Interesting that holland should be brought up. I have been to both Amsterdam and the Hauge and found conditions for pedestrians even worse. Little distingtion is made between raodways/ cycle paths/ tramways and pedestion paths. The conduct of the cyclists I found to be similiar to those here, just there was a lot more of them and therefore more dangerous.

People often speak of Amsterdam being a good model for an urban environment. I can’t agree cause even though cars dominate Dublin at least we pedestrions have the paths to our selves (with the exception of the quays as mentioned) . As well as that, pedistrian areas are not dominated by cyclists here either.

I’m not implying that cyclists are the only ones to blame, I see reckless behavoir by pedestrians and motorists (I have never driven a car by the way) every day. Its just that cyclists appear to protray themselves like upstanding people being hindered by other road users. Instead their just as bad as the rest!

Medium sized city was the crux of my argument. Next time you are in the Netherlands visit Groningen, Eindhoven, Nijmegen or Alkmaar for example to see how an urban centre can function and accommomdate all traffic comfortably. I know all of those towns are a lot smaller than Dublin but are on a par with our provincial cities. You will find if you spend any length of time in Dutch towns your radar will attune to the different streetlife that characterises the Dutch urban experience

Pre Luas, One could cycle down Harcourt Street, Down Stephens Green West to the top of Grafton street and continue down on Dawson street. Since the introduction of LUAS as a cyclist I can not cycle down SG West and continue on to Grafton Street. This morning I was stopped by cycling very slowly during a pedestrial phase of traffic lights turning on the SG South (from Harcourt Street) to access the new cycle lane and continue the long way around the Green to get to my destination on Dawson street.

While I accept that I was technically in the wrong, I do feel that DCC are out of touch with cycling habbits in the city. There should a two-way cycle track around the whole of STG including that area around the LUAS stop and the top end of Grafton Street. Every morning I would see several cyclists (illegally) making their way from harcourt St thru to STG North via STG West.

Just on another issue, Do we really have the worst street surfaces in a major European city ? I am amazed how pot holes exist for years and are topped up with some tar and chippings when the hole becomes massive, telcos seem to be able to dig up streets and put back a surface which is not as good as the one they dug up. Any street which street surface is relaid is usually dug up some weeks later and the merry life cycle of the street surface starts again. Sorry for the this rant, but cycling in Dublin just seems to become more difficult every day and the authorities dont seem to care.

The whole of Stephens Green is a disaster for cyclists; it’s virtually impossible to cycle onto it, around it or off of it safely.

On reading through the posts on this thread, I’m getting a very negative impression of cycling in Dublin… which I find very hard to agree with. Over the last three years, I have clocked up a few thousand miles in and around the suburbs and city of Dublin. My various routes over that time include many of the cycle lanes that come in for such criticism in this thread, as well as numerous roads with no lanes at all. I have seen all of the dangers posed by inconsiderate motorists & jaywalking pedestrians, and have, for my part, broken the odd red light too.

Once you accept the risks to life and limb inherent in the activity, cycling remains the one and only way to get around the city of Dublin. It is the only transport mode that offers guaranteed journey times, at any time of day or night, unaffected by any external influence. While admitting that cycle-lane provision in Dublin is far from perfect, I feel that many of the posts on this thread over-state the negatives and, dare I say it, 😮 seem to be induced by the ‘siege-mentality’ of many cyclists.

Until this summer, I would probably have been as vocal as anyone in condemnding the under-provision of cycle facilities in Dublin city. However, I relocated to the Capital of Culture some months ago, via a brief stint in a provincial town. Cycling in these environments has made me see just how easy and accommodating Dublin city is to cyclists. Motorists anywhere outside Dublin actually don’t seem to know what a cyclist is, and certainly don’t expect to see one sharing their roadspace. In my time in Cork, I have yet to encounter a single dedicated cycle-lane. And if ye thought ye had potholes in Dublin, just wait til ye see the craters in Cork boy! And, for all that, I still wouldn’t be parted from my beloved bicycle!

In a nutshell – be grateful for what you have in Dublin, for the story outside the Pale is a lot less rosy!

@Devin wrote:

I accept that if you don’t cycle and your experience of cyclists here has been poor as you describe, the system in Dutch cities is not going to be that impressive. But the undeniable fact is that it works. Dutch cities, and particularly Amsterdam, have (in my opinion) the X factor of urban culture. I frequently seriously consider chucking Dublin in and moving to Amsterdam. There is a notable absence of the agression and antipathy you find between all road users in most other cities (though obviously German and Scandinavian cities are good in this respect too), but with all the excitement and vibrancy of a major city.

Some more pics of Amsterdam to try’n back up my point:

This street – Oude hoogstraat – is like a ‘normal’ street: – pavement on both sides & road in the centre – but for cyclists only.

In purely environmental terms, the transport energy savings must be colossal.

Damstraat

This must be where good cyclists go when they die 😉

If the Dutch lived in Ireland it would be the richest nation in the world,
but if the Irish lived in the Netherlands it would probably have sunk.

That last quote is lifted from somewhere but I can’t remember where.

If the Dutch lived in Ireland it would be the richest nation in the world,
but if the Irish lived in the Netherlands it would probably have sunk.

please try to remember where you read this as i look a good laugh. what vacuous nonsense.

It’s a mis-quote of Bismark who, when discussing the Protestant work ethic, is supposed to have said “If the Dutch lived in Ireland, Ireland would be the bread basket of Europe. If the Irish lived in Holland they would drown.”

Afraid to keep me head down, I might drown.
KB2

Saw this over at boards. http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

Click the black arrow on the site to view more.

I love this one:

This one meter long cycle path in Leeds provides a useful training facility for novice unicyclists. Once the basic skills have been mastered the unicyclist can test their proficiency by remaining upright for the entire length of the path, including a 45° bend. They can then progress on to longer and more demanding facilities.

There was a rather odd attempt to add cycle lanes in Ballsbridge. Each was a about a hundred meters long. Going towards town, the lane (just two white lines actually) lead the cyclist out between two lanes of vehicular traffic before abruptly disappearing. Whatever about finding yourself in the middle of the road, any cyclist foolish enough to follow the letter of the law would have killed themselves if they tried to turn left using the cycle lane. I’m sure the champions of law-and-order would insist that yes, out of consideration for other road users, all cyclists intending to turn up Herbert Park Rd. or Clyde Rd. should cycle into the middle of three traffic lanes before executing a sharp left turn across the path of a lane of moving vehicles. After all rules are rules and we can’t have people taking the law into their own hands.

Anyway it was obviously so ludicrous, out of embarassement they’ve burned the end of the lane off. Back to the drawing board fellas and perhaps this time, have a little think about it before starting to slap down the road paint.

Thanks for the link, Morlan.
@jimg wrote:

I’m sure the champions of law-and-order would insist that yes, out of consideration for other road users, all cyclists intending to turn up Herbert Park Rd. or Clyde Rd. should cycle into the middle of three traffic lanes before executing a sharp left turn across the path of a lane of moving vehicles. After all rules are rules and we can’t have people taking the law into their own hands.

I respectfully call- bullshit.
There’s a similar provision on the stretch of the N11 between the bottom of Beaver Row and Eglinton Road, where the red lane jinks to the right for town-bound traffic, but I can’t think anyone would seriously suggest that a cyclist turning left up Eglinton Rd should use that section of the lane.
There’s a difference between the type of law-abiding behaviour I have advocated on this thread and your interpretation of my request. Ultimately that nonsensically literate reading does nobody except the anti-cycling brigade any favours.

I respectfully call- bullshit.

Yes ctesiphon, I was referring to you. 😀

I can’t think anyone would seriously suggest that a cyclist turning left up Eglinton Rd should use that section of the lane.

How about whoever formulated the rule of the road concerning the manditory use of cycle lanes? They didn’t leave a provision for this case, did they?

So in a case like this, you’ll break the law for your own convenience. After all, given your concern to be law-abiding, you could dismount your bike before the lane sweeps into the middle of the road and proceed, walking your bike along the footpath, to the other side of the junction. :rolleyes:

At least we can bicker about which laws can be ignored in which circumstances instead of presenting it as a simple choice between being an outlaw or law abiding.

Moi? Lucky guess! 😀

Thinking about this over dinner, I arrived at much the same conclusion as you, jimg. (I know, I’m sorry, I was looking forward to the fight too.) It seems to come down to this:
My reason for drifting out of the N11 lane onto Eglinton is that I would be endangering myself by staying in the lane (though I’m not sure how mandatory a lane is where there’s a left-turning slip). I suppose that’s your reason for riding on the footpath and breaking red lights too. So it just seems that we’ve each set a threshold of personal danger beyond which obedience is flexible, but our thresholds would be at different levels. Would I be onto something?
Obviously, mine is the right one, though. :rolleyes:

I know, I’m sorry, I was looking forward to the fight too.

To be honest, my enthusiasm is waning. I almost regretted rejoining this thread pretty much straight away. I’ve probably said all I want to really. Maybe we should view the backtrack in Ballsbridge as something positive; i.e. that someone somewhere is actually looking at and evalutating the lines that are being painted on the roads.

So it just seems that we’ve each set a threshold of personal danger beyond which obedience is flexible, but our thresholds would be at different levels. Would I be onto something?

Indeed you would. It’s a good way of thinking about it. In addition to the two factors you’ve identified there (personal safety and obedience for the law), I have to admit convenience is also a factor when making a decision while cycling (despite the way I tried to present it as purely an issue of personal safety). If it weren’t we could walk our bikes everywhere on the footpath which is surely legal as well as probably being safer. So we all weigh each of the three factors slightly differently, I guess, when making cycling decisions.

UCD has no roller blading signs in Belfield…

In fairness. The cycle track from Alfie Byrne Rd to the Wooden Bridge is one of the better cycle tracks in the city. My only gripe would be the Sunday strollers letting their kids, dogs, wander aimlessly along the cycle track putting themselves in danager not to mention the cyclists.
Further on up towards Howth, (running from the Blackpitts to Sutton) the cycle track is even better and it is one of my favourite cycles. Great views of the city, mountains and the Bay and no traffic for about 3 miles.

As a pedestrian who frequently uses a cylce-track for walking with a stroller, I empathise with the frustration of cyclists. However, with a stroller there are very very few places you can walk with any degree of comfort and/or safety from traffic and ever-undulating footpaths. If there is a lack of facilities for cyclists, there is equally a lack of facilities for pedestrians with strollers who simply want a peaceful and safe stretch of ground to walk on. Solution – when making new cycle paths, make them broad enough that they can be split down the middle to cater for both the two and four wheelers in society.

Note the second Dodder photo. With the combined cycle / pedestrian path.

The path joining from the right actually carries far more pedestrians and cyclists, starting out on the Dodder walk here.
They enter from the other path below from the right. It has, of course no sign or pictogram at all saying which side of the combined path below, is for the cyclists, and which one is for the pedestrians.

You have to walk to the end of the path, at the bridge near Ashtons, to find another sign explaning the dividing line, what it means or what either group is supposed to do here.

Not unusually then, there are bikes, prams and people on both sides of the line on most days.

@PDLL wrote:

As a pedestrian who frequently uses a cylce-track for walking with a stroller, I empathise with the frustration of cyclists.

You empathise? But you are the enemy. If you want to use the bike lane, get a bike.

@ctesiphon wrote:

You empathise? But you are the enemy. If you want to use the bike lane, get a bike.

Eh – if you want to use a road, get a car…..! Great logic there.

Never saw cyclists as enemies personally, but if this is the mentality of a road user, is it any wonder there are so many fatalities on our roads. I empathise with them for the following reasons:
– I know how absolutely painful and dangerous it is cycling in areas where there is no designated cycle lane (I speak as one who has been a cyclist in the past and is, more often than not, a pedestrian at present);
– as a person who frequently walks with a stroller – I know how painful and dangerous it is using ill-designed and broken pavements that are often blocked by some fat-ass pig’s car half way up on the path.
– because I believe that the lives of people who choose not to use cars should have the same value as those of people that do use cars.

I will continue to use cycle paths for walking although I know that this bothers cyclists as
a) the chances of a bike killing you in the event of an accident are less than that of a car;
b) a number of purpose built cycle paths are broad enough to accomodate other path users in the same way that roads are often broad enough to accomodate trucks, cars and motorbikes. I would argue that all future cycle lanes should be specially designed to cater for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.
As regards dogs and kids running around – well this can happen on a normal street too. Unfortunately, no single road/path user has dominion over others. It is a matter of consideration for your fellow road/path user, nothing more, and I am sure that cyclists above all should have an appreciation of the needs of fellow road users.

The logic (which you misinterpret) is that a cycle lane is provided for cyclists, a footpath is provided for pedestrians (in case you missed it, I was as hard on footpath-using cyclists earlier in the thread as I am on bike lane-using pedestrians here). A road (to clarify your ‘counter-argument’) is provided for all vehicular traffic, bikes included. It’s only pedestrians who shouldn’t use a carriageway. So my logic is sound, thanks.

The basis for your empathy is flawed- as by ’empathy’ I understand identification with the plight of another. Nowhere do you mention having been a cyclist on a bike path with a meandering pedestrian in front of you. Sympathise by all means, but empathy is a step further on.

So please keep off the bike path and I’ll keep off the footpath. Your justifications for your continued use are pretty weak: your chances of being killed are further reduced if you use the footpath (to say nothing of the chances of you endangering the cyclists); and if a bike path is provided for the exclusive use of cyclists, please respect that (regardless of whether it is wide enough for you), and if it’s a dual cyclist/pedestrian path, keep to your side.

I agree that more dual paths should be provided, despite my reservations about users encroaching on each others’ territory, but until such time as they are provided keep off the bike-only ones- cyclists do have “dominion over others” in that case, despite what you might wish. And if it bothers you, by all means start lobbying your councillors/TDs.

