We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A SERIES OF complaints to the transport authority details the cycling public’s concern with the Luas Cross City works in Dublin.
The complaints, released to TheJournal.ie under Freedom of Information by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, detail some of the issues raised by members of the public in the last three months, with the word “lethal” used on more than one occasion.
Currently, Luas Cross City is installing a track link between the Red and Green routes, together with the tram service’s expansion towards Broombridge in Cabra on Dublin’s northside.
Most of the issues concern the works seen between O’Connell Bridge and Parnell Square in the city centre.
Cycling alongside in-service Luas tracks can be hazardous as one or both wheels can easily become trapped in the rails’ grooves.
‘Sudden and dangerous’
One individual complained in late February of an issue created where the Luas lines are to be laid underneath an existing bridge in Phibsborough on the city’s northside.
“The space for cycling has been cut off,” the complainant says. “I have had to get off my bike these last few mornings.”
Surely you are not allowed block a road in such a sudden and dangerous way as this.
Another person took issue last month with the position of barriers at works on the corner of Abbey and O’Connell streets, which, they claimed, were limiting space between the curb and the tracks at that corner.
The barriers at the corner “get moved out onto the road from time to time”, the complainant said.
“This morning I tried to widen the road space but found that the barriers had been ‘cable tied’ to the traffic lights,” they said, adding that in doing so the road space between the barriers and the Luas tracks was decreased “significantly”, creating a ‘safety concern’ for both cyclists and pedestrians.
The track-works that had, until recently, been taking place at the Spire on O’Connell Street were called into question in early January.
Buckled
A cyclist claimed in their complaint that their back tire had been buckled badly after becoming caught in one of the tracks.
“I had already witnessed this happening twice at the same location before today,” the complainant said. “There must be some issue with the tarmac around these… and something needs to be done about this,” they added before querying as to how Luas Cross City could be billed for the damage to the bike.
Another cyclist followed up on a complaint she had made in November of last year after her bicycle likewise became caught in the tracks on O’Connell Street.
The woman said that as a result of her complaint a new electronic sign had been erected to warn cyclists at the site. Her accident in November had seen her “come off my bicycle in front of a bus”.
“Unfortunately, my shoulder still isn’t back to its full strength. I have had ongoing pain and issues regarding certain movements; lifting my baby is difficult using my left arm, as is turning on switches of a certain height or putting on a backpack,” she said.
The woman did not attempt to bill Luas Cross City however, but rather said she “just wanted to keep you in the loop”.
At the end of the street at the Rotunda Hospital, one person complained that the “oil and grease from cars and buses and wet weather” had made the laid tracks “absolutely lethal” and a “serious hazard”.
“I purposefully slowed down coming towards it and still ended up falling heavily on the ground hurting my hip and elbow,” they said.
That complainant suggested that a temporary material be placed across the lines to aid pedestrians and cyclists, and that warning signage needed to be improved.
I don’t intend to make an injury claim. It cost me €105 to replace my derailer and hanger on my bicycle damaged as a result of this fall. I expect DCC to refund this to me at the earliest possible convenience.
‘Insane’
The complaints are not restricted to the north side of the city. One cyclist complained in February that works on Dawson Street, between St Stephen’s Green and Trinity College, are “so dangerous that it will only be a matter of time before there is a serious accident”.
“This morning because it was so wet, the tracks… caused my bike to slip and I came a cropper off my bike and straight out in front of a bus,” the complaint reads.
Thankfully there was enough distance between me and the bus for him to stop, but I banjaxed my knee and elbow and damaged my bike. I would just like to point out that not enough is being done by the construction company [to] ensure the safety of cyclists.
A further complaint in early January deals with the “lethal” nature of the Luas works around the city centre.
“I would like to complain about the terrible design of the Luas works for cyclists,” the complainant says.
The insane layout of the roadworks around the tracks are lethal for cyclists. How was this permitted when there are so many cyclists using that route.
I hope the planners are held responsible for this negligence and that there are no deaths as a result.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Top boss of mine broke his arm in Amerikay lately trying to ride over tramlines instead of dismounting and walking across them and that simply confirmed all I knew or believed already about him.
@John O’Driscoll: You do get you are meant to cycle over tram lines and it it is cycling beside them is the problem?
