I hate cyclists!

[alonso]

Jesus SMP can you read?

[Supermanpolitician]

Jesus SMP can you read?

Have I missed something here?

The best of the cycle paths out there, are probably good enough for children to use.
But any serious cyclist who may be on a training spin or a serious cycle-commuter that will eat up KM of tarmac, no existing off road cycle track is desirable.

Please see my earlier point that to access such paths, it ordindarily involves some measure of detour.

If you're on 2 wheels and you working on your cadence, your time and kph/hr, detouring for the sake of a silly stretch of "cycling infastructure" that is usually unfit for purpose and will terminate after about 500m anyway; it just doesn't even come in for consideration.

[alonso]

ah the piece you quoted said nothing along those lines but that one kinda does...

The problem with our segrgated lanes is that they segregate to the extent that the cyclist ends up more like a pedestrian than a vehicle. If we had semi-segregated facilities between the path and road it would be better.

jman is not wrong in many cases but in a few he is. Eg the N11 segregated lane is absolutely bloody awful and difficult to cycle on - but the cyclist would not be wise to mix it with the 46As all the way out - plus the junction treatments aren't too bad either compared to some. So most will use it. Same goes for Leopardtwon road - an abomination of a facility but the narrow lanes make it difficult for bike and car to travel together - a lycra clad racer may use the road but the ambling commuter may prefer to use the crap cycle facility.

there;s a middle ground in the argument here. Off road lanes that dip and rise for every driveway are not worth using - they are a disgrace. Off road lanes that bring cyclists into danger at every junction are not to be used either. Therefore often they are not used,. Simple as that

Now SMP next time I am up Glenamuck Road i will have a look. It may be the case that in that one single example you are right. It may alos be the case that I will look at it and see a danger you don't and will only realise it's risk if you have a near miss

[Mic]

So long story short, it might be good enough for me, a leisure/keep fit cyclist with a cheap mountain bike, but the others somehow outrank me?

What is this "outrank" business are you talking about?
This simply demands that everybody cycle like you.
"if it's good enough for me, it should be good enough for everybody else in the country"
Not everybody cycles the same way and everybody should not have to cycle the same way.

Simple fact is this. Adequate cycle lane. Cyclist on road. Car could not pass.

Two of the above are facts. One is an assertion which based on an earlier argument.
The assertion may well be true, but the earlier argument doesn't hold water.

General response here is "Good on the cyclist, he's entitled to use the road even if there is an adeqaute cycle lane. Cycle lanes like that are only for ordinary people like SMP.Morally superior cyclists should use the road."

That's it in a nutshell.

I don't wish to be personal, but you seem to be inviting a question: have you got some kind of inferiority complex going here? Actually, maybe don't answer that. I don't know that it is relevant, except to say that is the impression I get from your form of argument.
I am sure that I, personallly, would use that cycle path you describe, should I happen to be in the area for a leisurely cycle. I do not however have some kind of complex that causes me to demand the same of *every* other cyclist.

The argument can be put like this:
if a cyclist is travelling at 20/30 kph along a road, which causes the car to slow to that speed, maybe the cyclist should cycle on a path even if it is only adequate for cycling at 5kph.
For reasons which have already been outlined, this is not a cut and dried argument. It can be debated, and this is essentially what a large chunk of this debate consists of.
What is not tenable, however, is to make that argument above solely on the basis of "cyclist safety".
I suggest that reading this thread sans prejudice should make that abundantly clear.

The point I was trying to make, in a nutshell, is: if public money is to be invested in cycling infrastructure, it would be better if infrastructure was in support of rather than undermining infrastucture for UTILITY cycling.

[Supermanpolitician]

Worth mentioning.

Out on Sunday for a drive. A cyclist with all the gear goes straight through a red light onto the main road near Palmers Pub in Kilternan. He had no intention of stopping. I rolled down the window as said that red lights applied to cyclists too. He said "F*&^ Off, I'm training for a triathlon."

So apparently if you are training for a triathlon the rules of the road do not apply.

[alonso]

Last week as I approached a green light on my bike, about 40 people decided to walk out in front of me against their red man. I rang my bell repeatedly and shouted to get out of my way. The crowd stopped and let me through, however one arrogant turd decided to "tut tut" me as I sailed past. As I pointed out the error of his ways he merely walked on.