I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport.

@ctesiphon wrote:

cyclists do have “dominion over others” in that case, despite what you might wish.

All I can say is that I am glad you cycle and don’t use a car – phew.

You are presuming I would bring the same attitude to driving as I do to cycling, which in fact is both true and is not (though they are two sides of the same coin).
It is true because I would respect the rules of the road as I do the rules of a bike lane- the rules of the road as you know accommodating all modes of transport.
It is not true because I would never as a motorist presume ‘dominion’ over other road users as you seem to be implying, because of the aforementioned rules of the road.

@ctesiphon wrote:

You empathise? But you are the enemy. If you want to use the bike lane, get a bike.

Don’t mind him PDLL 😀 – you’ll find that most of us cyclists are pretty easy going and have no problem sharing “our” space with others without whipping ourselves into a state of indignation. It doesn’t bother me in the least (as a cyclist). 😉

@jimg wrote:

I almost regretted rejoining this thread pretty much straight away. I’ve probably said all I want to really.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport. (Emphasis added.)

How anyone can presume to speak for others, in particular or in general, I find somewhat baffling. In short, how can you know?

---

Devin- have you any tips for cycling in Amsterdam? (Not ‘how to’, but places to visit, paths to drool over, good hire places, how to avoid ‘strollers’, etc.) I’m off there in a couple of weeks for a long overdue first trip. If it’s as good as you say (Respect for cyclists? What a novel concept…), I may never come back.

I’m all for cycling lanes and pathways, but i don’t want to CC to start putting them in every where they can, not that I’ve a problem with cyclists. It’s just that alot of the lanes are so rediculus that all the laughing they surely induce will cause many an accident. Like this lovely example.

That Portlaoise picture is hilarious. Two things strike me: the bollards look older than the path, so either they pre-date it or they were imported in their damaged state; and the road, bike path and footpath are all on the same level, presumably necessitating the bollards (in the Councils eyes). I get the impression the bollards are to protect pedestrians from cars, though, rather than to protect the cyclists.

Thanks for the info on Amsterdam. I’ll be there for a week so there will be some walkabouts too but I’m keen to get into the saddle. It’s a long overdue trip for someone who’s a fan of 20th century architecture (early and late), and who thinks also that houseboats are a missing element of Dublin’s canalscape. In short, I think Amsterdam and I are going to get along famously. (Did I mention my love of state sanctioned prostitution, btw?)

How anyone can presume to speak for others, in particular or in general, I find somewhat baffling. In short, how can you know?

Well now it’s my turn to be baffled. You’re asking this question in the context of a seemingly unrelated quote of mine from earlier in the thread but I can’t make the connection between the quote and the question you are asking.

Apologies jimg- it was a little unclear. I meant to include this quote (below) of yours too. Hope this rectifies it.
@jimg wrote:

you’ll find that most of us cyclists are pretty easy going and have no problem sharing “our” space with others without whipping ourselves into a state of indignation.

@ctesiphon wrote:

How anyone can presume to speak for others, in particular or in general, I find somewhat baffling. In short, how can you know?

Apologies jimg- it was a little unclear.

How about admitting that it made no sense whatsoever?

Even your clarification is unclear. Are you contesting my claim that most cyclists are easygoing when it comes to people walking on cyclepaths? Or were you upset at the indirect suggestion that you seem highly indignant about this topic?

Yes, bad cycling behaviour makes me indignant.
No, I’m not ashamed to say so (how very Irish to think that the law-abiding citizen might be ashamed of obeying rules).
Yes, I’m contesting your claim.

I’ll pretend to agree that my posts made no sense if you agree to let this dead-end tangential argument go quietly to its grave. If it’s boring the pants off me, I can only imagine what it’s doing to those not involved.

I’ll pretend to agree that my posts made no sense

How gracious of you. The question referred to, addressed to me in post #102, made no sense. You made a mistake by using a quote from me that you probably didn’t mean to use. It’s an understandable mistake to make so there was no need to “clarify” before offering to “pretend to agree” having apparently become bored with the whole thing.

I see a cyclist was killed last week in Dublin by a truck, Stoneybater area I think. Trucks and bikes just don’t mix

@jimg”]Don’t mind him PDLL <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt= wrote:

No worries – as a pedestrian I have learned to show tolerance to other road users, even those who park cars half way up on footpaths and make parents with strollers take their chances on the open road. ctesiphon – this is the third discussion that I can recall that has bored you. This is unfortunate.

I’m going to be starting to cycle to UCD in a few weeks probably, once the bike gets fixed. The cycle track along the north coast of the bay is great, it’s the getting through the port and environs that’s a bit mental.

@PDLL wrote:

No worries – as a pedestrian I have learned to show tolerance to other road users,

This kind of tolerance?
@PDLL wrote:

– as a person who frequently walks with a stroller – I know how painful and dangerous it is using ill-designed and broken pavements that are often blocked by some fat-ass pig’s car half way up on the path.

---

Thanks for your concern on the boredom front, PDLL. It is an ordeal, it’s true, but I persevere. It wouldn’t be so onerous a) if other members didn’t keep dredging up dead lines of argument (6 weeks dead- 28/11 to 10/1) in the hopes of scoring some cheap points, or b) if the quality of the argument was sufficient to merit serious consideration on my part, but it’s out of my hands. One other thing, though- by your comments can I infer that this type of pedantic argument doesn’t bore you? I thought my tolerance for this crud was higher than most people’s, but maybe I’m wrong. Or maybe you’re as guilty of cheap points scoring as the next man, even at the expense of looking foolish?

---

Right- jimg. We’ll go through this once more in the hopes that it can be put to bed once and for all. Pay attention- if I’m getting too advanced for you please let me know.
1) This (below) is how the message in its complete form would have looked, with the extra quote inserted for clarification purposes, and some added punctuation to be sure to be sure.
2) The first quote was not a mistake- it was inserted to show that you were being hypocritical in rejoining a thread which you had previously expressed regret about rejoining, particularly given that you appeared to rejoin it for the sole purpose of picking a fight with me (even stranger when one considers that the nippy nature of this argument seemed to be the reason for your regret in the first place)]I almost regretted rejoining this thread pretty much straight away. I’ve probably said all I want to really.[/QUOTE]

---

@jimg wrote:

you’ll find that most of us cyclists are pretty easy going and have no problem sharing “our” space with others without whipping ourselves into a state of indignation.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport. (Emphasis added.)

How anyone can presume to speak for others, in particular or in general, I find somewhat baffling. In short, how can you know?
***************************************************
Sin e.

PS Nazis, Godwin, The End?

I thank you, ctesiphon, for your indulgence. Points scoring? Foolish? I merely recalled that you occasionally suffer from boredom induced by some of the discussions that take place on Archiseek and I expressed how unfortunate that was. Extrapolate what you wish.

Indeed, this exemplifies the level of tolerance that I generally display to those who choose to park half-way up on a footpath. If you have ever had to risk your own life and that of your child by having to go out on a busy road with a stroller in order to allow some fat-ass pig to rest his car on a footpath, you would realise that I am demonstrating extreme tolerance by merely referring to them merely as fat-ass pigs. If I was prone to intolerance, I would probably smash his windscreen in with a brick.

😀 Sorry ctesiphon, could you explain that again? I’m curious what tone you’ll adopt next. So far you’ve hit me with (in order): irritation, condescension, pomposity, feigned indifference, patronisation and anger.

I responded to message #102 in an entirely reasonable fashion. Read it and my immediate response again.

I have not responded to your question “How anyone can presume to speak for others?” because I didn’t see it’s relevence to my position on anything here and I saw it as an attempt (admittedly a very successful one) to personalise the discussion. Instead of accusing me of presumption, you could have simply contested the claim with, for example, something along the lines of “I disagree. Most cyclist are NOT easy going when it comes to non-cyclists using cycle paths because…”.

Might of interest – some photos of cycling paths in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm

Well when you crash into it at least you won’t need a mobile to summon help 😉

Suburban residents find alternatives to waiting at bus stops.

Dog-powered Scooters? ?

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Arguably the best cycle route in Cork city is along the line of the Old Blackrock & Passage railway. From the east end of the city centre, head for Victoria Road, then take either Monahans Rd. or Centre Park Rd through the Docklands. Centre Park Rd. serves all the industrial premises, oil terminal, etc, but is worlds apart from its counterpart in Dublin Port – tree-lined for most of its length. At the end of Centre Park Rd., you emerge onto the Marina, which is a traffic-free, tree-lined boulevard along the banks of the Lee. Continue past Pairc Ui Chaoimhe and then take a right, onto the old railway reservation. Route is intact as far as Rochestown, beyond that I am unsure. The other benefit is that the track is, almost uniquely in Cork, flat! No lungbursting near-vertical climbs here!

that old railway line is very peaceful; pity it’s not redeveloped as a rail line though. Might disturb your cycling though!

Some other innovations in personal transportation:

http://www.core77.com/news/archive_02.03.asp

Frank Llyod Wright would have approved of microcopters I am sure, for jetting around his version of the city.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Devin

This thread was originally meant to be about cycling in all the Irish cities but has been very Dublin-ish so far – apart from corcaighboy’s post. Probably my fault to some extent for putting on so many Dublin images.

Limerick’s local Authority approach makes for some interesting reading. If implemented the advantages would improve the living quality there manifold.

Limerick City Cycle Network Strategy

The strategy sets out the key issues involved in developing a cycle lane network for Limerick City. A proposed network of cycle routes is identified. These routes link centres of education and work places with residential areas utilising Limerick’s relatively flat topography and attractive water frontages.
The Limerick City Cycle Network Strategy was presented to the Transportation & Infrastructure Strategic Policy Committee on the 1st of September 2003.
The Public Consultation for the Strategy was carried out over a six week period from the 1st September to the 22nd October 2003. The proposed network was amended as a result of the Public Consultation exercise. This document was passed by Limerick City Council on the 24th May 2004.

Director of Service: John Breen
Transportation & Infrastructure Department
Limerick City Council
May 2004

Click the link for full account. http://www.limerickcity.ie/services/roads/rt_cycle.html

Thanks for that CologneMike- nice to see they’ve put a bit of thought into it, and consultation too. But it’s a pity that the network seems to be for the periphery only, with a few spurs into the town centre proper. As any cyclist knows it’s in the centre, with narrower streets and more chaotic movement patterns, that provisions are more necessary than in the burbs. They seem to have fudged the issue just a bit. And you’ve got to love the bit about ‘Limerick County Council Indicative Cycle Network’- ha!:)

Bring your tissues:

http://www.seanhillen.com/bikes1/bikesfrontpage1.htm

Not the first time I’ve seen a Garda motorbike parked in the bike lane, but the first time I’ve had my camera with me- Morehampton Road, 1st June 2006. So if the Gardai can’t abide by the rules of the road, what hope for them enforcing the rules for others?

I’ve been back on the N11 daily for the last couple of months and not a day goes past without some obstacle blocking the way. And I’m not talking about the usual broken glass, bus passengers – sorry, customers – and their luggage, or wheelie bins. No, I mean workmen’s SUVs parked right beside the house they’re gutting (because 100 yards is too far to walk from a legal parking spot), Aircoach drivers pulling across me into bus stops without indicating, broken down cars put up on the bike path so they don’t inconvenience motorised road users, even though there are three lanes for motorised traffic and only one for bikes (don’t get me started on the ‘mandatory use’ rule- one of the few cyclist-related rules that the Gardai seem to [think they] know about…).

But the Gardai? I’d almost be laughing if I wasn’t too busy taking aim at his dashboard instruments.

I think you will find that in law, police vehicles, ambulances and fire engines can pretty much park where they wish when on duty. I am sure that somewhere in the Rules of the Road it states that such vehicles take precedence over other road users so in actual fact this police vehicle may be very much respecting the Rules of the Road.

Aah PDLL, good to have your input as always. Thanks for that.
Given that you’re usually such a stickler for chapter and verse (facts on rural housing spring to mind), could I request a reference ot the specific bit of legislation/rules of the road, please? Thanks in advance.

I didn’t post a picture of the scene this morning, where there was a fire engine and an ambulance parked in the bike lane at almost the same spot because they were attending to a person lying on a stretcher on the footpath. Don’t know if he was a cyclist, a motorcyclist, a pedestrian or something else, but there was certainly a very good reason for those emergency vehicles to be there. But there was no good reason for the Garda bike to be there yesterday as far as I could see. Even if he (?) was on duty, there were plenty of places mere yards away that would have served his needs most adequately.

Happy to oblige. Consider, for example, Section 14 of the new draft Rules of the Road (to be found on http://www.transport.ie) where it says that ‘Ambulances, fire brigade engines and Garda vehicles are exempt from speed limits and certain traffic regulations when being used in an emergency situation’. While it may not be obvious to you at the time of taking your photograph, the officer in question may have been involved in an emergency situation or may have been preventing one from happening. When someone’s life is possibly in danger, one tends to be a little less pernickidy about where one parks.

@PDLL wrote:

Happy to oblige. Consider, for example, Section 14 of the new draft Rules of the Road (to be found on http://www.transport.ie) where it says that ‘Ambulances, fire brigade engines and Garda vehicles re exempt from speed limits and certain traffic regulations when being used in an emergency situation’.

Would the problem in the images presented not be more a situation of zero velocity vs speed exemptions?

More likely just a common or garden case of an exemption from normal parking regulations for a police officer and his vehicle engaged in the execution of his duties as a guardian of law and order. Please see attached photo of another instance of a police vehicle contravening normal traffic regulations (taken from today’s police raid on a terrorist suspect in London). Not so unusual or surprising after all.