The whole idea a cyclist should get off their bike and walk instead is ridiculous. Imagine telling a car driver to get out of their car and push it for section of their journey. The roads are not meant to dangerous for a portion of the road users. Your ignorant comment says way more about you than what your boss is like.
@Kal Ipers: Why is it ridiculous? It’s a temporary inconvenience and has to be done. Ever heard of the concept of give and take. Or is life all about take take take with you. That’s coming from a commited cyclist who does 10,000 miles a year, commuting, club cycling, Sportives and up hill and down dale.
@Dids: I think I made it very clear why it is ridiculous. They do not expect anybody else to suddenly stop using other transport and walk instead due to road being shut down. It doesn’t have to be done this way the road should be safe for its users.
The expression called “tram lining” is there for a reason. Most tracks have clear notices saying “Dismount before crossing”. Other road vehicles do not as a rule have such narrow tyres as can fit into the groove and its gauge.
My point is well made and I stand over it. Cyclists these days seem to think they are some especially privileged group, beyond criticism and of such virtue that only they are entitled to take offence at what others do. In short, they – and I say this knowing no general principle can be prove from anecdote – in my experience are over-weeningly arrogant and you know what they say about what comes after excessive pride.
Aw diddums. Skin our kneesie-weesies den? Get back in the saddle and don’t have your nose in the air so high next time might see where yer goin.
@John O’Driscoll: You are meant to cycle over tram lines not dismount. It is cycling parallel to a tram line that is the problem. Never saw a single dismount sign and I go over the tracks a number of times daily.
So Kal you are in control of your front wheel at all times and always have it orthogonal to any possible hazardous groove or declivity. It has never twisted out of your control for any reason, slow wobble, object causing deflection, greasy surface, etc.? Well you’re a better cyclist than I and I’ve been riding 40 years (current model is a Trek FX) and have plenty of pins and wires in my legs to illustrate that of all the laws I know and try to observe, Murphy’s is the most consistent and painful for those who acknowledge it more in breach than observance.
And my boss showed us a pic of him with a broken arm in plaster and his bike and he standing beside a US sign saying “Tramlines. Hazard. Dismount before crossing.” Just confirmed he’s a…braver guy than I. In that respect at least.
@John O’Driscoll: There are tram lines all over Europe and you are not required to dismount. Cycle lanes go directly over them here. You are insane to even think that cyclists are meant to get off their bikes every time they cross tram lines. DCC have already said they still have to put in the guards that stop tires getting caught in the tracks. They know there is an issue during construction and will be paying compensation for the accidents that already happened.
Quite frankly if you are as rude a person on your bike as you are online, Kal, I’m surprised nobody has run you off the road yet. Count your blessings and learn some manners before they do.
Now, you can behave as stupidly, arrogantly, and riskily as you like on your bike in a private place. However, on a public road you are required by law (1961 Act, specifically) to comport yourself “with reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.”
Now I don’t care if you giver yourself a terminal case of road rash tramlining along the LUAS. Might do you good In fact. I do not, however, wish to be inconvenienced in my own travels by having to pause while you get scraped off the road.
Behave yourself. You are very much a knife at a gunfight when compared to other users. Dismissed.
@John O’Driscoll: If you think what I said is that rude you need a stronger backbone. You are simply wrong about tram lines. I cross them over 10 times a day and have never seen a dismount sign in this country for tram lines. The roads are meant to be designed for all traffic. Cyclists are traffic and DCC are liable for any injuries as a result of their neglect to road users especially when they know about it. If you think I am rude you seem to miss your first comment about your boss says how opinionated and rude you are.
@John O’Driscoll: BTW here is what the RSA say about tram line for cyclists ” Tram tracks
Cyclists need to take special care because tram tracks can be slippery, especially
during wet or icy weather. In particular, cyclists should avoid braking while on
tram rails. They should always cross tram rails at a right angle or as close to it as
possible. They should take care to avoid getting their bicycle wheels caught in the
groove of the tram rails.” No need to get off your bike and that is how you cross them
Whatever inference you drew from my words is your own Kal. I said nothing derogatory about anyone. You, by contrast, …do you know what? It doesn’t matter. Doubtless you’ll find your own Damascus road rash and if you have the potential it will make you a better wiser person. If not, well, no loss to the world really. Enjoy your high horse, may vaulting arrogance never make you come a cropper.