Everyone has a story SMP. I have one almost every day which involve all road users.

[Toland]

Worth mentioning.

Out on Sunday for a drive. A cyclist with all the gear goes straight through a red light onto the main road near Palmers Pub in Kilternan. He had no intention of stopping. I rolled down the window as said that red lights applied to cyclists too. He said "F*&^ Off, I'm training for a triathlon."

So apparently if you are training for a triathlon the rules of the road do not apply.

I know. I hate triathletes too.

[Supermanpolitician]

I know. I hate triathletes too.

Exactly.

[myksav]

Fair points but this brings us back full circle to a point I made ages back.

Glenamuck road, a cycle lane which I use myself, good enough for me....not good enough for other cyclists. You seem to highlight that cycling on the road is their right and so they should not use the cycle lane.

In a case like this one the driver had to cycle around the cyclist. Nothing wrong with that. But the fact is there was a cycle lane there, a cycle lane which I use myself.

Correct me if I am wrong but I get the feeling the cycling on the road seems to be some form of protest over inadequate cycle lanes.

SMP, you keep mentioning the glenamuck road which you use for leisure cycling. That's fine, you have direct experience of that road. I don't, it might be sheer bliss to cycle on. Though I doubt it very much.
I do however have experience of other Irish cycle lanes and the vast majority of them are rubbish. Most are barely wide enough to take a bicycle, try one on a trike. Either one wheel is on the footpath (technically illegal) or one on the road outside the cycle lane (also techincally illegal). The surface is extremely rough, worse than the stretch of potholes I have to negotiate to reach a main road (and that no great shakes either). Rubbish, leaves, broken glass, storm-drains, parked cars, etc, all for the cyclist to handle.

Aside from cycle lanes, the behaviour of car drivers toward cyclists is quite bad. From experience and observation, drivers leave as little room for the cyclist as possible, will pull out of side roads in front of a cyclist, fail to dip lights on approach, park their cars in obstructive manners, etc.

I keep hearing people saying "why aren't there rules of the road for cyclists like for cars?" Which implies that they never read the Rules of the Road which contains a section specifically aimed at cyclists in addition to the general Rules which apply to all road users.

When was the last time you read the Rules of the Road?

[TommyO'Brien]

Worth mentioning.

Out on Sunday for a drive. A cyclist with all the gear goes straight through a red light onto the main road near Palmers Pub in Kilternan. He had no intention of stopping. I rolled down the window as said that red lights applied to cyclists too. He said "F*&^ Off, I'm training for a triathlon."

So apparently if you are training for a triathlon the rules of the road do not apply.

All too common unfortunately. Last Thursday I was in a taxi at the junction of Blessington Street and Upper Dorset Street. The traffic on Blessington Street had the right of way. Some cyclist decided to crash the lights from Upper Dorset Street and cycled straight into the path of a bus and the taxi. Both had to slam on the breaks. The taxi missed her by about a foot and I don't know how on earth the bus didn't hit her. She was damn lucky there was no other moving traffic in the other lane turning left or she would have been a goner. She either didn't see the red light or stupidly tried to outcycle the oncoming traffic.

That said, the state of cycle lane are a disgrace in Dublin. I was noticing a cycle path near me recently where rather than cutting out a piece of a very large footpath the cycle lane swerves suddenly to align it to a path later on. Why on earth the planners couldn't have allowed for a more sensible alignment is beside me. Cyclists having come down a steep hill have to suddenly serve if they don't want to hit the kerb. But if they misjudge the swerve they would end up crashing into traffic. It is crazy.

Cyclists deserve far better quality cycle paths. But they in turn need to be a lot more careful on the roads. I wish that stupid woman who cycled in front of the taxi had copped on and not tried to cycle through the lights. She is damn lucky to be alive. She owes her life to the sharp breaking of a bus driver and taxi driver, and her luck that the other lane was empty. I presumably she was shaken. I certainly was. I was sure we were going to hit her when she came flying at speed in front of us as we drove the on with the green light. And as we braked, the worry was that some of the traffic behind us would rear-end the taxi. I was shaking as I got to work.