@PDLL wrote:

Happy to oblige. Consider, for example, Section 14 of the new draft Rules of the Road (to be found on http://www.transport.ie) where it says that ‘Ambulances, fire brigade engines and Garda vehicles are exempt from speed limits and certain traffic regulations when being used in an emergency situation’. While it may not be obvious to you at the time of taking your photograph, the officer in question may have been involved in an emergency situation or may have been preventing one from happening. When someone’s life is possibly in danger, one tends to be a little less pernickidy about where one parks.

The full quotation is actually:
“Ambulances, fire brigade engines and Garda vehicles are exempt from speed limits and certain general traffic regulations when being used in an emergency situation. Drivers of these vehicles are, however, required to take into account the safety of other road users in exercising these exemptions.” (Emphasis added.)

So they should not jeopardise other road users, such as cyclists, in order to carry out their duties. Or, put another way, thou shalt not do evil that good may come.

Lots of interesting facts re cyclists rights (and responsibilities) in the Rules of the Road (Draft). Thanks for the link. For example, to answer one question Graham Hickey asked months ago, it seems riding on the footpath is expressly forbidden. So now we know.

Also, re your pic above- that situation has more in common with the situation I witnessed this morning, regarding which I did say that “there was certainly a very good reason for those emergency vehicles to be there.” In your pic they seem actually to be blocking the road, so I don’t think you can draw a parallel between the London pic and the Garda motorbike pic.

Does ‘other road users’ also include pedestrians I wonder?

It’s pretty obvious in the first picture picture that parking up on that dead space of pavement between the (nice early electric :)) lamppost and the tree would be ‘tak[ing] into account the safety of other road users’, and not the set-up depicted. On the balance of things, was a guardian of the law rushing off to save a baby’s life, or was an ignorant Garda not bothered about the consequences of where they parked while dropping off a bit of paperwork?

It might have had something to do with the Australian delegation who were all still in Dublin a week after Howard’s visit, given the calvalcade of particularly vulgar hired silver mercs and vans that swept through the city centre on Wednesday – lead by about six Garda motorbikes. Much smaller than most State visits it seemed…

@ctesiphon wrote:

The full quotation is actually:
“Ambulances, fire brigade engines and Garda vehicles are exempt from speed limits and certain general traffic regulations when being used in an emergency situation. Drivers of these vehicles are, however, required to take into account the safety of other road users in exercising these exemptions.” (Emphasis added.)

So they should not jeopardise other road users, such as cyclists, in order to carry out their duties. Or, put another way, thou shalt not do evil that good may come..

Perhaps the Garda in question was acting on information not known to you (or any other member of the general public at that moment in time). Perhaps he parked it there in a hurry in pursuit of someone or in preventing a crime from taking place. Perhaps the Garda in question made a calculated and professional judgement at a critical moment in time that it was better to park his bike there and piss a few sensitive cyclists off than to allow something worse from happening (such as a crime or a more serious imminent accident). Yes, the emergency servcies have a responsibility to ensure that they avoid creating accidents, but all civilian road users also have a responsibility to ensure that the emergency services have their full understanding in the execution of their duties. In this case, it was a minor inconvenience to have to dismount momentarily from one’s bike so as to safely negotiate the Garda’s motorbike. Motorists are often obliged to perform far more dangerous and fast paced courtesy manouvers when confronted by an ambulance racing through a junction. It is not just about the Rules of the Road, it is also about good road etiquette and a respect for the often difficult and dangerous jobs which the emergency services have to perform. What this particular Garda was doing on this particular occasion is unknown to us, but perhaps it is wiser to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was engaged in professional duties that took priority over the rights of a cyclist. If you start questioning the rights of security personnel to execute their legitimate and authorized professional responsibilities (even when their immediate purpose is not obvious to you), then you are not really fulfilling your duties as a responsible citizen.

This arguement is really going nowhere as we’ve no idea if the Garda in question was fighting crime or queuing for the donut shop.

Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.

I was stopped for long enough to remove my camera from my pannier, frame the shot, take two pictures, put the camera away and cycle off. At least 2 minutes. Long enough, I think, to be able to ascertain whether there was a Garda executing his emergency duties in a nearby location that would have required him to park in that spot. And guess what…?

“Motorists are often obliged to perform far more dangerous and fast paced courtesy manouvers”
Then they are driving too fast. It is incumbent on a motorist to drive with sufficient care and attention to be able to stop or alter their behaviour without endangering themselves or others. Not to do so is considered dangerous driving, but unfortunately the danger inherent in such behaviour is often only apparent when an unforeseen incident occurs, by which time it is often too late.

Anyway, I’m done on this one. You know by now PDLL that we fundamentally disagree.
Though I might add: when you’re in a hole you stop digging.

To go back to a previous element of this thread (and another one on which I’ve disagreed with many members here), this article might be of some interest. It”s about rule-breaking cyclists in England and community opposition to their antics. You know how I feel already, I think- there’s no need for me to rehash my points of view. In essence, I could have written 90% of this article.

Braking Point, by Will Storr, Observer Magazine, 4th June 2006

Two quick things I spotted that might be of interest to Dublin cyclists:

The Dublin City Cycle, organised by the DTO, DCC and DDDA, is on this Wednesday. Meet in Mayor Square at 7.30pm for an 8pm start. I missed last year’s, but by all accounts it was great.

There’s a Dublin Bicycle Festival happening too, in CHQ in the Docklands, from Friday 21st to Sunday 23rd- exhibition, performances, films etc.

My current pet hate as i cycle through phoenix park every morning and evening is the seeming complete disregard/lack of understanding/ complete ignorance to the concept of a bicycle path! In the evenings i see more people cycling on the road, it’s just not worth using the perfectly good cyclepath due to the sheer numbers of prams, children, dogs, joggers, rollerbladers, power walkers, groups of pedestrians, fat pedestrians. It’s turning me into a narky f****er i don’t want to be , shouting at everybody i cycle by.:(

@Bago wrote:

My current pet hate as i cycle through phoenix park every morning and evening is the seeming complete disregard/lack of understanding/ complete ignorance to the concept of a bicycle path! In the evenings i see more people cycling on the road, it’s just not worth using the perfectly good cyclepath due to the sheer numbers of prams, children, dogs, joggers, rollerbladers, power walkers, groups of pedestrians, fat pedestrians. It’s turning me into a narky f****er i don’t want to be , shouting at everybody i cycle by.:(

Agreed, Bago. While the bike path surface in the PP has improved lately, it’s too much of a headache to use- meandering pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc., not to mention the almost total absence of light at night due to the weak street lamps. The OPW has a policy of keeping the PP as close to a rural idyll as possible, but this invariably means that the facilities are sub-standard for cyclists. I was out at a concert in Farmleigh on Monday night and cycling back towards town was a nightmare. At some of the junctions, especially at the roundabouts, markings for the bike lanes disappear totally, and it is a fact that about 80% of cycling accidents occur at junctions. Like you, Bago, I ended up using the road more than the bike lanes. It’s a pity, as the PP has the potential to be a paradise for cyclists.
I know that the OPW has commissioned a study of the PP traffic with a view to improving the general layout. Here’s hoping they prioritise cycling and pedestrian movements over private cars.

I wonder has there ever been a prosecution by gardai over misuse of cycle lanes by others… I know what way Id bet on that one:rolleyes:

“Driving on a cycle track” is one of the 31 new penalty points offences that came into force recently (one penalty point). It strikes me that it could be used for all those people who park in the cycle lane because they couldn’t be bothered walking a wee bit further. After all, in order to park there, they had to drive into it. Or do you think that would work? Could the clampers report them to the Gardai and/or provide the Gardai with the digital photos they seem to take when they clamp someone?

i am not trying to belittle you frustration in cycling through the city , but looking for garda enforcement to help cyclists will never work . Not because our gardai are any lazier than policemen in other countries but because almost all the cycle lanes are a joke.

People drive through cycle lanes , and park in them , even though they know it is selfish simply because they can.
if you want to improve things the solution is pretty simple. Move the cycle lanes to one side of the road only , and seperate the space from the rest of the road with concrete bumps , making sure they are just high enough to discourage all but the most hardy of drivers from entering the lane. The ones used along the docklands are just right.

This cycle lane problem is something that truly mistifies me. Such small concrete blips are cheap. It doesn’t mean removing car lanes (god forbid – actually god did forbid any actions to impeded car use – little known fact . He said this right after denouncing just about anything fun) .
cycle lanes are being put in places where the traffic lanes are particulary wide for the most part , so nobody is losing out .

Instead we have these red strips that actually seem to attract danger instead of warding off.

My current pet hate as i cycle through phoenix park every morning and evening is the seeming complete disregard/lack of understanding/ complete ignorance to the concept of a bicycle path!

That’s because it’s poorly conceived and designed. For most of it’s length, it looks to all intents and purposes like a normal path and it’s right beside a similar path so it’s not surprising that many make the mistake of walking/jogging on it. It’s like when you have handle on a swing door people will try to pull the door open even if you put a “push” sign above the handle. If I’m going along Chesterfield Av., I always use the road as it’s far easier and safer to navigate the roundabouts and junctions. Off the avenue it’s not an issue.

Probably off topic but is there anyone who actively manages the park? It feels neglected in terms of development or promotion. There are so many simple and cheap things which could be done to make it a superb amenity for the city. For example, banning cars from all the roads south of Chesterfield Av. would hugely improve the place; most of the roads here are narrow and twisty and unsafe for car going faster than 20km/h anyway. Provide more concessions for kiosks for small shops/cafes. Put pressure on the guards to actually police the park which contains their headquarters; bike robbery and smash and grabs on parked cars are relatively common (I’ve suffered both). Or at least provide some sort of secure car/bike parking facilities. This would have the additional benefit of taking parked cars off the side of the roads. Change the bylaw to allow at least one Dublin bus route from the centre of town through the park with a couple a stops in the park itself to encourage visits to the park. Advertise the park and hold special events in it. I never appreciated the place until I started using it regularly a few years ago. Now I love it but it could do with attention from DCC – some sort of action plan and some proactive management.

the comparison with central park could not be more stark.

jimg-
PP is the responsibility of the OPW, not of DCC. I actually made a submission to the traffic study on many of the points you raise, such as car parking, bus routes, etc. I know, for example, that the OPW isn’t keen on letting buses through as it might set a precedent and the guard their turf very carefully.

a boyle-
The Guards are the traffic enforcement body in the city, so I don’t think the expectation of enforcement is misplaced. Well, in theory anyway.
Also, I tend to think segregated lanes are an admission of failure. In other words, in an ideal world there’s be no need for lanes at all. (I have a funny picture on this that I’ll post later.)

cobalt-
I heard of a case in Britain (I think) where a driver argued successfully in court that although he was parked in a cycle lane, as nobody had seen him drive onto it, nobody could prove that he had. 😡

Don’t forget the Dublin City Cycle, everyone! 8pm this evening.

no no don’t get me wrong . i don’t think that it is ok that gardai jsut plain don’t bother. I just think it is a case of what is practical.

I definetely think that the traffic corps should be running around handing out fines left right and center : not yielding , not stopping, using the right turn lane just to get in front of everyone going straight , cyclists not wearing a helmet ,etc etc.

But i have to disagree regarding setting aside a cycle path , surely that is a good idea. They give a perception of safety which is probably the most important thing to encourage more cyclists. If people perceive it to be safe , they will feel safe , and far more will use the cycle lanes. Then i think you will find people respecting them more, as they will be used , which currently they are not.

@a boyle wrote:

Move the cycle lanes to one side of the road only , and seperate the space from the rest of the road with concrete bumps , making sure they are just high enough to discourage all but the most hardy of drivers from entering the lane……Instead we have these red strips that actually seem to attract danger instead of warding off.

I have 2 problems with the concrete barriers:
(a) The lanes are usually narrow, so if you get stuck behind a slooooooow cyclist it’s very difficult to pass them out]weeks[/I], again often not easy to swerve around!

I quite like the red strips insofar as when trying to swerve round the cars, pedestrians etc. at least the red strip is something to gesture at , to show them they’re encroaching on cyclists’ space. Having said that, many of them are really badly designed/positioned.
@ctesiphon wrote:

I heard of a case in Britain (I think) where a driver argued successfully in court that although he was parked in a cycle lane, as nobody had seen him drive onto it, nobody could prove that he had.

:rolleyes:

@a boyle wrote:

almost all the cycle lanes are a joke.

Nail + hammer. Crap designs by rd engineers who couldnt give a toss, LA’s that think the tracks are only to be used by either misfits or foreigners, and a general thatcherite mindset of “anybody who is still using public transport by 30 is a failure”. 😡

@a boyle wrote:

I definetely think that the traffic corps should be running around handing out fines left right and center : not yielding , not stopping, using the right turn lane just to get in front of everyone going straight , cyclists not wearing a helmet ,etc etc.

Not wearing a helmet is not against the law.

@a boyle wrote:

But i have to disagree regarding setting aside a cycle path , surely that is a good idea. They give a perception of safety which is probably the most important thing to encourage more cyclists. If people perceive it to be safe , they will feel safe , and far more will use the cycle lanes. Then i think you will find people respecting them more, as they will be used , which currently they are not.

Removing every motorised vehicle from the roads also gives a perception of safety, to give just one (admittedly far fetched) example.

Also, the pic you posted shows yet another design flaw in bike lanes. the concrete bits are aligned in one direction only, so getting off that lane is easy mid-lane, but joining it mid-lane is impossible unless the cyclist stops and turns more than 90 degrees. hardly encouraging.

Here’s that picture anyway- now I really must go. Gotta get into my bright pink lycra bodysuit.:)

@ctesiphon wrote:

Not wearing a helmet is not against the law.

Removing every motorised vehicle from the roads also gives a perception of safety, to give just one (admittedly far fetched) example.

Also, the pic you posted shows yet another design flaw in bike lanes. the concrete bits are aligned in one direction only, so getting off that lane is easy mid-lane, but joining it mid-lane is impossible unless the cyclist stops and turns more than 90 degrees. hardly encouraging.

