# Pedestrians and Cyclists with deathwishes in Dublin



## JP1234 (25 Jun 2011)

Maybe it's a common thing but I don't get up to Dublin much

I couldn't count how many times we saw people either on foot or bike darting out in front of cars/trucks/buses but the most alarming were:

The woman on Stillorgan Road as we were driving in who decided as the lights changed to green to cross in front of 3 lanes of traffic, made worse as a bus was stopped blocking her access to the pavement...thank god no-one was driving at speed!

The cyclist on Abbey Street who didn't seem to notice people standing on the pavement due to oncoming trams in both directions and stepped out directly in front of a tram. I assume they have some sort of immediate braking system, the driver stopped probably a foot away from her. We saw the same woman a few minutes later on another street step in front of a car, causing it to swerve, she simply didn't bother looking.

Another cyclist on Stillorgan Road on the way home merrily going along in the bus lane with a coach behind her....while a cycling lane sat a foot to her left!

I don't know how many pedestrians we saw running across the road to save a few seconds...

Is this normal? Have some people forgotten how to safely cross a road? And I have to wonder if any of the above had been hit, who would get the blame?


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2011)

Maybe they are the other people who don't get up to Dublin much 
 On a serious note, I see as many dangerous drivers as pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## micmclo (25 Jun 2011)

The worst of all are women with child buggies.
Pedestrian crossings are not for them, that wouldn't do

They shove the buggy out to "test" the traffic. And stroll across as traffic stops. Usually there is a pedestrian crossing just up the road but you can't expect them to use that.

It's a matter of time before a multi tonne Dublin Bus flattens a child buggy. And it'll be sad but it wasn't the drivers fault, just a wreckless parent.
Some people are not fit to be parents


----------



## JP1234 (26 Jun 2011)

Purple said:


> Maybe they are the other people who don't get up to Dublin much
> On a serious note, I see as many dangerous drivers as pedestrians and cyclists.



I know... but down the country we can only dream of the day we get those roads and motorised vehicles you city slickers talk about 

As for bad drivers, totally agree. The idiot who tried to overtake us, a large lorry and a slow moving horse box on a winding lane gets that award yesterday.

I spend most of my time with my eyes shut hoping for the best. Then Mr JP takes over the driving....


----------



## horusd (26 Jun 2011)

Spend enough time in Dublin and you will notice two things about our city drug addicts & tough nuts:

1. The number of them on crutches.

2. Their propensity to walk out in front of traffic and ignore lights. I think it some kind of macho culture thing. Run us over if you dare. 

I kid you not.


----------



## Sunny (26 Jun 2011)

Sorry. Duplicate post.


----------



## Sunny (26 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Spend enough time in Dublin and you will notice two things about our city drug addicts & tough nuts:
> 
> 1. The number of them on crutches.
> 
> ...



You can't wait for lights if you have just mugged an old lady! 

Every road used is guilty of ignorance and dangerous behaviour. The amount of cars that speed up when lights are changing to red and up breaking a red light always amazes me. Most cyclists just ignore lights altogether. And pedestrians are complete nutters sometimes.


----------



## JP1234 (26 Jun 2011)

Going slightly OT but is it getting rougher or am I just noticing it more? I used to be up fairly regularly with the job I had but now I probably get up 2 or 3 times a year max. 



> Spend enough time in Dublin


I'll pass on that thanks


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2011)

JP1234 said:


> Going slightly OT but is it getting rougher or am I just noticing it more?


I don't see it getting worse but then again I seem to be lucky; I go into town at night about once every two weeks and have done so for the last 20 odd years and I've seen three or four fights in all that time.


----------



## thedaras (27 Jun 2011)

I agree with the stillorgan road issue that OP has,I see it happening all the time.Whites Cross juntion is a death trap,and many pedestrians have been killed /injured at this juntion.The main problem being drivers braking the red lights,and hundreds of school children need to cross those 3 lanes either side of the road,which includes,bus lanes ,cycle lanes and 2 traffic lanes.It breaks my heart to see kids trying to negotiate all of these vehicles evey day.
Re Dublin getting rougher,isnt it relative due to its population?
Have you ever seen Kilkenny on a fri/sat night?Its not confirned to Dublin.


----------



## horusd (27 Jun 2011)

I'm not sure Dublin is getting any rougher in the sense of outright violence. But what is noticable in Dublin is the often pervading "atmosfear". There is an aggressiveness in Dublin and perhaps elsewhere. Usually (but not exclusively) male "macho"ness + alcohol/drugs + attitude. This is evident even in driving. A distinct lack of courtesy is often the norm.


