Cyclist in collision with car - damage!

[AlbacoreA]

That's completely unacceptable, and typical of the 'just me' attitude too often prevalent in Ireland. It's OK for ME to use the cycle path, or the disabled parking spot, or the bus lane because I'm in a hurry, and others can go lump it.

Nothing of the kind. Considering the lack of enforcement of a whole plethora of laws, you expectation of enforcement of pedestrians is completely unrealistic. To be practical, there will be pedestrians on cycle paths especially where they are beside each other. I may wish it to be otherwise, and be vocal about it. But you have cycle with some responsibility, not to cause injury to others.

The cycle lane is clearly marked for cyclists only. Signs have been added recently to show that there should be no walkers on the lane. Anyone who continues to walk on it is being dangerously anti-social, and putting their own safety and safety of others at risk. It's not as if the alternative is a big problem - it's a parallel path about 5 metres away.

If its a big problem, how many deaths and injuries are caused by it.

Did you bother to read the article that you linked to?

Yup. I included it for balance. Its more useful sound bites, so others can get the bigger picture. Of course you can choose to see one side of any story.

Sorry, but cyclists don't 'come out of nowhere'. They usually come from the left side of traffic, filtering beside slow moving cars. If you find that cyclists are 'coming out of nowhere', you need to improve your observation.

Drivers observation certainly needs to be improved, as does there general awareness/expectation of cyclists. On the flip side, some cyclists very much over estimate their visibility and the limits of human situational awareness.

 

[Purple]

No offence but that kinda thinking only makes sense when looking at lines on a plan, or looking at it from the outside in, with no experience of actually doing it. A driver who doesn't cycle much if at all, for example.

Full marks for jumping to conclusions there. Unfortunately you are wrong.
I speak as someone who did a 9 mile each way commute through the city centre for years.

The speed limit on roads in areas with lots of pedestrian is usually reduced. So why then would someone cycle at 40kph in an area where its very likely pedestrian are going to cross your path. Almost always unpredictably. You can't stop that quick on a bike. Not even as quick as a car. So you can't go full whack around pedestrians.

If you cycle into someone at high speed you are just as likely to seriously injure yourself as the pedestrian. its going to hurt, and probably put you off the bike for some time. So it makes no sense to put yourself at that risk.

Yes, those are the points I made in my post. Where we differ is that I place the blame for any accident on the people who break the rules. I also place the onus to alter their behaviour on those who place everyone in danger by breaking the rules.

Cycle lanes are generally not suitable for cycling at high speed. If you want to cycle at high speed the roads are much better. The fastest route through a roundabout or a junction is always on the road. The cycle lanes slow you down at the junctions and often they put you in the wrong road position to get through a junction efficiently and safely.

Most people who commute on the bike a decent distance would be aware of all that.

The function of cycle lanes is to keep cyclists away from the danger of motorised vehicles. What you are saying is that cyclists should put themselves in harm’s way because pedestrians are too stupid to obey the rules. Your version of logic is different to mine.

 

[delgirl]

Cyclists should be aware of what side of the road they should be on, i.e. what direction they should be travelling in when they are using the cycle path.

Met a cyclist in the dark last night with no lights cycling on a 'cycle path', merely part of the road coloured red with broken lines, on my side of the road.

There is no cycle path on the opposite side of the road, just a footpath and the roadside. There are also no markings on the cycle path to indicate which way the cyclist is permitted to travel.

Would have thought it was common sense for a cyclist to travel on the same side of the road and in the same direction as motorists.