Here’s that picture anyway- now I really must go. Gotta get into my bright pink lycra bodysuit.:)

In that case think it should be against the law to cycle without a helmet, i have had way too many near misses …

yes yes if you get rid of cars you make it safer , but you need to get people’s confidence of cycling being safe before you will convince people to cycle. Telling people that cycling is safe if they leave their cars behind is a chicken and egg situation that is just not going to wash.

Good point regards the attached photo , pity the dockland development people didn’t spot it. in truth you would only need to place such bumps every 3 / 4 feet . just enough to keep a car out of the way.

In that case think it should be against the law to cycle without a helmet, i have had way too many near misses …

Why stop there? It should be against the law to cycle without a helmet, kneepads, elbow pads, torso armour and ankle supports. :rolleyes: If that saves a few injuries then extend the law to cover pedestrians too. I’m sure there are a few injuries to pedestrians which could have been prevented by helmets.

if that is how you feel fair enough, but after being knocked over twice i wouldn’t dare cycle anywhere without a helmet.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Also, the pic you posted shows yet another design flaw in bike lanes. the concrete bits are aligned in one direction only, so getting off that lane is easy mid-lane, but joining it mid-lane is impossible unless the cyclist stops and turns more than 90 degrees.

Yes, this is my problem with these. By the time you’ve stopped the bike and manoeuvred back into the lane, whoever you passed out has caught up again (unless you cycle for a good bit on the road to build up enough distance so that even when you stop to get back onto the lane they’re still well behind – and having to stay on the road like this defeats the purpose of the cycle lane in the first place). The lanes are just hopelessly inflexible the way they’re built at the moment.

cobalt that why i thought of putting both cycles lanes to one side of the road . also i meant the bumps as a means to keep cars out not keep bicycles in. these bumps could be spaced out much more, and faced off parralel instead of at an angle, would that work ??

Both tracks on one side of the road would certainly work to give enough width to pass, but I’m not sure of the implications for actually travelling – e.g. if you wanted to make a left turn and your cycle track was actually on the right hand side of the road, you’d have to cross all the traffic going both directions to do so. Although at a glance you might think that’s no different from the current situation where you’re on the left of the road and want to turn right, in fact it is worse because you’ve not got the benefit of filter arrows etc. that are set up to allow cars to turn, as would be the case if the bike were on the same side of the road as the cars. You’d end up having to cross with the pedestrians. And there’s never going to be continuity between all the streets for which side of the road the cycle lane is on. It’s a nice thought, but I think it’d end up making cycling desperately cumbersome, so people whose primary motivation in cycling is to get around the city efficiently just would stick on the road with the cars. And then the car drivers would get frustrated because we’re not in the cycle lanes.

A parallel rather than angled barrier, well spaced out, would certainly be better than what’s currently there in the photo, but as I said before, my personal preference would be for no barrier – just proper disciplining of the cars so they don’t venture into the cycle track – i.e. religious awarding of the penalty points for this offence every time it happens. My preference is partly based on the glass problem, which I have to say is a bit of a bugbear of mine. No barrier means the cycle track would get swept as the sweeping machines go round the road verges (and also crushed by the drivers who inevitably do stray into the cycle track).

In fairness, I find cars better about observing cycle tracks on the road than pedestrians are about observing cycle tracks on the pavement. In general, pedestrians seem to wander round oblivious to their surroundings, whereas at least most drivers are paying some attention!

@cobalt wrote:

Both tracks on one side of the road would certainly work to give enough width to pass, but I’m not sure of the implications for actually travelling – e.g. if you wanted to make a left turn and your cycle track was actually on the right hand side of the road, you’d have to cross all the traffic going both directions to do so. Although at a glance you might think that’s no different from the current situation where you’re on the left of the road and want to turn right, in fact it is worse because you’ve not got the benefit of filter arrows etc. that are set up to allow cars to turn, as would be the case if the bike were on the same side of the road as the cars. You’d end up having to cross with the pedestrians. And there’s never going to be continuity between all the streets for which side of the road the cycle lane is on. It’s a nice thought, but I think it’d end up making cycling desperately cumbersome, so people whose primary motivation in cycling is to get around the city efficiently just would stick on the road with the cars. And then the car drivers would get frustrated because we’re not in the cycle lanes.

Nor would it solve the glass problem, which I have to say is a bit of a bugbear of mine.

Ok so what we need to do in that case is increase the time alloted to pedestrians (and consequently cyclists) .

Vis a vis broken glass and peddles , thats is a question of maintenance . If such a laneway included both directions it ought to be wide enought to allow one of the specialized cleaning vehicles you see in temple bar to pass over and suck up all beneath it.

I think the cumbersome nature of making certain turns ought to be outweighed by the fact that despite the growth of different areas in the city , the vast majority of people go in one direction — town.

perhaps my idea ought to be consider as a stage. I.e. a way of initially getting people out of cars , thereby freeing up space which could then be reassed and reused in a better way. we have to start somewhere.

I know it rains alot but i firmly believe that if one was just to provide something like a physically seperated cycling lane people would jump at the chance. Car commuting is one of the most soul destroying inventions of the last century.

@a boyle wrote:

Ok so what we need to do in that case is increase the time alloted to pedestrians (and consequently cyclists).

Still will never be as much as for cars. I don’t think cyclists who cycle for efficiency rather than pleasure are going to buy it.

@a boyle wrote:

I think the cumbersome nature of making certain turns ought to be outweighed by the fact that despite the growth of different areas in the city , the vast majority of people go in one direction — town.

But we also have to get home again!:)

I sound horribly negative here – and I don’t mean to be really. On the whole, I enjoy cycling round Dublin.

i am not so naive as to think that some porker is going hop on a bike to save time. But i do think there are some people who are in cars would like to cycle. The sight of people on bikes leisurely cycling by as they sit in traffic would encourage a lot of people to migrate .

As regards cycling through the city ; you are a braver man than i.

What i am really trying to get is that this is a fairly simple thing to do , which can improve things without any perceptable disimprovement to car drivers. Because let’s face a large part of the problem is that with so many having to use cars it is difficult to argue reduction in car access unless you can guarantee enormous improvements in congestion, which of course you never can . every car driver that decides to take the bus/walk /cycle is just a quickly replaced by someone else.

@a boyle wrote:

What i am really trying to get is that this is a fairly simple thing to do , which can improve things without any perceptable disimprovement to car drivers.

But, being selfish, it would be a perceptible disimprovement to me, a cyclist. I’d either be slowed down significantly, or would have to become ‘one-of-those-irresponsible-cyclists-who-don’t-use-the-cycle-lanes-and-deserve-no-sympathy-if-they-get-knocked-down (TM)’. Nice red stripes (positioned appropriately, which is a problem on several roads at the moment), and policed with zeal – perhaps accompanied by a major ad campaign* – so cars simply don’t enter them would be a far better solution for me. The law is there. If someone built up half a dozen penalty points in a week from driving in a cycle lane, surely they’d change their behaviour? And it would be such easy pickings for the garda

expecting a car to sit behind another car turning right , instead of nipping into the cycle lanes is just never going to happen .

No amount of policing will ever provide the level of respect for road traffic rules you seek. Sad maybe (personnallly i don’t, i think it is a good thing that people in general are disrepectfull for some of our road traffic rules as they are a joke.)

not even in germany do they have that level of respect and as a result they often segregate cyclists.

far better to provide an exclusive space for cyclists , i think you concerns regarding left and right turns are over inflated. but no matter is not much more to add.

the idea is stated , it will never happen , and the just recently published census comfirms that we have cemented the development of the country for the nest century as a long commuting los angelas style environment. Even if we put cycle lanes in who the fuck is going to use them since all young people are living in athlone, portlaoise, and portarlingtion (i don’t even know where that is).

There is some good to this government . but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of living : it’s like two deaf and dumb monkeys at the controls …

Yes, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about cycle lane design. But I’m not “expecting a car to sit behind another car turning right, instead of nipping into the cycle lanes”. I am expecting some cars to do so, and a corner of me even wants them to do so occasionally when it’s safe (to crush the glass to powder)! What I also want, however, is to make car drivers as self-conscious and as careful when they do so as they would be if they were breaking a red light… look to see is it safe, double-check, triple-check, make extra sure there are no cyclists anywhere near (as well as no garda

Sorry to interject in your debate, lads. Just one minor thing:

@a boyle wrote:

not even in germany do they have that level of respect

They have it in The Netherlands.

I was at the Dublin Cycling Campaign annual lecture a couple of months ago and a woman in the audience asked how could cyclists make themnselves more visible. She was asking about lights, high-vis jackets etc., but it occurred to me that cyclists would be more visible if the penalties for hitting them were higher. You can almost guarantee that if a motorist were to get the death penalty for killing a cyclist, they’d make damn sure not to do it.
I know it’s an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate that motorists obviously see the existing penalties as minor relative to the crime, or have a level of confidence that little if anything will happen to them in the event of an incident.

anyway, sorry to interrupt. As ye were.

that is very good point. culpability in accidents might change driver behaviour. certainly it would make a bigger impact over some fine for entering a cycle lane (the latter would only be perceived as unnecesary nanny state nonsense).

Is such a change possible though? we are the only state in the eu (and europe i think) which has a consitution.

I am no barrister or solicitor, but i seems very unlikely that you could pass a law where a driver would be automatically guilty of reckless driving if he/she hit a cyclist. Even something less severe would be difficult. It has been pointed out to me that what holds ireland back in some ways is that we have a little too much democracy. (i am not sure if that is true but it is at least worth thinking about.)

They do respect cyclists in holland ,but is that not a result of there being so many ? if we had such a large number of cyclists then i think drivers would take care .

It seems with most of these things that it is a chicken and egg situation , nobody is going to cycle till lots are already cycling. And nobody wants to lose space on the road unless everyone will benefit. come on think about it these piddly strips will never get us anywhere.

a seperate space for cyclists, priority at some junctions, taking the ground floor of the corporation car parks and giving them over to cyclists. a good sturbborn middle finger raised to car drivers , and we might get somewhere.

if that is how you feel fair enough, but after being knocked over twice i wouldn’t dare cycle anywhere without a helmet.

I’m genuinely surprised to hear this. I’ve been cycling on and off in Dublin for nearly 15 years and I’ve never been knocked over – if by being knocked over you mean hit by a car. My cycling accidents have included falling after hitting wandering pedestrians (twice) and crashing into the side of a car which took a sudden left turn into a side street from slow moving traffic. The former resulted in some scratches and bruises and the latter a broken finger. Also years ago, I crashed into a pole 10 yards after mounting my bike having consumed a large amount of whiskey – I mistake I learned from.

I sound horribly negative here – and I don’t mean to be really. On the whole, I enjoy cycling round Dublin.

I not only enjoy it, I love it; especially when the weather is good.

A few pictures from last weekend’s Dublin Bicycle Festival.

Paddy Waters, a bicycle clown. Sadly I didn’t get a picture of the bit where he stands on the bike – one foot on the handlebars, one on the saddle – and goes around in circles.

Wheel building workshop with Sean O’T. Enlightening and entertaining.

I see from a recent article in the (London) Times that Ken Livingstone is proposing bikes should have numberplates.

The Times, July 28, 2006
Cycle numberplate plan to catch lawless riders
By Nicola Woolcock

CYCLISTS in London could be made to fit numberplates to their bikes under plans being drawn up by Ken Livingstone, the capital’s mayor.

All bicycles would be registered so that riders breaking the law, by cycling on pavements or going through red lights, could be caught on traffic cameras. Mr Livingstone is also investigating a possible ban on jaywalking, which is illegal in some countries.

Speaking on the London radio station LBC yesterday, Mr Livingstone said: “I think, I’m now persuaded, we should actually say that bikes and their owners should be registered.

“There should be a numberplate on the back so that the ones breaking the law, we can get them off the cameras. It’s the only way you can do it.”

Mr Livingstone was responding to a listener’s question about what the mayor would do to stop cyclists using the capital’s pavements.

He added: “You’ve got to have legislation, but I think, most likely we’ll look at putting up what’s called a private Bill and I think I can get the London boroughs — all of them, irrespective of parties — to most likely go along with that and have a proper vehicle/bicycle registration.”

Asked if that meant licence plates for bicycles, he said: “Yes, so you can catch the ones — the ones that are obeying the law, it makes no difference — but the ones who are going over red lights, driving on pavements, you get ’em.”

When asked about banning jaywalking — whereby people cross the road other than at zebra crossings or when a “green man” sign is shown — he said: “In America jaywalking is illegal, but in America you have this situation that at virtually every busy junction there is a zebra crossing and as the lights change the pedestrian has priority and only when they’ve crossed can then the cars turn.

“Now when John Redwood [the Conservative frontbencher] recently came up with some transport policies, that was the only one that I thought we should look at, and we are looking at that.

“But if you are going to ban jaywalking you’re going to have to have a lot more actual formal pedestrian crossings.”

Concern has increased over the behaviour of cyclists because of the rising number of bicycles on the roads in London.

Figures released last month showed that the number of people cycling in the capital had risen by 50 per cent in the past five years. Between 1993 and 2003 the level remained almost unchanged, but there are now 450,000 cycle trips in London every day.

It is thought that concerns about pollution, overcrowded and expensive public transport and the wish to keep fit have inspired the boom. Fear among commuters about using buses and the Underground after the July 7 terrorist attacks is also believed to be a factor.

Transport for London claims that investment in the London Cycle Network will mean that there will be 560 miles of cycle routes across London by 2010. Its annual expenditure on cycling has risen to

seems like a good idea,

if bicyles had small license plate you could easily remove the wrecked bicycles locked all over the city, and either charge the owner for getting rid of them , or return them to the owner.