----------



## TarfHead (27 Jun 2011)

I spent some time this weekend using bikes from the Dublin Bike scheme - what a great system !

Any way, the nearest I came to an accident was yesterday in College Green. A cyclist behind me almost crashed into me cos I stopped at a red light  !


----------



## Mpsox (27 Jun 2011)

There's an Irish tradition of just wandering out on to the road to cross and expecting the traffic to stop, it's not a Dublin thing, if anything, it's more prevelent down the country. As for cyclists, astonishes me the amount that won't wear helmets. In fairness to them though, the situation is not helped by councils painting ridiculous cycle lanes where the only way you can pass a cyclist is by crossing the white line into the next lane, Belgard Road has some of those.


----------



## csirl (27 Jun 2011)

> Another cyclist on Stillorgan Road on the way home merrily going along in the bus lane with a coach behind her....while a cycling lane sat a foot to her left!


 
This sort of inconsiderate behaviour really annoys me. On my normal route to work there is a cycle lane on the footpath for much of the way. However, cyclists still insist on cycling slowly in the bus lane holding up bus loads of people. People will stop using QBCs if the buses are restricted to cycle pace.


----------



## Complainer (27 Jun 2011)

thedaras said:


> Have you ever seen Kilkenny on a fri/sat night?Its not confirned to Dublin.


That's all the Dubs down for the stag parties! (Speaking as a Dub).



Mpsox said:


> As for cyclists, astonishes me the amount that won't wear helmets.


There is no evidence that cycle helmets do anything to reduce injury rates for cyclists (speaking as a cycle helmet wearer).



JP1234 said:


> Another cyclist on Stillorgan Road on the way home merrily going along in the bus lane with a coach behind her....while a cycling lane sat a foot to her left!


The so-called cycle lane on the Stillorgan Road is a death-trap of broken glass, bus stop waiters, dog walkers (with the extendable dog lead stretched nicely across the full width of the cycle lane), pedestrians etc. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67669725&highlight=stillorgan#post67669725 and [broken link removed] and you'll start to understand why the cyclists use the bus lane, as they are legally entitled to do.


----------



## DerKaiser (27 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> There is no evidence that cycle helmets do anything to reduce injury rates for cyclists (speaking as a cycle helmet wearer).


 
It's an interesting one - I've seen a discussion before about car drivers being more cautious of cyclists without protective gear, maybe some kind of invisible protection would be the best solution!!

As an aside, I saw an accident on Saturday where a guy on a moped got clipped by an overtaking car at very low speed.  The guy was thrown off onto the road in what could have been a much more serious accident (as opposed to dislocating his shoulder, which was pretty serious I guess).

As far as I gathered, the accident arose because there was two lanes and the driver who clipped the moped was in the inside line and tried to get by despite there being cars outside of him.  I see this type of thing the whole time, and have always thought it dangerous, but it's the first time I have seen it result in an accident.

Two things are needed:

First and foremost, the driver in the inside lane should show a bit of patience and wait as long as necessary before using the outside lane to overtake.

Second, if you are in the outside lane and see a car ahead trying to negotiate a cyclist/moped/motorcyclists, give some leeway.  I've often seen the guy on the inside lane part of the way into executing the overtaking maneouvre when some inconsiderate bombs up outside putting everyone in a precarious situation.


----------



## Firefly (27 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> The so-called cycle lane on the Stillorgan Road is a death-trap of broken glass, *bus stop waiters*, dog walkers (with the extendable dog lead stretched nicely across the full width of the cycle lane), pedestrians etc.



Meals on wheels?


----------



## Latrade (27 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> There is no evidence that cycle helmets do anything to reduce injury rates for cyclists (speaking as a cycle helmet wearer).


 
Serious accidents, they do nothing, they are only effective against relatively minor falls. But those minor falls without a helmet could lead to fairly serious head injuries, with a helmet that risk is reduced. 

Doesn't fill you with huge confidence, but then it's the same for all types of head protection, it is effective against the more common, lower impact situations so worthwhile on that basis.


----------



## liaconn (27 Jun 2011)

One thing I can never understand is when you want to change lanes, you're sitting with your indicator on, you see a large gap between two cars and start to move over and the guy at the back of the gap who was happily driving at a reasonable speed, suddenly speeds up like mad to close the gap  and make sure you can't get in.
It's such a ludicrous thing to do.