@John O’Driscoll: Well you certainly wished harm to me which is beyond rude. If you think you aren’t on a high horse about how YOU incorrectly think cyclists should cycle you are nuts.
Let’s just temporarily ban all cyclists in Dublin until road works are complete. We also introduce a new cyclist license exam. Bright pink hi vis jackets for new cyclists in the first 5 years. It makes no sense that cyclists don’t have to know the rules of the road. Grow up and get a car you hippies.
@Bry Krwn: am picturing you sitting in your car lookin in your mirror and telling yourself how grown up you look now.
@Bry Krwn: knowing the duration of these road works, we would be a cycle free city for what feels like nearly a decade.
Muppet
@Paul Cunningham: great idea!
@Bry Krwn: Yes and lets ban dull coloured cars and make lights on during the day compulsory. Actually lets also make them just neon coloured as motorists spend a lot of their time bumping into each. Also a complete ban on drivers using phones, be it hands free or otherwise they are a distraction. While we are at it lets ban radios as well. Now lets look at you’re request for cyclist license exam. How do you intend to examine children? Do we then need to have age specific licenses? Could this lead to age restrictions on cycling? Insurance, taxing? Yea I can see people being in favour of such when they are buying their kids bikes for christmas/birthdays?
@Neil McDonnell: most new cars do come with running lights, my company will dismiss someone for using even hands free (engine on / phone off policy)
I have also seen cyclists chatting on phones via head phones (or in hand!) and also listening to music on headphones as they cycle through the city
Yes it would be easy enough to work out a system where young children would not be allowed cycle on certain traffic ways, and have to provisionally licence as they become teenagers etc. I don’t see this as the insurmountable obstacle your attempting to present it as.
Anyone in charge of a vehicle on a public road should be required to carry insurance.
I seen a cyclist fall off their bike and badly damage a car door, shut at the driver and cycle away, should the cyclists not be liable and responsible?
I am not defending crazy motorists, nor would I, all road users should be made respect the rules of the road, regardless of the vehicle.
@Bry Krwn: Just in case you haven’t yet worked it out, Bry – the reason why there is no test for cyclists is because cyclists don’t kill people on the road. They don’t kill four or five people each week and maim thousands more. They don’t weigh 1-5 tonnes and travel at speeds of 60-120 kmph. And sorry if this surprises you, but most of them have passed their driving test and have cars left sitting in their driveways at home. They just don’t have time to waste sitting round in traffic like you do.
@Tony Gordon: Yeah, those daylight running lights are great, Tony. They’re the ones I see driving home on winter evenings with no back lights at all, because they don’t understand what DRLs are and how they work. I’ll rephrase your last statement – all road users should be made respect the rules of the road, in proportion to the risk that they will cause harm to others.
The most dangerous thing by far in Dublin city centre, cyclists.
@Grainne Abdulaziz: that’s funny, you’ve forgotten about the cars and lorries, which actually kill people. How many people have been killed by bikes versus cars in our city centre?
@Scundered: all that argument means is smaller vehicles come off worse in collisions. It by no means justifies assigning blame or absolve responsibility.
@tom: ipso facto, larger vehicles are more dangerous
@tom: the point is about which is more dangerous, which comes down to risk potential.
@Scundered: in the last 10 years 500 pedestrians and cyclists killed by vehicles in the same time 1 pedestrian killed by a cyclist rsa figures.
@Scundered: Or arse&*le cyclists trying to squeeze up alongside truck and buses turning left – their stupidity is unbelievable at times
@Grainne Abdulaziz: If you honestly believe cyclists are more dangerous than cars, vans and lorries you need your head checked
@Grainne Abdulaziz: and the winner of most idiotic comment of the day goes to…
@Bill Clear: Please don’t lump pedestrians in with cyclists thank you – we walk where we are meant to walk – they cycle where they ****ing well please.
@CeannairBlue: You should cycle my route to become enlightened. Pedestrians are always in the cycle lanes and randomly walk across the road in traffic and run across lights that are changed already.
@Scundered: incorrect, as it maybe either at fault for the accident, but unfortuneatley the cyclist is the most vulnerable. So bike are every bit as deadly and attributable in an accident.