@a boyle wrote:

seems like a good idea,

if bicyles had small license plate you could easily remove the wrecked bicycles locked all over the city, and either charge the owner for getting rid of them , or return them to the owner.

I really don’t see this happening, where are you going to mount a plate big enough to be seen by cameras which wouldn’t be obscured by the actual cyclist, his coat, bag etc. I can’t see seven year old kids heading down to Store Street to get their plates mounted to their bikes.

I would like all the abandoned bikes to be removed from the city though. They could start by taking all the wrecked ones. Whilst doing that they can tag all the rest, If they are still there in a month then take them too. In an ironic twist, I some times have to cycle around Dublin looking for a space to park my bike.

yes but it is not impossible . just a little bit of effort . such plates don’t have to be very big to be readable, not if they are made of the similar shiny material to signposts.

As a cyclist myself i know all too well of the crazy dangerous things cyclists do.

I don’t think the gardai would be allowed to simply collect the hundreds of wrecked bicycles . Even if they were allowed they won’t do it as it would cost them a fair bit to dispose of them all. they would want to be able to charge the owners.

with all the computers and things around , a fairly simple system for registring you bicycle could be put in place at modest cost.

@a boyle wrote:

I don’t think the gardai would be allowed to simply collect the hundreds of wrecked bicycles . Even if they were allowed they won’t do it as it would cost them a fair bit to dispose of them all. they would want to be able to charge the owners.

with all the computers and things around , a fairly simple system for registring you bicycle could be put in place at modest cost.

Actually they do this already (or rather the city council do) and the bikes are auctioned once a year from Kevin Street station.

thats great , but how come there are so many bicycle wrecks around the city ?

Awww come on…you know the way by know. All these things are done. They just never seem to be done. LOL

The Garda auction tends to be for bikes that were stolen and recovered rather than bikes that were freed from their forgotten places, afaik. Any bike that would be sufficiently damaged to warrant being cut from a bike rack probably wouldn’t interest anyone except a bike shop owner who’d buy a job-lot for parts (which does happen, but infrequently).

The other day I saw some DCC workers with a large wheelbarrow full of 6 or 8 damages bikes, but I couldn’t stop to ask them where they’d come from or why they’d decided to remove them. I presume there’s a process for monitoring damaged bikes, otherwise there’d be a danger that a bike that had had its wheels kicked in over a weekend (a very common occurrence) could disappear before the owner had had chance to arrange for its repair. I do remember one case where a sign was attached to a bike rack on Dame Street saying that any bikes left there a week later would be removed. It never came to pass, possibly because someone in DCC realised (or had it pointed out to them) that it’s not unlikely a person would lock their bike in town for a week or more and go on holidays. (Not to be recommended, it’s true, but there’s no law against it.)

Just on the number plates thing: Cyclists have a hard enough time making sure their bikes aren’t damages in the normal course of events. Putting a number plate on the bike would seem to be just another thing for the local head-the-balls to try to break off. Everything that’s not welded on to a bike seems to be fair game for the little gurriers who believe that if it’s not nailed down then you mustn’t care about it. I had a conversation with a kid (certainly under 10 years old) outside the recent Bike Festival during which he was telling me quite frankly about all the stuff he nicks with his mates- lights, reflectors, bells, etc. Strangely, he didn’t see anything wrong with this.

Edit: If you want to see some tragic bike wrecks, go to http://www.seanhillen.com (I linked it in a previous post) and look for his bicykills project. He had a big wall of them – 100 or more photos – at the bike festival and it made for very sad reading.

an idea would be to remove all locked bikes on the first day of the month (first monday say).

on the last day of the month a sticker could be placed on any suspicious bike, warning of removal.

that’s a dreaful idea. one day of the month you’re not allowed bring a bike to the city centre?

obvious wrecks should be removed and put in storage. if they’re not claimed within a specific time period of (say) a month, scrap them. it’s not as if the owner can claim they had much value.

@sw101 wrote:

that’s a dreaful idea. one day of the month you’re not allowed bring a bike to the city centre?

obvious wrecks should be removed and put in storage. if they’re not claimed within a specific time period of (say) a month, scrap them. it’s not as if the owner can claim they had much value.

no no.. the day before (or days before) all suspects wrecks and abandoned bikes are marked with a sticker. if they are not gone by the next monday ,take them away.

A story in todays Independent puts a lot of the discussion here in context

Scary stuff. What an amazingly low fine –

And the disqualification period! Poor aul Geraldine will be out of action for a little longer than 2 years. Im sure the guy is desperately sorry but I would have thought a longer disqualification is in order.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I do remember one case where a sign was attached to a bike rack on Dame Street saying that any bikes left there a week later would be removed. It never came to pass, possibly because someone in DCC realised (or had it pointed out to them) that it’s not unlikely a person would lock their bike in town for a week or more and go on holidays. (Not to be recommended, it’s true, but there’s no law against it.)

I recall a similar sign. I presumed it had come to pass and that the bikes form part f the Garda auction. Oh well another unsolvable problem for the city. Better put down a few hundred more racks then…. I wonder what the do in Amsterdam..Copenhagen…..etc

@Lotts wrote:

A story in todays Independent puts a lot of the discussion here in context

Scary stuff. What an amazingly low fine –

What puts this tragic case in even more context is the story contained in a few papers today about the three car passengers involved in a crash seven years ago who were awarded cumulative damages of 815,000 euros for injuries sustained.
One got 204,165 for a fractured leg, another got 165,252 for fractures, and the third got 445,632 for ‘injuries’. I don’t want to downplay these circumstances, and the parties involved were obviously badly injured, but it does highlight the point I made earlier about penalties not fitting the crime in the case of cycling. In the case cited above, he was overtaking on the inside, driving in a bus lane, doing 47 in a 30 zone and driving unaccompanied – all of which to me screams ‘very dangerous driving’ – yet his ‘genuine remorse’ seems to have resulted in a 1,500 fine and two-year ban. (And this is to ignore for the moment his explanation for his actions – that another driver was driving too slowly. What does that say about his attitude to other road users generally?)

If there were an automatic lifetime ban and requirement to pay medical expenses for the rest of the natural life of the victim, I imagine incidents like these would be almost non-existent.

In short: where’s the balance?

@a boyle wrote:

yes but it is not impossible . just a little bit of effort . such plates don’t have to be very big to be readable, not if they are made of the similar shiny material to signposts.

As a cyclist myself i know all too well of the crazy dangerous things cyclists do.

I don’t think the gardai would be allowed to simply collect the hundreds of wrecked bicycles . Even if they were allowed they won’t do it as it would cost them a fair bit to dispose of them all. they would want to be able to charge the owners.

with all the computers and things around , a fairly simple system for registring you bicycle could be put in place at modest cost.

In fairness, where are you going to mount a plate that will always be visibe and large enough to be photographed by a camera (whilst in motion) ?

Let the council collect the bikes. As I said, I’d start with the obviously trashed ones. Then move on to the ones that are locked to (non bike specific) street furnature. You could give them a bit of notice with a tag or an advertisement in the paper. If you got rid of all the abandoned bikes it would clean up the look of the streets a fair bit IMHO. It’s not a matter of clearing every bike off the street. Just the ones that are obviously going nowhere. Can’t be that difficult surely ?

And I think that Kevin st. auction is recovered stolen goods etc. not bikes formerly locked around the city.

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

In fairness, where are you going to mount a plate that will always be visibe and large enough to be photographed by a camera (whilst in motion) ?

Let the council collect the bikes. As I said, I’d start with the obviously trashed ones. Then move on to the ones that are locked to (non bike specific) street furnature. You could give them a bit of notice with a tag or an advertisement in the paper. If you got rid of all the abandoned bikes it would clean up the look of the streets a fair bit IMHO. It’s not a matter of clearing every bike off the street. Just the ones that are obviously going nowhere. Can’t be that difficult surely ?

And I think that Kevin st. auction is recovered stolen goods etc. not bikes formerly locked around the city.

sure , i think we will be waiting till the next century before anything is done however. I would agree with you that the bicycles locked to things other than bike racks is quite unsightly . i would give the clampers a set of bicycle locks to ‘clamp’ bicycles.

While rummaging around on YouTube recently (can’t think why, Graham 😉 ) I came across this clip of activity from the recent Festival:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GhrNPpTVOw

QUICK! Someone’s using a camera in the IFSC!!! 😮
Cool moves there – impressive stuff at the very end in particular.

While walking along recently, I thought of you (can’t think why, ctesiphon ;)) when I saw this (almost outside the door of Sam Stephenson’s former abode):

Interestingly this was mid morning, so none of the rush hour cyclists had seen fit to remove the bin for their fellow lane users either.

Not only is someone using a camera in the IFSC, someone’s riding a bike!! Call the po-lice!!

If this was in the ‘How well do you know Dublin?’ thread, I’d have the answer straight away. It’s part of my route home- N11 southbound, just past Donnybrook church. Often one of the residents of a nearby house parks right in the bike lane here, and mass traffic tends to block all the access points onto the bike lane on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings, so a bin is mild. But I agree- it’s odd how most cyclists will cycle around an obstacle rather than move it out of the way. Though I wonder how many cyclists had passed it that day- the majority of cyclists go northbound in morning rush hour and the southbound traffic is fairly minimal here, afaik. And let’s not forget the role of the binmen in all of this and, by extension, the role of the city council.

Regarding wrecked bikes, I saw some council workers removing some very obvious wrecks (basically crumpled frames) with a little portable angle grinder on Stephen’s Green the other week. So the council does actually remove these.

There’s a very interesting experiment taking place across a range of cities across Europe as detailed here in Der Spiegel. I like the idea very much and it appeals to my intuition that more rules of the road, regulations, signs, segregation and stricter enforcement (especially for cyclists and pedestrians) are poor substitutes for having basic consideration for your fellow woman/man and prioritising safety (particularly your own) over of rather arbitrary rules. I’m not sure you could apply it to the major arterial routes through a city of Dublin’s size but maybe they could experiment with some of the city centre areas; Temple Bar is an obvious candidate as even currently cars, bikes and pedestrians mingle anarchically without causing the end of the world. A similar situation exists de facto in the area bounded by Dawson St, the Green, Cuffe St, George’s/Aungier St and Dame St. Even if the safety improvements were marginal, just imagine the aesthetic benefits! The forests of poles and signs could be removed from these areas.

Car-free day in Brussels recently
[ATTACH]3486[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]3487[/ATTACH]
Car free day in Dublin (2004)

Ah, the Netherlands… such infrastructure, such law-abiding citizens, such Utopia.

Sure, Amsterdam remains to this day the only city where I’ve been clipped while cycling by a passing vehicle, but I’ll gladly put aside my bruises and chalk that up to bad luck. However, (call me a pessimist) kicking off this “let’s chuck out all the road signs and trust in people’s innate goodness” campaign (see jimg’s link to the charming little Der Spiegel article) wouldn’t seem to be the most, er, effective first step. It seems about as ill-advised as a “pay what you wish” night at the pub. Yes, other major cities like Dublin can learn from the Netherlands’ example, but I tend to think it’s the exception rather than the rule. Kind of like how scientists should study Keith Richards’ immune system… freakishly well-functioning.

However, to be fair, this “road sign-free” idea is not entirely misguided. In fact, the plan has enjoyed a long and colorful history in New York City for example, where cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike are able to effectively communicate through non-verbal signs such as the vigorous fist-shake, the flipped bird, and the “In my refusal to make eye contact or utilize any of my rearview mirrors, I’m going to just charge straight ahead and trust in my fellow citizen’s ability to get the f**k out of my f**king way.” In a charmingly democratic way, it gets traffic moving in a way that road signs fail to do. It could work in Dublin. Call me visionary.

And as a test run for this no-road-signs policy, perhaps Dublin can begin by removing the “LITTER” and “BRUSCAR” signage from bins and see if that improves the littering problem…

Besides your cute Keith Richards analogy, I’m I don’t see the basis for you being so dismissive. Not everyone shares your belief that the it’s only the exceptional innate superiority of the Dutch that allows such a system to work given that there are pilot programs and concrete plans in many different European countries including with our neighbours across the Irish sea. There are already small parts of Dublin – like Temple Bar – which effectively operate on this basis as stated. Many Italian towns and villages operate using an informal version of such a system and in my experience are very pleasant environments in which both to drive (slowly) and walk and the Italian stereotype certainly is very different to that of the Dutch.

Sorry to confound, jimg. I belong to the outmoded, old-fashioned quill and scroll tradition that doesn’t insert smileys when unleashing my good old-fashioned sarcasm about cultural stereotypes. But I’m actually not a Dutch supremacist, nor did I intend to come across as entirely dismissive of this experiment. (The great polarizing Keith Richards aside)

I absolutely agree with you that there is great appeal to a polite, intuitive system of moving about towns and villages, which is maybe why this system works well on smaller scale projects, as you’ve pointed out. I think we are actually in agreement that it has great potential (and real life applications) in places like Temple Bar and in villages and towns throughout Europe (not to mention gridlocked midtown Manhattan). I just found that the “unsafe is the new safe” optimism expressed in the article aroused a healthy knee-jerk skepticism. This does not believe I think the idea is entirely without merit.

Aesthetically, I think it’s a great idea to scale back on unneccessary road signs that just add clutter, as has been pointed out in other threads. I do not think the same about the total abolition of road signs. Road signs are there, primarily, to serve a practical function. Whether or not everyone obeys the speed limits, they are there to ensure (or at least promote) the safety of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Bottom line. If there is a dangerous curve ahead, I want to know. If a street is one-way, I want to know. And whether or not I want to travel to (insert culturally stereotypical undesirable place name here), I have a right to have strategically placed road signs with arrows indicating which route I can take to get there.

Out of curiosity, is it the aesthetics or the social dignity of the idea that appeals to you? Or both?

(And please don’t begrudge me my skeptically cocked eyebrow. I made it one day and my face froze like that.)