----------



## Complainer (27 Jun 2011)

Latrade said:


> Serious accidents, they do nothing, they are only effective against relatively minor falls. But those minor falls without a helmet could lead to fairly serious head injuries, with a helmet that risk is reduced.
> 
> Doesn't fill you with huge confidence, but then it's the same for all types of head protection, it is effective against the more common, lower impact situations so worthwhile on that basis.


I've never seen any clear evidence that they are effective against minor falls. I wear one myself, it seems instinctively the right thing to do, but the evidence just isn't there afaik.

The same logic could be used to recommend helmets for all car drivers, and for all pedestrians too.


----------



## Latrade (27 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> I've never seen any clear evidence that they are effective against minor falls. I wear one myself, it seems instinctively the right thing to do, but the evidence just isn't there afaik.
> 
> The same logic could be used to recommend helmets for all car drivers, and for all pedestrians too.


 
Couldn't agree more. The only studies that I've seen that are even remotely scientific seem to indicate that you have to fall in a very specific way at a low speed, at a low impact level and on the strongest part of the helmet. The fact that it is a legal requirement in so many countries yet there hasn't actually been a full study on how effective they are is incredible.

But then the same is true of child car seats/booster seats compared to seat belts. No difference at all in safety once the child is over above 3. The difference there is that there are studies which clearly prove this point, but it's still law to have a child seat.


----------



## Leper (27 Jun 2011)

Every so often somebody comes on posting the usual Motorist V Pedestrian V Cyclist.  Add in buggy-pushers and wannabee marathon runners and nearly everybody has a rant. It's great to have a debate.

It doesn't matter if everybody knows what to do if an Algerian Turkey changes lanes on the Magic Roundabout if the Motorists, Pedestrians and Cyclists don't have common sense.

Common Sense and Common Courtesy are the least used of our attributes on the roads.  If we used them more perhaps we would have less accidents?


----------



## Latrade (28 Jun 2011)

Leper said:


> Every so often somebody comes on posting the usual Motorist V Pedestrian V Cyclist.  Add in buggy-pushers and wannabee marathon runners and nearly everybody has a rant. It's great to have a debate.
> 
> It doesn't matter if everybody knows what to do if an Algerian Turkey changes lanes on the Magic Roundabout if the Motorists, Pedestrians and Cyclists don't have common sense.
> 
> Common Sense and Common Courtesy are the least used of our attributes on the roads.  If we used them more perhaps we would have less accidents?



I think this is why cyclists (and I'm one) get annoyed at being singled out more often in road safety rants. I cycle, drive, walk and use public transport. I'm not perfect in any means if getting from A to B, neither is anyone else. Everyone contributes to elements of unsafe behaviour. Unfortunately statistics show that per head most accidents involve either pedestrians or motorists. So even with a few breaches of the rules of the road cyclists cause and are involved in fewer accidents.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (28 Jun 2011)

Going home through the Phoenix Park yesterday evening, I got caught behind someone rollerblading on the road and had to wait to overtake.  It was funny, and I wasn't in a hurry, but I can't imagine it was safe.


----------



## TarfHead (28 Jun 2011)

Latrade said:


> But then the same is true of child car seats/booster seats compared to seat belts. No difference at all in safety once the child is over above 3. The difference there is that there are studies which clearly prove this point, but it's still law to have a child seat.


 
I disagree.

A child on a back seat without a booster has the seat belt going across their neck or face. The booster gets the child into the right position for the seat belt. And letting a child use a belt that is not fixed at 3 points is just reckless.


----------



## csirl (28 Jun 2011)

TarfHead said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A child on a back seat without a booster has the seat belt going across their neck or face. The booster gets the child into the right position for the seat belt. And letting a child use a belt that is not fixed at 3 points is just reckless.


 
That well known Freakanomics book had a chapter on this issue. I think it all boils down to the fact that while seat belts are not designed for children, they are designed and integrated into the car. And, while car seats are designed for children, they are not designed with specific cars in mind which reduces their effectiveness and they have more failure points e.g. usually have two belts - the one holding the child in and the one holding the seat in the car, so twice as likely to have a seat belt failure in an accident.

I think the conclusion of the chapter was that for all their failings, if car manufacturers submitted their normal seat belts for assessment, they would pass the child safety requirements and be licensed for use on children. However, it is not politically correct to do so.