@Grainne Abdulaziz: I’d love to understand your definition of ‘dangerous’ Grainne. Motorists kill 4 or 5 people every week and maim many more. Cyclists kill about one person every 20 years. And yet you reckon cyclists are the ‘most dangerous thing’? You might need to explain that further.
@CeannairBlue: Tell that to the pedestrian who stepped out in front of me as I cycled alongside a line of stopped traffic without so much as turning her iPodded head in my direction.
Jesus he had to get off his bike for a minute what is he a centaur
A mate of mines bike got stuck in the lines, broken arm, 6 weeks out of work. Know a few others where the same thing has happened.
@Danny Funkie: first time seeing a tram lone?
@Danny Funkie: he broke his arm doing coke?
I work in an area by the grand canal where there is a cycle track, and cycle traffic lights.
I can say with certainty ZERO cyclists obey these lights, instead they cross on the pedestrian lights, and when the cycle lights turn green I have never in 3 years seen a cyclists waiting at their specific red light.
On the same track, which is totally separate from the road, I would estimate 30-50% of the cyclists that will be turning left at the following junction where the cycle lane ends, cross the main juction and weave in and out of traffic to avoid getting caught at their lights at the end of the cycle lane.
So, it seems to me when I hear all the calls for these lanes that cyclists will just choose to ignore them where they please, so why should we pay to have them?
No enforcement.
@Tony Gordon: every day at every junction you will see cars going tru red lights. It’s an Irish thing not just cyclists
@Tony Gordon:
I seem to be the only person who stops at them. It takes a few seconds out of journey, and that’s a pittance. It really annoys me how inconsiderate the majority of cyclists on the canal are towards the lights. They’d rather weave through pedestrians, narrowly avoiding knocking them down, ignoring the lights completely, than just stop for a few seconds.
I’ll defend myself and other cyclists to a point, but when my sister’s eight year old friend was knocked down and had a cyclist cycle over her stomach in Rathfarnham last year while he blasted through a red light I lost any patience with the arsêholes who think they own the road.
@Rónán ó hAllúin: I’ve said it before but the t-junction of Sth Great George’s St and Dame St is going to see a pedestrian killed by a cyclist before long.
There is no right turn onto Sth Great George’s Street from Dame St when facing College Green – cyclists wait till the light is red, break the light and then cycle across the junction.
Worse tho is coming down SGGS – there is clearly a red light there, every single day and and evening for the ten years I’ve walked that route a cyclist (usually more) breaks that light.
They are a menace and don’t care who they hurt because you can’t identify them. Make a move to doing so and you get “but the kiddies want a bike from Santy boo boo”. Fine, get them a bike – and a licence, gear and bloody lessons!!!!!
@Bill Clear: yes you do see traffi break them.
But as I said above 100% of the time????
@Rónán ó hAllúin: well done. I cringe looking out at that junction and all the near misses everyday.
I think the city should have proper cycle lanes and lights to protect cyclists. But sadly looking on here everyday, the only impression I see is a waste of money.
@Tony Gordon: No enforcement is a big problem all right Tony https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk Following your logic, I propose we stop building new roads and repairing new ones until motorists learn what a red light means.
Try cycling a unicycle around Dublin, then you’ll know all about hardship.
@Stephen: I saw a hipster in a 3 piece tweed suit that had a pair of shorts instead of trousers going up the quays on a unicycle last summer
@Darren Tully: Was he also dancing to the “Don’t you wish your girlfriend looked hot like me” song?
I was driving out of town at the weekend on the n4 and just before Liffeyvally as you go over the m50, I seen a cyclist holding onto the back of a CIE bus to help him through that section. Let go, just as it pulled into the bus stop for the shopping centre. Opened my eyes to why so many cyclists are killed on our roads. Idiot of a man.
@Derek o keeffe: Yeah, right, because of your anecdotal evidence, you draw a conclusion to the behaviour of all cyclists, that’s like me drawing the conclusion that because you posted an ignorant comment, than all people called Derek have to be ignorant
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: and what was this big conclusion about the behaviour of ALL cyclists?
@Derek o keeffe: so it was the back of a bus, where the wheels couldn’t possibly kill him? Right.
His riding still as irresponsible as your conclusion about all cyclists.