@manifesta wrote:

…………..Europe (not to mention gridlocked midtown Manhattan).

Manifesta,
Where did you get that notion? The traffic in NCY – even in Midtown – is rarely gridlocked and it always moves more smoothly than in Dublin. One can travel by cab from anywhere in the Upper East Side (10021) to the Seaport/Wall St. area in 15-20 minutes during “rush” hour. You try driving say from for e.g. Mt. Merrion to the IFSC in that time!
And to keep the athletes happy ,Central Park is closed to vehicular traffic at weekends for the boarders / skaters / cyclists / joggers.
KB2

Out of curiosity, is it the aesthetics or the social dignity of the idea that appeals to you? Or both?

There’s an element of “it’s sounds crazy but it just might work, capt!” to it’s appeal I admit. But it’s not so much that I fondly imagine that everyone will be tipping their caps and bidding each other top o’ the morning as they pass each other in the street and that goodly neighbourly relations will once again reign over society. It’s just that the current system just creates an unpleasant urban environment – particularly for cyclists and pedestrians. The most unappealing areas of Dublin for me are those with the most segregation and where all movement is governed by rules – for example at Christchurch – where railings and lights direct the movement for pedestrians, cyclists are chaparoned into unsuitable separate “lanes” and motorized vehicles perform a huge coordinated dance. Also I probably harbour some anti-authoritarian sympathies and have never viewed obeying rules for their own sake particularly virtuous. However for me, the most important benefit, it this approach works, would be in terms of safety and the least important would be the aesthetic benefits even if considerable.

KerryB, I meant honest-to-goodness midtown traffic: Times Square, garment district, crosstown 57th st. where you could eat lunch in the time it takes to get 5 blocks up Mad. Ave. Traffic flows relatively well along the major arteries on either side flanking Central Park: 2nd Ave, 7th Ave, etc.

Central Park is a great example of how bicycles, pedestrians, and cars can coexist, but that’s mostly because cars are limited to a few crosstown streets. Bike lanes are plenty wide and for the most part, pedestrians stay out of the way (always a few bumbling exceptions). Areas like Christ Church feel like such a zoo in comparison and I wish I knew what the solution would be. It’s always hard when the main concern seems to be cars first, pedestrians second, and then the bike lanes, “sympathy lanes” as I call them that they toss out as an afterthought.

In NYC there is an excellent cycling path up the West Side Highway where you’ve got the Hudson River to your left and all of Manhattan to the right. You can start down at Battery Park and cycle all the way up to 180th without fear of being smacked by an opening car door or mowed down by a taxi. But then, the bike lanes are entirely seperate and it is mostly intended for leisure.

What are people’s favorite places or routes to cycle in Dublin? And do you feel there is anything comparable in terms of cycle-friendly zones?

Government Support for S2S Project Announced

A new milestone in the campaign was reached today (12th Nov) when the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern T.D. and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Dick Roche T.D. announced their commitment to promote and support the proposal to upgrade and join up various existing sections of promenade and cycleways to form a continuous route around the 22kms seafront of Dublin Bay.

The announcement was made in a press briefing and photocall on the seafront at Clontarf. This is seen as a huge boost to the campaign and follows meetings between members of the group and the Taoiseach and the Minister.

more details on http://www.s2s.ie

Fantastic news – all that’s need now is a new bridge to link the two 🙂

Not that it’s exactly indicative of the typical Dublin experience (as video in any event heightens tensions), but the video below does convey just how ridiculously hostile Dublin city centre can be at times for pedestrians and cyclists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klIqo4ft3aQ

Could it ever have been imagined 100 years ago that the urban experience would be so drastically altered?

@ctesiphon wrote:

What puts this tragic case in even more context is the story contained in a few papers today about the three car passengers involved in a crash seven years ago who were awarded cumulative damages of 815,000 euros for injuries sustained.
One got 204,165 for a fractured leg, another got 165,252 for fractures, and the third got 445,632 for ‘injuries’. I don’t want to downplay these circumstances, and the parties involved were obviously badly injured, but it does highlight the point I made earlier about penalties not fitting the crime in the case of cycling. In the case cited above, he was overtaking on the inside, driving in a bus lane, doing 47 in a 30 zone and driving unaccompanied – all of which to me screams ‘very dangerous driving’ – yet his ‘genuine remorse’ seems to have resulted in a 1,500 fine and two-year ban.

are damages not usually the result of court cases seperate to the ones in which punitive action is taken against the offender?

@GrahamH wrote:

Not that it’s exactly indicative of the typical Dublin experience (as video in any event heightens tensions), but the video below does convey just how ridiculously hostile Dublin city centre can be at times for pedestrians and cyclists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klIqo4ft3aQ

I only just saw your post now. That’s my video 😀 All taken on my trusty Ixus 55. 🙂

@magicbastarder wrote:

are damages not usually the result of court cases seperate to the ones in which punitive action is taken against the offender?

afaik, yes. My post was as a result of the two stories appearing in the papers at roughly the same time and, yes, my ire at what I saw to be a minimal punishment for the driver in the latter case. As Lotts said, ‘What an amazingly low fine.’

It’s a small world Morlan 😀

(phew – good thing I didn’t say anything nasty ;)) Nice progression from day to night.

But really. even the amount of beeping horns is nothing short of a joke – I’ve never come across the city quite so aggressive before. Unless we just don’t notice that element when ‘live’, whatever about everything else.

low-lying, suffocating menace

Perfect description. Unfortunately.

Just spotted this on the DDDA website: the Docklands City Cycle is on again this year, Sunday 29th July.

See you there! 🙂

http://www.dublindocklands.ie/event_list.jsp?event_date=2007-7-29

*bump*

In case anyone has forgotten or isn’t aware, the Dublin City Cycle is on tomorrow morning at 11 am, starting in the IFSC.

Check http://www.dublincitycycle.ie for details.

And apparently the forecast is good! 😮 I mean: 😎

I’d be there but for the screw currently holding the bones in my leg together! damn you football!!! one week later and I might’ve been available, but such is life… enjoy it people

Hopefully a couple of Government Ministers will be taking part this year? 😎

….could someone tell me how the rickshaws are doing in dublin…..I cycle one in Oxford and a tourist told me that they have them back at home?

they have 3, I think, so not really a viable form of transport as they’re damn difficult to find.

oh really……do you know if they are allowed to ply for hire or do the regular taxi give them hassle….the rickshaw business is booming in london right now

They seem to be every where on the Green, Grafton ST, Westmoreland St & O Connell Axis

Just copying these here from the O’Connell Street thread. I don’t have time now to discuss, but if anyone else wants to have a go… DCC, I’m looking at you.

@Alek Smart wrote:

Well,If yiz want something even BETTER….hop on a 46A as far as Leeson St/Appian Way/Waterloo Rd. (Bring your flask and sandwiches)
Then be prepared to be amazed and elevated to a far higher plane at the scope of DCC`s professional planning branch as one attempts to take in Irelands ONLY Bicycle Dual carriageway divided by a Bus Lane with (For added safety) a Bus Stop on the inside.

Also take in the “Warning Sign” which I`m sure IS contained in the “Road Signs Manual”……well maybe the one used in the Childrens Art Competition.

I suspect Civic Offices has been the subject of a Hallucinogenic Mushroom Gas attack by Aliens from the planet Muppit…….Now where IS that P45 form….???? 😡

@ctesiphon wrote:

Just copying these here from the O’Connell Street thread. I don’t have time now to discuss, but if anyone else wants to have a go… DCC, I’m looking at you.

any photos?

@JuliusCaesar wrote:

any photos?

Its comical – still the same, obviously being left that way. bizarre. Best point of view for a snap maybe from upstairs in a bus.

I use this stretch on the way into town every day, but it’s usually so busy in the morning that it’d be tricky to get a picture.

I see what the aim is, I think- it’s an attempt to rectify the previous problem caused by the cycle lane hugging the kerb inside a left turning lane that had its own filter, and the consequent obstacle caused by straight ahead cyclists ‘blocking’ the left turning traffic into Appian Way, especially buses (the No.18?) coming from Waterloo Road.

But much of the traffic that goes left up Appian Way comes from Morehampton Road (N11) and is already in the left-most lane well in advance of the junction at the top of Waterloo Road, so in effect the cycle lane veers across a line of traffic. Ironically, it’s probably the congestion in the morning that makes this situation somewhat bearable, as the traffic speeds are often so low that the riske are minimised.

Since the southbound/outbound stretch between Appian Way and Waterloo Road was revised, which is almost identical to the northbound/inbound stretch described above but with the added complication of a bus stop to contend with, I’ve changed my route home to go via Ranelagh instead, even if it adds five minutes onto my journey.

Perhaps it has improved in the last couple of weeks?

Any 46Aers out there with a camera phone?

I noticed this morning that the inbound section of this has been done up in red, and the old kerb-hugging lane is gone for good. It is definitely more legible now than two weeks ago.

I couldn’t see the outbound side- might check it this evening. Any other reports?

The lecture below should be of general interest to all involved in the planning and design fields. Spread the word. I believe there’s still plenty of bike parking available in Trinity 😉
http://www.dublincycling.ie

Great that the minister showed up! 2 points 😉

Now if we can only get John Parkin as a consultant for a bicycle parking study of Dublin/St Stephens green/metro stations and bicycle strategy for Dublin to be implemented as legislation

what are the odds??? these two can do some talking….

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0828/1219680139697.html

Thursday, August 28, 2008
You’ll look sweet upon the seat

On your bike: cycling is perfectly compatible with fashion in Copenhagen. Photograph: Mikael Colville-Andersen, http://www.copenhagencyclechic.comOn your bike: cycling is perfectly compatible with fashion in Copenhagen. Photograph: Mikael Colville-Andersen, http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com

Bicycle safety campaigners here advocate helmets and high-visibility equipment but could a more Continental approach make cycling safer and get more people on their bikes? Cian Ginty reports

AS CLUNKY HELMETS, yellow reflective gear, and Lycra could be used as a stereotype for Irish cyclists, it might come as a surprise that women wearing high heels are a common sight on bicycles in Copenhagen.

The general image of cycling here is vastly different to so-called bicycle cultures where cycling is normalised and there is talk of a “slow bicycle movement”.

“Among thousands and thousands of cyclists on my daily routes, I think I see one or two reflective vests a week, if that,” says Mikael Colville-Andersen, a cycling advocate living in Copenhagen.

With Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany – where bicycle usage is high – the helmets and reflective clothing we think of as “a must” for cyclists are far from standard.

Colville-Andersen runs two bike advocacy blogs – the more serious http://www.Copenhagenize.com , and the style-centred Copenhagen Cycle Chic ( http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com ). Not only is he a bicycle advocate, but he is a campaigner for what he calls “the slow bicycle movement”.

“The main point with my blogs is that if cycling is to be an everyday activity then it can easily be done in everyday clothes, like millions of Europeans do every day. Actually, according to the European Cyclists’ Federation, there are 100 million Europeans who ride each day,” he says.

On Copenhagen Cycle Chic – largely a photographic documentation of the bicycle culture in Copenhagen – thousands of images show how normalised cycling is in the Danish capital. The photographs of cyclists in everyday clothing – and without helmets – reflect what has become standard behaviour for bike cultures: “This is the norm, yes. This is the norm for all cities and countries with established bike culture.

“If you can show people that cycling is effortless, doesn’t require ‘gear’ and is healthy – and you build them infrastructure to encourage them, then they will ride. Just look at Paris . . . Massive growth in cycling thanks to Velib. And now bike sales are rising because the Velibistas are graduating to their own bikes,” says Colville-Andersen.

“If [people] see normal people on normal bikes in normal clothes, they will be much closer to making the jump to cycling than if they see fancy bikes, gear and all that.”

IN PARIS, CYCLING has boomed just a year after the introduction of Velib, an on-street bike rental scheme with 20,000 bicycles. Automated stations are on many Parisian street corners. Set-up and maintenance costs are paid for in a billboards-for-bikes deal with ad company JC Decaux. A similar system being introduced by Dublin City Council and the same company has been criticised for its low number, just 450 bikes.

It is hoped those 450 bikes will help add a critical mass to the number of cyclists in Dublin. The most recent annual traffic survey by Dublin City Council showed a 17 per cent increase in cycling in the past year – a trend largely put down to the removal of heavy goods vehicles from the city’s roads since the opening of the Port Tunnel. But, because of a decline in the past decade, cycling is up only one per cent in 10 years.

“Cycling does not have a good image in Ireland, but maybe that is changing as more people come here from other European countries where cycling is more common,” says Muireann O’Dea, membership secretary at the Dublin Cycling Campaign (DCC).

“We definitely need to focus on the positive aspects of cycling – it has enormous health benefits, it gives you freedom, it’s the fastest and cheapest way to get around, and it’s better for the environment. Cycling is not as dangerous as people think – the number of cycling fatalities is far less than it was 20 years ago.”

There are many positives to focus on – from tackling obesity to helping the environment. In addition, providing cycling infrastructure costs less than other transport provisions, and bike parking takes up less space than car parking.

The DCC also wants a poster and TV campaign, with posters placed prominently on commuter routes highlighting that “It’s better by bike”.

BICYCLES HAVE A different image in different countries. Colville-Andersen says cycling was hijacked by the sports industry and he highlights how manufacturers sell bicycles worlds apart in the different European markets, pointing to raleighbikes.dk and raleigh.co.uk as a visual example of this.

“They sell ‘gear'”, he says of manufacturers here. “They have even brainwashed the population into worrying about the weight of their bikes. It’s just silly. They’ve stripped away chain guards, skirt guards, kickstands, fenders, you name it. All standard features on new and old bikes in Denmark and the Netherlands . . . I have a regular reader from Dublin who laments the fact that she can’t find any decent ‘granny bikes’ there, let alone baskets or chain guards.”