----------



## Latrade (28 Jun 2011)

TarfHead said:


> I disagree.
> 
> A child on a back seat without a booster has the seat belt going across their neck or face. The booster gets the child into the right position for the seat belt. And letting a child use a belt that is not fixed at 3 points is just reckless.



It's fine to disagree, but the crash test studies show no difference in the injuries sustained from a child seat to normal seat belt. That's repeated, controlled testing and they could find no benefit in a child seat.


----------



## TarfHead (28 Jun 2011)

Latrade said:


> It's fine to disagree, but the crash test studies show no difference .


 
It is fine to disagree, but ..

For my own peace of mind, my 8yo daughter will stay on a booster 'til she reaches the height recommended by the RSA (150cm, IIRC).

My view could be a minority one, judging by the resistance of my children's friends to using a booster when I'm driving. However, when the alternative, for them, is to get out and walk, they soon come around to my POV  !


----------



## Sylvester3 (29 Jun 2011)

I believe a cycle helmet saved me from a serious injury at the weekend. I was cycling along a coastal path marked for both pedestrians and cyclists. I use a bell to warn people that I'm approaching them from behind and most people appreciate that courtesy (I don't like making people jump as I pass). One family moved to the side and the father told his tot on a tricycle to stay where he was. Unfortunately the child was curious and turn to look, steering across the path and into my line. I had nowhere to go and had to brake hard - I have good bike with brake disks. I avoided the child but flipped out of the saddle directly onto my head, splitting the helmet, but otherwise coming away with only a torn shoulder ligament, sprained wrist and scratches. As I landed on asphalt, I think the damage would have been terrible without a helmet.


----------



## Complainer (29 Jun 2011)

Ouch! Glad to hear you're OK. Yes, families with kids on cycle lanes are dangerous. I normally hold back, and then have a little word with the parents as I go past.


----------



## Purple (29 Jun 2011)

Nasty Sylvester!
I don't use cycle lanes where there's only a white line between me and pedestrians as they are just too dangerous for all concerned.

I hate seeing cyclists going the wrong way down cycle lanes. It’s amazing that they think it’s ok.


----------



## markpb (29 Jun 2011)

Sylvester3 said:


> One family moved to the side and the father told his tot on a tricycle to stay where he was. Unfortunately the child was curious and turn to look, steering across the path and into my line.



Every cyclist should pass young children at snails pace bike - they're predictably unpredictable


----------



## Sylvester3 (30 Jun 2011)

markpb said:


> Every cyclist should pass young children at snails pace bike - they're predictably unpredictable



That thought passed through my mind just before the ground did.


----------



## Laramie (30 Jun 2011)

JP1234 said:


> Another cyclist on Stillorgan Road on the way home merrily going along in the bus lane with a coach behind her....while a cycling lane sat a foot to her left!


 
This is a regular occurence, with ordinary cyclists but more so the other kind, the sprayed on lycra type, on the Stillorgan dual carriageway. These Sean Kelly wannabees will actually cycle alongside the thick white line of the bus lane rather than use the cycle lane. And you know why?  It's because it's beneath them to cycle on the cycle lane. That's for wimps and *L* cyclists. Not us professionals.


----------



## cobalt (30 Jun 2011)

Did you take a look at the links in Complainer's post above? Have you cycled on a road bike with high-pressure narrow tyres?

The cycle track along the Stillorgan Road (N11) is truly appalling. On many parts the surface has completely disintegrated. It has been engineered to bring cyclists in conflict with pedestrians and people waiting at bus stops, it places bikes in a dangerous position in relation to other traffic turning left and exiting driveways, and it's an absolute rollercoaster ride where the pavement is dished for driveways - especially northbound from Mt Merrion Ave to Foster's Ave, and southbound from White's Cross to Foxrock Church. Unlike on the road, broken glass remains there for weeks as it's not crushed by traffic nor is the cycle track swept. And that's to say nothing of all the additional obstacles (signage, bins, parked cars _etc._) that's regularly sited in the cycle track. 

[broken link removed] (already linked by Complainer) displays the journey of one cyclist on one day as he travels in along the N11. It's nothing special - just one very ordinary journey along a very ordinary cycle path. But it illustrates just how crap that cycle path - and dozens like it all round the city - are. It provides an alternative reason to your superiority complex theory for why someone might find the road safer and more suitable than the cycle track.