 

[Latrade]

How has this thread not been moved to LoS yet?
Anyway, as it meanders back to partisan accusations perhaps a little less sensitivity.
Phoenix Park is set up very poorly. Yes there are signs, but I don't like the culture of hiding behind signs (figuratively) to cover up poor planning. People park legally at the side of the road. The nearest paved area to you is right there, it is a natural response (especially if you don't frequent the park often) to assume this is a footpath as apart from signs there is no indication it is any different. Pedestrians on the cycleway is rarely people deliberately being obstructive, it's a genuine mistake.
But then along Fairview is the same, except here the cycleway suddenly switches sides, goes behind bus shelters and at this time of year is covered in nice, wet slippery leaves. You can use the bus lane (the sign specifically shows it is both a bus and cycle lane) but along this stretch I have observed some very aggressive driving from Bus drivers who want all cyclists on the ice rink of a footpath.
Anyway, as I cycle here every day, even though I have right of way on the shared path with pedestrians, it's simply a matter of preparing for pedestrians to be in the cycleway and slowing down to avoid incidents. Nice and simple without any self-righteous passive aggressiveness.
In the same way that drivers should adjust their driving based on the conditions of the road and presence of hazards (including cyclists and pedestrians) so should cyclists.

As to cyclists coming out of nowhere, while I have the moral authority that drivers should use their mirrors all the time, we know they don't so I cycle accordingly and assume every driver is suffering from tunnel vision and never uses their mirrors. I find having the moral victory is overshadowed by a couple of tonnes of metal demonstrating the laws of phsyics with flesh and bone.
The Boris issue is a significant issue, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he has blood on his hands. I see plenty of routes on my commute in where I can't see what DCC or Fingal could do about better provisions for cyclists without a complete investment in an entire new road network. Its similar in London. The roads aren't wide enough to provide adequate space in many places. However, this quote from the article made me chuckle:

Soon there were suggestions that the superhighways, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, might even increase the dangers for cyclists by giving them a false sense of security. A survey published by City Hall itself in 2010 found that more than half of cyclists said they felt no safer on a superhighway than without one. Two-thirds said they did not feel that motorised traffic respected the superhighway and regularly drove into or across one.

Given that the majority felt no safer, how do they develop a false sense of security?

I'd love better provisions for cyclists. I'd love to see more respect and awareness of cyclists by other road users. I'd love to see cyclists not put themselves in danger as often as they do in their haste to be kings of the commuting race. But much of that will come with time. In the meantime, I cycle accordingly (assume everyone around me is a homocidal idiot), slow down where necessary, don't get wound up when my assumptions are realised and I still manage a 10 mile commute in under 40mins.

 

[Purple]

Latrade, we all, I believe, cycle assuming the worst but hoping for the best. I am unaware of any cyclists that adopt a fundamentalist approach to pointing out the rules of the road to those around them , other than one who posts his confrontations on YouTube. What I do have a problem with is the proposition that the ignorance of other road users should negate the primary function of cycle paths and that they should be rendered effectively useless because pedestrians insist on behaving dangerously. The solution is not for cyclists to move onto the road, it is for pedestrians to remain on the footpath.
By the way, you average around 24Kmph so, taking into account that you probably have to stop a few times for lights etc, you probably move at an average of over 30Kmph. That’s enough to kill a small child that steps out in front of you. Perhaps the solution is that the parent of that child teaches them to use the roads and paths correctly.

 

[AlbacoreA]

Full marks for jumping to conclusions there. Unfortunately you are wrong.
I speak as someone who did a 9 mile each way commute through the city centre for years.


Yes, those are the points I made in my post. Where we differ is that I place the blame for any accident on the people who break the rules. I also place the onus to alter their behaviour on those who place everyone in danger by breaking the rules.

I'm not that interested in blame. Just practical common sense.

The function of cycle lanes is to keep cyclists away from the danger of motorised vehicles. What you are saying is that cyclists should put themselves in harm’s way because pedestrians are too stupid to obey the rules. Your version of logic is different to mine.

No I'm saying some times its safer to be on the road.

Your logic is that cycle lanes always safer. I disagree with that. Its not my logic though, its from looking at studies on the issue. Also my experience, that its safer to be centre lanes for turning right, or going round some roundabouts.