Image, of course, is not the only problem. Infrastructure is advanced in European countries with high bike usage – in Copenhagen, the first kerb-separated bike lanes were installed 25 years ago this year, while bicycles are allowed on the metro and regional trains, and taxis must be able to carry two bikes.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, cyclists have to contend with lanes simply painted on to roads or footpaths, or being bunched into bus lanes – hardly inspiring to would-be cyclists who are wary of buses. Bike parking at train stations, if available, amounts to the only integration with city or regional public transport.

Here, bike-safety promotion seems to overshadow bike promotion. The Government promotes helmets for cyclists, but those on the opposite side say the use of protective head gear, outside racing and mountain biking, is disproportionate safety obsession pushed on cyclists. They argue that the safety campaign damages the image of cycling by making it appear more dangerous than it is.

“Bike helmets are a personal issue and generally government bodies shouldn’t advocate helmet usage as it risks labelling cycling as a dangerous activity. The statistics do not reflect this. If you advocate bike helmets then you should, by following the logic, advocate pedestrian helmets since more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists,” says Colville-Andersen.

The view of the DCC – which is in the process of being merged into a national campaign group – is broadly the same. A DCC position paper on helmets highlights studies in Sheffield and Australia that show mandatory helmets for motorists would save more lives: “Hence any attempt to pigeonhole cyclists into compulsory protective headgear is unbalanced as a safety initiative.”

MANDATORY HELMET-WEARING laws have been introduced in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, and parts of the US. It has been proven, at least in Australia and New Zealand, that this led to a drop in the numbers of people cycling ; none of those countries is known for its high levels of cycling. The Government here continues to focus on safety.

“In the context of Ireland and the situation here, [helmets, and reflective vests] should be worn in the interests of road safety,” says Christine Hegarty, a spokeswoman for the Road Safety Authority (RSA).

The agency rejects any claim that helmets and reflective vests damage the image of cycling by making it look more dangerous than it actually is: “Cyclists are vulnerable road-users. The task of the RSA is to promote cycle safety in order to prevent injury.”

The British Medical Association agrees with the RSA’s stance. However, Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist at the University of Bath, found “wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk” as motorists drive closer to those wearing helmets. He used an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data that showed drivers passed an average of 3.33 inches closer when the cyclist wore a helmet than without. “Some people loathe my findings, usually because they are starting with the ‘common sense’ position that bicycle helmets must be a good thing,” Walker says on his blog.

Meanwhile, research published by the British Medical Journal , in its Injury Prevention Journal , supports the idea of safety in numbers. It shows that successfully promoting cycling can itself increase safety because, when more people start cycling, other road-users get used to them and fewer accidents occur. “This result is unexpected,” according to the research. “It appears that motorists adjust their behaviour in the presence of people walking and bicycling.”

However, there are conflicting views in the medical field, as among the cycling fraternity. But, if there is an honest interest in promoting cycling as a green and healthy mode of transport, instead of following car-dominated countries, should we not look to the example set by countries where cycling is normalised?

Peddling cycling how it works

With half of children being driven to school, promoting cycling, walking and public transport use is the aim of the Green Schools environmental initiative. Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey recently said the pilot scheme resulted in a 10 per cent drop in car use, with an eight per cent increase in walking or cycling.

But is there political will for real improvement?

The Dublin Cycle Campaign (DCC), in a submission to the Department of Transport’s national cycle policy last December, said: “Girls-only schools all have a uniform policy that requires the wearing of skirts and this is the main reason why girls do not cycle. So, policy change required straight away there. The Department of Education will have to deal with a change in uniform-wearing policy.”

Muireann O’Dea, membership secretary at the DCC, echoes this: “Wearing helmets and hi-vis jackets is definitely a disincentive for children, particularly girls, who are image-conscious.”

But others, including the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) – who have run the travel section of the pilot Green Schools scheme – aren’t so certain how image conscious girls are.

“The DTO would agree that a significant challenge in cycling promotion exists regarding post-primary children, but would not discriminate based on gender, and would not venture to suggest what the reasons for this might be without undertaking research,” said spokeswoman Sara Morris. The agency points out how the initiative “is helping achieve growth in cycling numbers in participating schools”.

© 2008 The Irish Times

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Why do all the PC heads insist on helmets? Even Boris Johnson has to wear one now for fear of offending them!

@Devin wrote:

Yeah I notice this in Amsterdam too. All the hotties cycle.

Not just the hotties- it’s everyone.

From a cursory daily examination, I’d say the profile of cyclists in Dublin is widening daily, though the numbers here are still way below the Danes, Dutch, Germans, etc. In Copenhagen, for example, 35% of trips to work and school are by bike, and 28% of all trips. And take it from me, it’s a beautiful thing to see in action (and I’m not just referring to the ladies!). I spent a few days there earlier this year, and I found my habits changed when I returned- more laid back, less aggressive and antagonistic. Sadly, that didn’t last.

(I still don’t break the lights though, Devin! ;))

One correction I’d make to the article, though- “The Government promotes helmets for cyclists” is not entirely true. The RSA promotes them, but other organs of the state have the opposite view, one informed by the common sense approach evidenced in the article above. The problem really is that there is no consistent message from the Govt. on the matter, and the RSA is the only branch making noise about it, hence the article’s understandable conclusion.

@SunnyDub wrote:

Why do all the PC heads insist on helmets? Even Boris Johnson has to wear one now for fear of offending them!

This is obviously a statement by someone who has never cycled in Dublin City in recent years. 😎 I think I’ll put this comment forward for the ‘Stupid Comment of the Month Award’. :rolleyes:

Can we not have that debate, please? There are never any winners. In essence, each to their own. The end? 🙂

(I can link to many versions of it that exist on the internet already, if anyone’s interested. All you need and then some can be found at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/)

I’ve cycled plenty in the city in recent years as it happens…and I would welcome much better facilities, and I’ve no problem with people wearing helmets…but why do some people have a problem with others not wearing them…

Anyway, anyone know any good shops for cruiser bikes?

I don’t know if any shop here stocks either of these, but you could always treat yourself to a trip to Leipzig or Copenhagen. 😉

http://www.retrovelo.de/ (Review.)

http://velorbis.com/ (The Scrap Deluxe would get my vote- Review.)

Now that’s what I’m talking bout, cool bikes, it’s a pity Irish bike shops only really sell mountain bikes and racers, why no trad street bikes?

Excellent article from today’s Guardian on cycling & road safety…

Elle Macpherson deserves a medal for defying the health and safety gods

The press are idiots to condemn the model for cycling without a helmet. The real villains are over-active traffic managers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/19/transport.transport

Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, 19th Sept 08

The model Elle Macpherson was this week pilloried by the tabloids for bicycling in a London street without a helmet and with her (helmeted) son on her handlebars. “Elle on wheels,” cried the Mail. “What the Elle are you doing?” screamed the Mirror with an editorial titled “Elle to pay”. Even the Times demanded a response to her behaviour from the gods of health and safety. The answer from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents was a predictable howl: “Illegal and dangerous!”

The truth is the opposite. Macpherson was probably the safest cyclist in London that day. Like the mayor, Boris Johnson, she is signed up (I guess by instinct) to the Wilde-Adams theory of compensatory risk assessment. By not wearing a helmet, she lowers her risk threshold and thus rides more carefully. She commendably cycles rather than drives a car and protects her child, who cannot manage his own risk. The society should give her a medal, not insult her. The press were idiots.

By chance, this week sees the publication of another tome in the mountain of evidence that Britain’s safety culture is making us increasingly unsafe. Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic collates a mass of evidence about how we drive cars and use roads. It demonstrates the extent of mendacious brain-washing inflicted on the public by health-and-safety lawyers, bureaucrats and sellers of expensive equipment.

why do some people have a problem with others not wearing them

Maybe when you cycle somewhere that doesn’t have heavy traffic like a park.

I do have a problem when someone is seen not wearing a helmet, especially one who is famous face (and in this case, the influential world of fashion). This is seen as it is ok not to wear helmets (or probably in this case ,not fashionable to wear one). Do you think it is a positive message to send out.

This same irresponsible reaction by people occurred during the law for mandatory helmet wearing was brought in for users of Motorbikes. Helmets help to greatly reduce head trauma. This is the reason why everyone should wear one, not because someone is tell you to do so.

I don’t like wearing them. They look stupid, unless you have the entire cycling gear on and and you have the physique of a racing cyclist. :rolleyes: I wear them because drivers, pedestrians and cyclists can be idiots and totally unpredictable.

This same irresponsible reaction by people occurred during the law for mandatory helmet wearing was brought in for users of Motorbikes. Helmets help to greatly reduce head trauma. This is the reason why everyone should wear one, not because someone is tell you to do so.

Sorry you are arguing by aristotelian logic; as an admirer of empiricism, I need more to be convinced.

The case for motorbike helmets is black and white and has been proven so in study after study. Ditto for seatbelts.

This is absolutely not the case for bicycle helmets; there have very conflicting results in the research – google it and you will find studies which have found them to cause more harm than good. Thus criticising someone for not wearing a helmet is unreasonable in my opinion.

The case for bicycle helmets seems to largely based on the idea that “it stands to reason that they improve safety”. On that basis, would you criticise pedestrians for not wearing helmets? I’m sure many die of head trauma when involved in accidents with motorised traffic.

“I do have a problem when someone is seen not wearing a helmet, especially one who is famous face (and in this case, the influential world of fashion). This is seen as it is ok not to wear helmets (or probably in this case ,not fashionable to wear one). Do you think it is a positive message to send out“

Even if you disagree with the evidence that societies with mandatory helmet laws have more accidents, and they do, it strikes me as very illiberal, if not downright fascist, to force other people to wear a helmet to assuage your guilt. people are responsible for their own actions and are well able to make informed decisions…in fact, given that there are less accidents where mandatory helmet laws are absent, it is good for society and others based on your interfering logic.:p

weehamster- did you have a look at the link I posted above?

All you need and then some can be found at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Seriously- it’s impossible to have this debate without knowledge of the content of that site.

@weehamster wrote:

I do have a problem when someone is seen not wearing a helmet, especially one who is famous face (and in this case, the influential world of fashion). This is seen as it is ok not to wear helmets (or probably in this case ,not fashionable to wear one). Do you think it is a positive message to send out.

Absolutely. This is the most positive message it is possible to send out. The more people realise that it is not necessary to have any special equipment – aside from a bike and night gear – the better. I was delighted to see the photos of Elle Macpherson – and Agnes Deyn (regularly) and Pixie Geldof (see yesterday’s edition of the Star [go on- just this once]) – riding a normal bike in a normal way as part of her normal day.

And in the last week I’ve seen Gordon D’Arcy and Denis Hickie both riding bikes in Dublin city- neither one wearing a helmet. (Doing Leinster proud!)

I’m not saying I would carry a toddler on my handlebars as Elle did, but your objection to the photo was on the grounds of the absence of a helmet on her own head.

@weehamster wrote:

This same irresponsible reaction by people occurred during the law for mandatory helmet wearing was brought in for users of Motorbikes. Helmets help to greatly reduce head trauma. This is the reason why everyone should wear one, not because someone is tell you to do so.

What do you mean ‘greatly reduce head trauma’ [my emphasis]? That’s a statement bordering on the meaningless, and typical of the groundless generalisations proffered by the promoters of helmets when all fact-based research and analysis indicates otherwise. In a relatively limited number of cases, helmets will prevent such an injury (incidents that are generally high speed crashes that don’t involve other vehicles, i.e. a road racer who becomes unseated when descending a mountain at speed, for example). In a higher number of cases in other situations – falling down at home; driving a car; walking to the shops – a helmet would prevent similar injury types. I presume, for the sake of consistency, you advocate the wearing of helmets in all such situations?

Furthermore, your statement ignores the fact that, in some situations, helmets can actually reduce a cyclist’s safety. Admittedly, these incidents are not all that common (rotational force applied to the neck being the most usual), but they do exist.

However, notwithstanding all of the above, there is another, more important dimension at work here that must be acknowledged. The collective or cumulative aspect of this debate is the critical one and, in essence, it is a textbook illustration of the fact that the common good is not just the sum of all individual goods. Even allowing for the fact that helmets can occasionally protect the individual in limited cases, it has been conclusively proven that the promotion of helmet wearing – the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, for example – results in a reduction in cyclist numbers (the reasons are numerous, but perceptions of the safety of the mode is the most significant one). When you consider that the accident rate for cycling actually rises as cycling numbers fall, this leads to the conclusion that promotion of helmets is a counter-productive measure which ultimately reduces the overall safety of cycling.

In addition, there is evidence to show that a car overtaking a cyclist will leave more room if the cyclist is not wearing a helmet, demonstrating again – though for different reasons – that helmet wearing actually increases risk for cyclists.

Finally, it has been calculated that, for every life year saved by the wearing of a helmet (someone who hits their head in an accident that would probably have killed them without the helmet [can never be conclusively proven, obviously]), 20 life years are lost through a variety of other means directly linked to the reduction in the number of cyclists- obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc.

What this all points to is the conclusion that the promotion of helmet wearing is a well-meaning exercise (probably- we can’t ignore the fact that many promoters happen to be manufacturers of the products, so the purity of their motive is, at best, questionable) that has the opposite effect from that which is intended.

Given the fact, mentioned above, that risk goes up as numbers go down, the opposite is obviously also true- as numbers increase, the accident rate falls. (This is different from, say, the accident rate for cars, where there is a relatively proportional relationship between the number of cars on the road and the number of people killed or seriously injured.) Therefore, I would argue that the best way of increasing the safety of cyclists is to get more people cycling, an objective which is not achievable by the promotion of helmets and which is, in fact, undermined by that very act. Otherwise, you are not just treating the symptoms rather than the disease, you are actually preparing petri dishes for the spores.