----------



## Purple (30 Jun 2011)

cobalt said:


> Did you take a look at the links in Complainer's post above? Have you cycled on a road bike with high-pressure narrow tyres?
> 
> The cycle track along the Stillorgan Road (N11) is truly appalling. On many parts the surface has completely disintegrated. It has been engineered to bring cyclists in conflict with pedestrians and people waiting at bus stops, it places bikes in a dangerous position in relation to other traffic turning left and exiting driveways, and it's an absolute rollercoaster ride where the pavement is dished for driveways - especially northbound from Mt Merrion Ave to Foster's Ave, and southbound from White's Cross to Foxrock Church. Unlike on the road, broken glass remains there for weeks as it's not crushed by traffic nor is the cycle track swept. And that's to say nothing of all the additional obstacles (signage, bins, parked cars _etc._) that's regularly sited in the cycle track.
> 
> [broken link removed] (already linked by Complainer) displays the journey of one cyclist on one day as he travels in along the N11. It's nothing special - just one very ordinary journey along a very ordinary cycle path. But it illustrates just how crap that cycle path - and dozens like it all round the city - are. It provides an alternative reason to your superiority complex theory for why someone might find the road safer and more suitable than the cycle track.



Totally agree. I feel much safer cycling on the road most of the time. Cycle paths that are in effect part of the footpath are a bad idea and I never use them.


----------



## Laramie (30 Jun 2011)

What's wrong with the section just before the Montrose Hotel to the top of Mount Merrion Avenue southbound?


----------



## cobalt (30 Jun 2011)

From memory (it used to be my daily commute but isn't any longer):
Crap surface, pedestrians where they shouldn't be, unnecessary twists and turns round bus stops planted in your route, detour across the Trimleston slip road/old road at the point where it merges back with the N11 when traffic on the road can just keep going straight, glass, dangerous positioning or else required to halt relative to motorised traffic turning left (St Helen's, Booterstown Ave, Mt Merrion Ave). Halting unnecessarily's a pain since you're travelling uphill at this point and you lose all your momentum.

In fairness to the county council, they appear to have now realised the dangerous location of the off-road cycle track at the St Helen's and Booterstown Ave junctions and they've now painted a second on-road cycle track at those 2 locations. Unfortunately, they haven't realised the same problem exists at the other junctions too. So you end up bobbing up and down from pavement level to road.

Can I make a suggestion? The weather's promised fine for the next couple of days. If you own a bike, or there's one you can borrow, you might consider taking a wee spin along the N11 cycle track. It would give you a completely different perspective, and might mean you'd be less likely to find cyclists using the road instead of the path irritating, because you'd see the reason why they're there. Non-cyclists  really don't notice problems with cycling infrastructure because they've never had to use it, and therefore get understandably annoyed at cyclists not using what they perceive to be a perfectly good cycle path. My sister used to feel much as you seem to, until I brought her for a cycle like the one I'm suggesting to you. She actually finds her driving commute less stressful now, she says, because the cyclists on the road don't annoy her any more.


----------



## Mpsox (30 Jun 2011)

It doesn't matter what the cycle lane is like, if your peddling along, earphones in, fiddling with your iphone and no hands on the handlebars, in the rain, as some eejit was doing on the Belgard Road earlier on today.


----------



## Complainer (30 Jun 2011)

Just for the record, the vast majority of cycle lanes are not mandatory lanes. Mandatory lanes are marked with a continuous white line and red tarmac. If it is not mandatory, cyclists are not obliged to use it. If it is not mandatory, there is a reason why it is not mandatory - probably because the engineers realised that it is generally not safe to use.


----------



## Leper (1 Jul 2011)

We can talk, argue, debate, shout, kick, bite, shoot, moot, boot, scream, cry, die, until the cows come home and unless we get some common sense on the road from drivers, cyclists and pedestrians people will continue to die and be injured on our roads.


----------



## Complainer (2 Jul 2011)

Any Dublin cyclists who fancy a bare-faced protest about facilities for cyclists care to join me for a quick ride?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73085767&postcount=6

It brings a whole new meaning to 'flash mob'.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2011)

Ridin' naked you say... are there wimmen comin?


----------



## Complainer (15 Jul 2011)

Complainer said:


> Any Dublin cyclists who fancy a bare-faced protest about facilities for cyclists care to join me for a quick ride?
> 
> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73085767&postcount=6
> 
> It brings a whole new meaning to 'flash mob'.


The bad news is that the Dublin ride has been cancelled by the Gardai, for some strange reason. Awful pity - I've been practicing my Askaboutmoney.com body paint all week.


----------

