Why a helmet, lights and hi-vis clothing don't necessarily make you a safe cyclist...

[MrEarl]

That is a brilliant idea.

It is much safer for me as a cyclist to proceed safely through a red light than to compete with cars when the lights go green.

Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?

Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems. It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.

 

[odyssey06]

So we know it doesn't necessarily make you a safe cyclist... or even to be seen as a cyclist or pedestrian... but you can order free hivis tops and other accessories from the RSA website:
https://www.rsaorders.ie/orders-online/

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?

Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't. It shouldn't take you too long to see.

There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all.

Brendan

 

[AlbacoreA]

Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?

Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems. It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.

Its not causing a problem for cyclists

 

[Leper]

Lads, we're fighting WW2 all over again. Cyclists hate motorists hate cyclists hate motorists. We're never going to see less cyclists on the road, get over it. It's great to see greenways, cycle lanes and a whole new industry has been built up around cyclists. Look at Dungarvan, a town that died even before the recession and has rejuvenated itself especially because of the Dungarvan - Waterford Greenway. Bike rental shops have been born, guesthouses, hotels are usually booked up for weekends. Dungarvan is now teeming with people and it's great to see the activity. The town owes its life to cyclists.

Cyclists break red lights and like somebody pointed out, it is generally safer for them to do so. It can even be beneficial for motorists when cyclists break the law. Motorists still own their fair share of the road. We need to have some of our laws changed to accommodate (cyclists) breaking the red light etc. Whether we like it or not it won't be too long before we see cyclists cycling on footpaths legally - another area where the law must be changed.

It all boils down to live-and-let-live; be a part of it for everyone's sake.

 

[Jim2007]

It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.

Not at all we should be actively discouraging the use of private cars in the city in favor of public transport and bicycles in an effort to reduce congestion and emissions. Parking spaces should be reduced by 30% over say five years, parking fines doubled or trebled and the number cars allowed enter the city restricted so that a new car may only enter when one exists.

https://youtu.be/9Fninviwbhg

 

[Bronte]

Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't. It shouldn't take you too long to see.

There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all.

Brendan

I cycle and I'm a driver in a city. I prefer as a driver and a cyclist that bikes are in front of cars at traffic lights as otherwise as a driver they can be hard to see. Even with hi viz and lights. Especially when it's dark and raining. Bikes should be allowed turn on red lights to get them out of the way where it is not dangerous to do so. Even with good cycle lanes here I'm always conscious that some drivers don't see us.

 

[AlbacoreA]

Same here as cyclist & driver. You want them where you can see them.

As a driver the reality is now it's the least preferred transport. So if you take the car you have to accept you'll have to wait a bit longer .

 

[Brendan Burgess]

You want them where you can see them.

MrEarl's philosophy seems to be "out of sight, out of mind"

Brendan

 

[dereko1969]

Dare I suggest that the cyclists should be in the bike lanes, and not out in front of cars on the roads to begin with ?

Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems. It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.

It's purely done for the safety of cyclists. Having them ahead of cars means they can set off without having a car that perhaps hasn't indicated turning left across them, it also puts them in the sight line of car drivers and should reduce collisions. Nothing petty about it.

 

[Leo]

Whoever decided to put cyclists in front of cars at traffic lights is responsible for causing a lot of problems. It's pure stupidity, in a petty effort to try and elevate the cyclist above all other commuters.

The idea of the advanced stop line & box is that when used correctly, it allows cyclists move off from the lights and quickly filter back left, allowing the quicker ones move ahead and so make space for motorists to then proceed. Without ASLs, it takes much longer for this order to be established and only tempts drivers to attempt to overtake overtaking cyclists, putting the cyclists and other road users in danger.

 

[MrEarl]

Could I suggest that you hire a bike for a week and see why most of the time cyclists do use bike lanes, but some of the time they don't. It shouldn't take you too long to see.

To be honest Mr. Burgess, I would not risk getting on a bike around Dublin city as I think it's too dangerous... and I blame bad infrastructure for that, well ahead of anything else (but I do acknowledge, bad drivers, bad pedestrians, bad cyclists also have to get a mention as adding to the danger) !.

There is a cyclist stop place at some junctions to make it safe for cyclists to proceed through a junction without having to compete with drivers like yourself who clearly thinks that they should not be on the road at all.

Brendan

While you are correct that I don't think cyclists should be on the road, that is in the context of them not being on the road because roads are for cars, buses etc. Likewise, I don't think cyclists should be on footpaths, because they are for pedestrians. Bikes should be in specific, "ring fenced" bike lanes, kept entirely clear from other commuters, regardless of whether they are in a car, on a bus, or walking. That way, everyone gets to progress in relative safety.

So, what's wrong with my theory - one simple thing, our lack of appropriate resources, and that boils down to the incompetence of the likes of the DCC, who led by Owen Keegan, have put the cart before the horse, by promoting cycling without providing a safe, satisfactory environment, for the cyclists they want commuting.

I know money doesn't grow on trees, so the DCC can't produce endless bike lanes overnight, but equally, there are numerous simple and sensible things that they could do, to improve the situation very quickly. An example off the top of my head, is this nonsense that they've carried on with, with regards to the proposed bike lane along Fairview (Dublin 3), rather than do the sensible thing and put the cycle lane through Fairview park (alongside the pedestrian footpaths already there, easily lit up, safe from traffic, not taking away valuable limited road space etc.), they've proposed several other stupid alternatives.

If anyone from the DCC happens to be reading this, then please take note - painting a few white lines on main roads, full of motor powered traffic having to commute in and out of a city, is not a safe or satisfactory solution.