The Copenhagenize website has been following the debate in detail for some time. I would suggest having a look at the posts on helmets for a balanced perspective.

(Lastly – honest, I’m nearly finished! – this is an interesting article on mandatory motorcycle helmets that gave me pause for thought: http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html)

More of the same ill-informed tosh from the Irish Daily Mail, 25.ix.08:

1) Cycling one-handed is not dangerous- it’s one of the first skills a rider should learn. How otherwise can hand signals be made?

2) Cycling in an overcoat is about as dangerous as cycling in a skirt. Skirt guards are available for back wheels, but serve to protect the skirt/coat from dirt more than to keep it from catching in the ‘wheels, cogs and gears’ (cogs and gears?:confused:)- unless Mr Cuffe is actually wearing one of those floor-length Matrix type coats, but it doesn’t look like it from here.

3) See my last post for the helmet stuff. This point by the IDM is blatant scare-mongering, borne from a total ignorance of anything other than a desire to sensationalise.

4a) Does the absence of lights during daylight hours even need to be addressed?
4b) Who says he doesn’t have lights in his bag?
4c) But what’s that you say? Ther are lights on his bike? Where? Oh, right- attached to the front axle. And guess what- they look like the fancy Danish ones that require no batteries. What’s next? “Cuffe undermines national economy by refusing to buy batteries”?

The palpable concern for Mr Cuffe’s welfare is so touching. If only there was as much concern for the trees that died in order to produce the paper on which this crap was printed. Such a waste of life…

@ctesiphon wrote:

More of the same ill-informed tosh from the Irish Daily Mail, 25.ix.08:

If only there was as much concern for the trees that died in order to produce the paper on which this crap was printed. Such a waste of life…

Don’t make them go out of business, they’re the cheepest place to re-run planning ads when you’ve missed the deadline the first time round.

You can waffle whatever spiel you want, I’m going by personal experiences. Drivers in Dublin are dangerous and reckless and don’t pay attention of their surroundings. They serve intro bus/cycle lanes at free will. Because of this I was knocked down 4 times. Twice I hit my head off the ground after flying through the air thanks to the vehicle hitting me. Lets say I was very happy that I wore a helmet. The last time I also shattered my wrist which took forever to heal. Now my dear brother-in-law wasn’t so lucky. He also hit his head off the pavement but he didn’t ware helmets (which is what you are promoting). He died from head trauma.

Now you can continue on showing pictures of people with no helmets all you like, Just remember you are promoting cycling without helmets . My brother-in-law death could have been prevented by one, the driver of the car paying attention and two by him wearing a helmet.

weehamster- with the greatest of respect and sympathy, I will take hard evidence (‘wafffle’ and ‘spiel’? No.) over personal experience any day. It is precisely the prizing of personal experience over facts that causes so many problems when it comes to policy making and legislation. Personal experience simply has no place in that arena. The death of anyone in the circumstances you mention is certainly a tragedy, but to use that as the basis for legislation or policy is plain wrong.

And Yes- I certainly am promoting cycling without a helmet. I promote it every day by my actions, every time I mount my bike. I am proud to do so, and I will not change.

Sorry if this seems harsh, or disrespectful to your own circumstances, but it is a matter of great importance to me.

As I said upthread, this debate has been had, repeatedly. I didn’t want to go into it, but you called those of us who choose to go without helmets ‘irresponsible’ and I couldn’t let your subjective post go unchallenged.

Feel free to wear a helmet, by all means, but please do not try to dictate to me how I should dress as I go about my life.

Weehamster: “…. I’m going by personal experiences. Drivers in Dublin are dangerous and reckless….Because of this I was knocked down 4 times. Twice I hit my head off the ground after flying through the air thanks to the vehicle hitting me…. Now my dear brother-in-law wasn’t so lucky. He also hit his head off the pavement but he didn’t ware helmets (which is what you are promoting). He died from head trauma.

Now you can continue on showing pictures of people with no helmets all you like, Just remember you are promoting cycling without helmets…“

Well, Weehamster, I’d say some drivers in Dublin are dangerous and I’d prefer separate cycle lanes on the road (using a concrete barrier) to help with this…if you want to wear a helmet fine…and given you’re personal experience who would blame you…but the logic of your argument is poor. It’s also the classic you can’t criticise the war cos I lost a son in Iraq type of argument, baloney! So if someone gets killed by a bus walking across the street and a helmet would have saved their life, should helmets be mandatory for crossing bus lanes? If someone is shot in the chest and wasnt’ wearing a bullet proof vest should they be mandatory?

I think a more mature approach is to let people assess risk themselves and choose whether to wear a helmet or not, notwithstanding that a mandatory helmet law would be dictatorial in the extreme.

There’s also a little thing called evidence and it suggests cycling is not a dangerous activity and that wearing helmets are more widely worn there are less cyclists, more cars, etc.

Are all the people who don’t wear helmets in Dublin,, Paris, Copenhagen irresponsible? Are they irrational in that they can’t look after themselves?!

rack up dublin…

Hot on the heels of the DoT’s Smarter Travel initiative came the National Cycle Policy Framework, which now appears to have resulted in the development of Ireland’s first (annual?) National Bike Week!

It’s great to see the DoT putting proper energy into cycling- for evidence, check out the opening (two word) sentence of the Minister’s Foreword in the Policy document. Hopefully the local authorities will now get their acts together and start taking cycling seriously.

In the meantime, get out the oilcan! Bike Week is only 6 weeks away.

Anyone spotted what I think are the JC Decaux bike racks going in around the city?

I passed the one outside the Bull and Castle and saw not one, not two, not three, not four etc, etc, not eleven but twelve luminous jacketed men working on a patch of ground not much bigger that my living room. Industrious.

@PTB wrote:

Anyone spotted what I think are the JC Decaux bike racks going in around the city?

I passed the one outside the Bull and Castle and saw not one, not two, not three, not four etc, etc, not eleven but twelve luminous jacketed men working on a patch of ground not much bigger that my living room. Industrious.

not sierra communications?
Anyway we can’t even put a bike on the metro that is progress for you…

@PTB wrote:

Anyone spotted what I think are the JC Decaux bike racks going in around the city?

You’re right- they’re being installed as we speak.

All stations bar one are east of an axis running through the Four Courts.

@PTB wrote:

Industrious.

That’s Mick Wallace for you!

how come there are no stations west of the City, at Phoenix Park or IMMA/Kilmainham Jail/Heuston?
That is kinda crazy, they are perfect locations for the bikes.
Is there even one near the Guiness Storehouse?

The answer to that, as given by JCDecaux itself, is There aren’t enough bikes to cover the whole city.

I’ll let you work out the ‘logic’ :rolleyes: behind that for yourself.

It’s not the moving cars on our roads that are the problem but rather the ones which are parked. I cycle all over this city day in and day out from templeogue right over to santry quite often. I have built up a bank of pictures of cars and vans clearly showing the company name which are blocking cycle lanes. The trouble is when you are trying to navigate your way down camden street and then you come across some irresponsible ‘parker’ who has left their vehicle in a bus or cycle lane. the danger is then trying to get past them.

on the point of helmets – Ive always worn one. I’ve had 2 major enough accidents in my cycling career, and both of them left me in hospital. On both occassions I was told in hospital that without the helmet (which was smashed both times) I wouldn’t be where I am today. I’m not one of these people who would like to enforce helmets, I feel we could enforce sensible parking or something like that, but if people could see the 2 helmets that I have they would think twice about not wearing one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L89h0XYD-gg

ok ok so I broke some lights… but I’ve cycled this route for over four and a half years and I know the light sequence very well and what is coming. I wouldn’t go through a major junction if it had a red light…

Has anyone used the cycled lane on the N11 outside the Stillorgan Park Hotel (may have a different name now)… pot hole city and don’t get me started on Dublin cycle lanes….

Yep, that cycle lane is quite bumpy as well.

Does anyone know if the new cycling strategy requires a new standard of cycle lane? Have they gone for on-road or off and white lines or concrete barriers, I’d be very interested to know. I suspect it’s just the usual non-binding aspirational nonsense report after report that the government churns out by the bucket load, but maybe I’m wrong.

Good piece in today’s guardian

Cycling dangerous, on yer bike

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/08/cycling

I suspect SUVs and other large vehicles are the biggest dangers for cyclists, and the most disruptive vehicles on the street?

@ctesiphon wrote:

I don’t know if any shop here stocks either of these, but you could always treat yourself to a trip to Leipzig or Copenhagen. 😉

http://www.retrovelo.de/ (Review.)

http://velorbis.com/ (The Scrap Deluxe would get my vote- Review.)

Just had a look at those websites again, nice bikes, but I don’t think you can order them online.

Any tips for Dublin bike shops with retro or cruiser bikes for sale?

I like this one,

http://www.gumtree.ie/dublin/86/32043586.html

Anyone know when the garda auction is on?

Kevin Street Garda Station – the lost property section on the right as you go in

Sarah McInerney
Dublin’s new Samuel Beckett bridge, which will form part of the government’s €10m cross-city cycle route, has been described as “dangerous, unusable and unacceptable” by a cycling lobby group.

The landmark €60m piece of infrastructure, which opened last week, is an integral part of a circuit that will link Rathmines and Fairview Park. When launching the 7km route in September, Noel Dempsey, the transport minister, said it would “open up the city” to cyclists and show that “cycling can be safe for everyone”.

However, the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after testing the course that the cycle lanes are of insufficient width and in some cases put cyclists in danger. The group also claims that many lanes stop without warning and much of the signage appears to be illegal.

“It’s just not usable,” said James Leahy, who tested the route for the cycling body. “You cannot use it safely or without breaking the law. This is meant to be a new flagship phase in cycle routes for the next generation, but in this case they have just repeated all the same mistakes of the past.”

Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie, an umbrella group for Irish cycling campaigns, said the design of the facilities suggests they were an afterthought. “I suspect that when the bridge was designed it had no cycle lanes, and then last year Dempsey gave the city council €10m for the cycle route across the city,” he said.

“At that point it was too late. They couldn’t make the bridge wider, so they just put lanes in willy nilly wherever they could find the space. It really makes us despair. The engineers in Dublin city council just don’t get things right for cyclists.”

Leahy claimed the cycle lane on the east side of the bridge leads directly into oncoming traffic. The one on the west side has a “a very narrow cycle track on the footpath” which turns sharply on to the road, he added.

“These particular instances are actually quite dangerous,” Leahy said. “It would have been much better for the council not to draw out any cycle lanes and leave cyclists on the road.”

In a number of instances, the council has erected signs directing cyclists on to the footpath, which Leahy believes may be against the law.

“It is illegal to cycle on footpaths unless there is a designated cycle lane, and on one side of the bridge, there’s no cycle lane,” he said. “It’s meant to be a ‘shared space’ but that only works in an area where pedestrians and cyclists are taking their time. This is a commuter route where cyclists are likely to be going at high speed. This signage also is not in the Traffic Signs Regulations, so I would question its legality.”

Leahy said that even if the design does not break the rules, it is still unsuitable for cyclists to be on the pavement. “We’re constantly hearing calls from pedestrian groups to get us off the path, and we agree,” he said. “For elderly people it’s disconcerting to have cyclists zipping past in a blur, and it’s also been a big issue for the blind.”

Fionnuala Murphy, communications officer for the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, said the group is opposed to having cyclists on the pavement. “If you’re trying to navigate the city with a guide dog or a cane, it already takes a lot of concentration,” she said. “Trying to be aware of people flying past you at high speed just adds to the difficulty.”

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge but admitted there were substandard cycling facilities in urban areas. “One of the reasons I published Ireland’s first national cycle policy in April was because I recognised there were so many problems to be addressed before we could have a cycling culture,” he said.

Leahy and McKillen praised the principles set out in the policy, but said they were not in evidence on the bridge. “The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list,” Leahy said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

As a pedestrian I think it looks great!!!

http://www.waterwaysireland.org/index.cfm/section/article/page/1024GrandCanalGr

Grand Canal Way Opens 🙂

Fairly impressive cycle path running alongside the canal, 8.5km long, from Lucan to Inchicore. Better still, its flat, given that it runs alongside a canal and all 😉

I live in Park West and the number of people using it already for both cycling and recreation is really encouraging, you’d swear it was always there.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0820/1224277229259.html
nationwide (except longford) cycle lanes! while there is a central fund the councils will be doing it themselves so dont expect it any time soon though, so cycltist will still be in the middle of the country roads afraid of what may be in the bank! and before anyone starts i cycle too but i still go mad at people (id say about a third) taking up dangerous positions given the twisty roads and the speed difference

Dear PVC King,

I am writing to let you know that our cycling website has been updated. Additional information is now available on how to get the most out of cycling in the capital. This includes new short films showing other cyclists’ experiences.

Information is also available on how to get started, cycle training, guided cycle rides and maps. Please visit tfl.gov.uk/cycling

The Mayor of London’s Sky Ride is taking place on Sunday 5 September. It’s free and family friendly. To register, please visit tfl.gov.uk/skyride

Yours sincerely,

Chris Mather
Head of Behaviour Change

No billboards just bikes

I was scootering along on the north circular earlier today when an agressive cyclist flew past me shouting “get out of the cycle lane you ignorant @%$&*#” This is not the first time its happened to me as I would weave through rush hour traffic. I then witnessed the same polite righteous cyclist break 4 red lights in a row (I kept getting stopped at a red only to catch up with him shortly after). It really is jungle law out there.

What sort of a scooter do you ride?

ONQ.

Has anyone spotted these cyclehoop thingies? Now in Dublin and Belfast apparently.
Retrofitted to lampposts, stops the bike falling over with one wheel in the traffic and one on the pavement, and makes it more secure to lock your bike to a bollard/post – it can’t just be lifted over the top. http://www.cyclehoop.com/products/