Shared space[edit]
Segregated cycle facilities are one way to improve the perception of safety. There are other approaches, such as shared space, which improve actual safety in part by decreasing the difference between real and perceived safety.[85] More recently, shared space redesigns of urban streets in Denmark and the Netherlands have arguably achieved significant improvements in safety (as well as congestion and quality of life) by replacing segregated facilities with integrated space. Traffic reform advocates including David Engwicht and John Adams suggest that the added perception of risk among all road users – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians – in shared facilities increases safety.[85] See the Utility cycling article for other examples of measures to improve both actual and perceived safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Studies_showing_greater_risks

 

[AlbacoreA]

...even though I have right of way on the shared path with pedestrians, it's simply a matter of preparing for pedestrians to be in the cycleway and slowing down to avoid incidents. Nice and simple without any self-righteous passive aggressiveness....

....I find having the moral victory is overshadowed by a couple of tonnes of metal demonstrating the laws of phsyics with flesh and bone.
....

Exactly. You have to be practical about it.

 

[AlbacoreA]

...However, this quote from the article made me chuckle:

Given that the majority felt no safer, how do they develop a false sense of security?...

Maybe the idea is certain spots should be highlighted as being more dangerous than perhaps people previously realised. For example, just because there's a cycle lane there perhaps you should wait behind a HGV rather than using the cycle lane to go inside of it.

 

[Purple]

I'm not that interested in blame. Just practical common sense.

I'm interested in making things better and I think that people should be educated to that end. It's not the place or function of individual cyclists to do this so maybe a few signs, adverts etc would help.

Considering what's been spent on improving the cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so it would be a pity if it wasn't used for what it was intended.
You seem to be of the view that we should just accept unsafe practices and work around them as best we can. If that's the case then we differ.

Your logic is that cycle lanes always safer. I disagree with that. Its not my logic though, its from looking at studies on the issue. Also my experience, that its safer to be centre lanes for turning right, or going round some roundabouts.

You should read my posts. I opened this topic by saying that cycle lanes which were just part of the footpath were unsafe and I used the road instead. My point is that they should be safer and if pedestrians were more aware of the rules they would be safer. Cyclists should cycle in the same direction as cars (i.e. on the left) and then pedestrians would know where to look to see them coming. Cyclists should have a bell and lights etc. You know, basic common sense.

 

[Latrade]

What I do have a problem with is the proposition that the ignorance of other road users should negate the primary function of cycle paths and that they should be rendered effectively useless because pedestrians insist on behaving dangerously. The solution is not for cyclists to move onto the road, it is for pedestrians to remain on the footpath.
By the way, you average around 24Kmph so, taking into account that you probably have to stop a few times for lights etc, you probably move at an average of over 30Kmph. That’s enough to kill a small child that steps out in front of you. Perhaps the solution is that the parent of that child teaches them to use the roads and paths correctly.

I think that's the difference, on the shared footpaths, I don't equate it to dangerous behaviour, mainly a genuine mistake or sometimes flawed design. I don't suggest cyclists stop using the shared footpaths, but approach them with caution with the view that pedestrians may be in their way.

Yup, you're spot on with the averages, but I hit the higher (high for me anyway) speeds where appropriate and safe. I'm fortunate that the time of my commute and route means I have more opportunities to do so than in some areas.

But I see it as no different to driving. If I see a pedestrian crossing ahead, I'll be alert to anyone nearby who may cross without looking and will reduce speed accordingly. Same if I'm driving when the schools are emptying and exactly the same when I'm cycling.

Having the right of way is one thing, but I'd rather be alert and go a bit easier at identifiable spots and not put myself in a position where I injure someone, right of way or not. In the same way I'd rather not be injured myself as a pedestrian, cyclist or driver by assuming everyone else is aware of my right of way.

From my experience, common courtesy is the key and it's actually more common than you'd think. I see drivers and pedestrians (even me on the rare times I make a mistake) apologise and admit an error, so you just move on and give an acknowledgement of no hard feelings. Yes there are always one or two..three or four... inconsiderate idiots, but I think there's far more courteous behaviour than bad, we just remember the bad more.

20 miles a day commuting for last 7 years and 20 years cycling, I've had two accidents that caused me injury. That's not a bad accident to mile ration considering every one is supposed to be so dangerous.