 

[MrEarl]

The idea of the advanced stop line & box is that when used correctly, it allows cyclists move off from the lights and quickly filter back left, allowing the quicker ones move ahead and so make space for motorists to then proceed. Without ASLs, it takes much longer for this order to be established and only tempts drivers to attempt to overtake overtaking cyclists, putting the cyclists and other road users in danger.

Leo,

While that concept may make sense from the cyclists point of view, it results in delays for the large majority of commuters, and time costs money etc.

That's before we consider the potential risks for cyclists placed in that box at a junction ahead of the cars (be it from motorists traveling across in front of them, or the risk taking cyclists breaking the lights having nicely been positioned ahead of other road users etc.).

Better cycle lanes removes the need for the advance stop line and box, while facilitating the cyclists and the other motorists.

 

[MrEarl]

....As a driver the reality is now it's the least preferred transport. ....

If driving is the least preferred method of transport, why do so many people still use their cars (specifically around Dublin city, given there's more alternatives in Dublin than in other parts of the country) ?

Not at all we should be actively discouraging the use of private cars in the city in favor of public transport and bicycles in an effort to reduce congestion and emissions. Parking spaces should be reduced by 30% over say five years, parking fines doubled or trebled and the number cars allowed enter the city restricted so that a new car may only enter when one exists....

Motorists pay a very high price to use their cars, contribute significant ongoing revenue to the state for the benefit of using their cars, then have the likes of the DCC remove their already limited road space. So, why shoudnt the motorist be unhappy ? Moreover, what would happen if the state was no longer getting such high revenue from the motoring community, how would that be replaced if motorists stopped buying / owning cars etc. ? Where does the funding come from to pay for this public transport that you talk about, or the facilities that the cyclists take for granted ?

 

[Leo]

While that concept may make sense from the cyclists point of view, it results in delays for the large majority of commuters, and time costs money etc.

No, it actually speeds up the flow of traffic as it becomes safe for drivers to overtake more quickly, and legally.

I do 100% agree though that we should modify the prioritisation of available space, investment and infrastructure to the majority of commuters. The latest NTA numbers show private cars now account for less than 30% of daily commuters into Dublin (down from 39% in 2006, so some progress there), yet take up more space than all other forms of transport combined. On some routes, cyclists now outnumber private cars. So it is those <30% of commuters (myself included) who are costing the others time and money.

That's before we consider the potential risks for cyclists placed in that box at a junction ahead of the cars (be it from motorists traveling across in front of them, or the risk taking cyclists breaking the lights having nicely been positioned ahead of other road users etc.).

It can only be dangerous for them if motorists break the law. Advanced stop boxes move cyclists up front and out of drivers blind spots, and so reduce cyclist deaths due to motorists not giving adequate consideration to other road users.

Better cycle lanes removes the need for the advance stop line and box, while facilitating the cyclists and the other motorists.

They just don't, it will never be possible to fully segregate pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. We just don't have the physical space, let alone the financial resources to ever have that become close to a reality.

 

[Leo]

I would not risk getting on a bike around Dublin city as I think it's too dangerous... and I blame bad infrastructure for that

No one was ever killed by infrastructure, but through the poor behaviour of the victim themselves or other road users.

While you are correct that I don't think cyclists should be on the road, that is in the context of them not being on the road because roads are for cars, buses etc.

Roads were for pedestrians, horses and cyclists long before the invention of the motor vehicle. Part of our problems stem from the resentment of one class of road user has for others in exercising their rights in the use of infrastructure intended to be shared by all categories. There are those in all categories who seem to think they have some entitlement to take priority over all others. In many areas there are no footpaths or suitable alternatives. Do you feel those who live in such areas should be confined to their houses unless they can afford their own transport?

Along the majority of Irish streets, there is no space for segregated cycle infrastructure, a large part of that problem is down to the vast space given over to parking. How do you resolve that? How do cyclists get to and from this utopian segregated infrastructure from these streets?

Likewise, I don't think cyclists should be on footpaths, because they are for pedestrians. Bikes should be in specific, "ring fenced" bike lanes, kept entirely clear from other commuters, regardless of whether they are in a car, on a bus, or walking. That way, everyone gets to progress in relative safety.

The Gardai clearly have no issue with motorists in cycle lanes or on footpaths. It's a bit much to expect cyclists to restrict themselves to a small amount of segregated space when even that little space isn't being enforced in any way.

An example off the top of my head, is this nonsense that they've carried on with, with regards to the proposed bike lane along Fairview (Dublin 3), rather than do the sensible thing and put the cycle lane through Fairview park (alongside the pedestrian footpaths already there, easily lit up, safe from traffic, not taking away valuable limited road space etc.), they've proposed several other stupid alternatives.

The segregated lanes haven't worked in the Phoenix Park, what would be different about doing the same in Fairview?

 

[Purple]

Motorists pay a very high price to use their cars, contribute significant ongoing revenue to the state for the benefit of using their cars, then have the likes of the DCC remove their already limited road space.

If that motorist has three kids and earns say €50,000 a year they are still net recipients from the State. Should someone with no kids who earns €150,000 a year get priority because of their vastly greater net tax contribution?
The whole "motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't" is a stupid argument. Many cyclists also own cars and since 70% of people (and no public servants; the cost of pensions is the same as the total amount of tax they pay) don't make any net contribution to the State coffers there would be very few people on the roads if that criteria was used.

 

[Leo]

The whole "motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't" is a stupid argument.

Absolutely, significantly more motor tax revenue is spent on the Irish Water subvention than is allocated to roads and public transport budget, local property tax income and other exchequer streams account for over 40% or the roads and public infrastructure budget.

Then on the other side, if you want to fully account for the contribution of motorists to state finances, you need to include the costs of healthcare provision related to respiratory illnesses, traffic accidents, etc.. Then, there's the significant amount of money leaving the economy from the importation of cars and fuel...