 

[AlbacoreA]

I'm interested in making things better and I think that people should be educated to that end. It's not the place or function of individual cyclists to do this so maybe a few signs, adverts etc would help.

Considering what's been spent on improving the cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so it would be a pity if it wasn't used for what it was intended.
You seem to be of the view that we should just accept unsafe practices and work around them as best we can. If that's the case then we differ.


You should read my posts. I opened this topic by saying that cycle lanes which were just part of the footpath were unsafe and I used the road instead. My point is that they should be safer and if pedestrians were more aware of the rules they would be safer. Cyclists should cycle in the same direction as cars (i.e. on the left) and then pedestrians would know where to look to see them coming. Cyclists should have a bell and lights etc. You know, basic common sense.

I think you have to make your mind up if using the road is putting yourself in "harms way" or not.

I'm not saying to use it anyway and accept it faults. That's your interpretation. I'm saying NOT to use it just because its the rules. Use it, if it makes sense. A lot of the cycling infrastructure isn't safer, it confusing, contradictory and potentially dangerous. I don't accept it as "safer" automatically, or use it simply because its the rules. Indeed the rules change. For example the obligation to stay in a cycle lane if it exists. Which suggests the rules aren't always right.

Much of the "cycling infrastructure" seems poorly thought out, I assume to be seen to be doing something than actually thinking about what they are doing. In some places the "cycling infrastructure" is radically different in logic on one side of the road to the other. At least be consistent.

 

[AlbacoreA]

I don't think this thread has anything to do with the topic anymore...

 

[Bonaparte]

I do think there are valid points still being made in this thread which are very relevant to the original post and subsequent assumptions. Basically there is no real cycling infrastructure in Ireland. Bike lanes come to a dead end with no obvious place to go, one example is directly across the road from the Department of the Environment office at the Custom House! Another lack of thought is demonstrated in Maynooth where there is a Cycle lane down the middle of the footpath which takes a Bus Queue into its way.

There is also a lot of discussion about regarding the requirement for cyclists to use cycle ways where they are provided. This is an interesting suggestion, for example the elevated cycle path from Chapleizod to Island Bridge is in my mind actually dangerous for a bike doing any speed at all. Therefore, I think that the paths should be available and used where practicable always noting that most cyclists around town are not leisure cyclists but workers trying to do their daily business

 

[AlbacoreA]

Maybe the thread could be split.

 

[Purple]

I think that's the difference, on the shared footpaths, I don't equate it to dangerous behaviour, mainly a genuine mistake or sometimes flawed design.

Most dangerous behaviour is not dangerous by intent, it is usually the result of a lack of awareness of what's going on around you (not you personally ).

 

[Bonaparte]

How has this thread not been moved to LoS yet?
Phoenix Park is set up very poorly. Yes there are signs, but I don't like the culture of hiding behind signs (figuratively) to cover up poor planning. People park legally at the side of the road. The nearest paved area to you is right there, it is a natural response (especially if you don't frequent the park often) to assume this is a footpath as apart from signs there is no indication it is any different.

Sorry Latrade but I have to take exception to these remarks. First of all when you park at the side of the road the nearest paved surface is indeed the road itself and we don't see drivers choosing to walk along on that surface!

You are right though in the assertion that poor planning is the main problem as I have stated myself previously in this thread.

The bottom line is that Government has no real interest in making a suitable infrastructure available for cycling. I have cycled a lot on the continent and basically countries such as Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have thought out the cycling infrastructure and put in place routes which are safe, signposted, and well respected by all road users.

In reality we have a low population which means that it should actually be easier to do something to facilitate a proper cycling infrastructure

 

[AlbacoreA]

because a road looks very similar to a foot path

 

[Ronnieb]

Certainly not but then neither does the cycle path in the park and especially when it's punctuated regularly with clear signs indicating its purpose

 

[AlbacoreA]

how does it not look like footpath? Its been a footpath for decades. Its only a cycle path the last two or so. Its logically where people expect a footpath.