@Derek o keeffe: That’s mad I haven’t seen a cyclist do that in years. When I say years I mean at least a decade in not 2. Used to be common enough. Seen plenty of cars mount a path at speed to get around some traffic.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: Give the lad a chance. He didn’t say all cyclists do that. He gave the example of one idiot cyclist. As far as I am concerned, there are not idiot cyclists/motorists/pedestrians, there are just idiot road users.
@Kal Ipers: Is it possible, just once, for the reaction to justified criticism for cyclists to not begin with “but motorists…..”
@CeannairBlue: Obviously it is because I did and never mentioned motorists above
@Derek o keeffe: fool. Sorry I mean FOOL!
When will cyclists abide by the law themselves.
Many place themselves in danger every day.
@Martin Murphy: when will car drivers stop breaking the law? Many of them speeding, and breaking red light, or not indicating every day
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: when I see a cyclist use hand signals to turn I’m equally surprise and pleased. Quite a lot of them need to be educated on the rules of the road and there’s more than a few who need to stay of the bloody footpaths. Obviously banning them or taxing them out of existence is an overreaction, particularly with obesity levels rising, but how about instead of getting defensive about legitimate criticism we adapt infrastructure to accommodate cyclists, educate people on how to behave on the roads and hold people responsible for their dangerous or illegal actions/behaviours (the last two apply to drivers too).
@Karen Wellington: *off the bloody footpaths
@Karen Wellington: Beyond anecdotes, RSA stats state the car driver injuries account for 80% of all major road head injuries and deaths, with 30% of these are down to driver error. Garda stats also show that 99% of all road traffic infringements were by motorists – even though they have the right and have impounded bicycles who dangerously impact other road users (including breaking red lights). If the irrational, anecdote loving guys on here applied their logic elsewhere, drivers would need full armour before getting in a car, and car tax would rise exponentially to keep average drivers off the road. Instead they see their insurance exponentially increase each year (remember, this is mainy down to bad driving and the highest whiplash culture in the world) and they don’t see that every cyclist is one less car space they have to sit behind, moaning and flicking cigarettes out their window, every morning.
@Martin Murphy: Maybe when motorists abide by the law themselves, Martin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk
They’re a bit of a mare alright, but it’s not as bad as the sensationalist headline! I came off my bike about 10 years ago when the Red line was relatively new, outside the Jervis st stop in front of tonnes of people, scarleh! My wheel got stuck in the tracks. Ever since then I’ve been really careful on the lines. It’ll be interesting how cycling will be on my route around Trinity College and Nassau st when the works are finished.
Experience is cheaply borrowed but dearly bought.
Time to make wearing a cycling helmet a legal requirement, enforced properly. Lots of talk about it but no progress. The roads aren’t safe or getting any safer. Really can’t understand why the cyclists & cycling interest groups oppose making them mandatory but make such noise about safety issues like this. It’s hard to give any credibility to their arguments when so many cyclists neglect to take such a basic safety measure for themselves. No different to motorcyclists wearing helmets, drivers wearing seatbelts. It won’t prevent accidents but I wouldn’t fancy my chances being involved in an accident as a cyclist without a helmet.
@john murphy: I would also include Hi viz clothing and lights in this. It’s impossible to see them sometimes, especially when it’s dark
@john murphy: Your solution to the problem of roads being dangerous is that cyclists should wear an inch of polystyrene on their heads, despite the fact that there’s no proven benefit to mandatory helmets?
@john murphy: you should meet up with @Tom there and the other numptys and have a nice big victim blaming party. A helmet is no use when you’re crushed by a HGV or pinned under a car. Creating a safe environment in the city is the key as well as altering the behaviour of drivers on rural roads.
@All Hail Bukowski: This article includes injuries to shoulders, hips, and legs; the solution from the white van men on here: helmets. It’s people like the anti-cyclists on here that started American Football.
@john murphy: the more cyclists on the road the safer it is for cyclists as the awareness by other road users is up. Mandatory helmets will decrease the number of cyclists. Also what about Dublin bikes? Can you see people who use them walking with helmet under arm? We need to encourage cyclists for the good of all. If everyone who was on a bike drove into work some day, imagine the traffic chaos. I don’t understand drivers who want less cyclists. It doesn’t make sense. Cyclists don’t kill. Drivers do.
@All Hail Bukowski: that argument about helmets never becomes any less ridiculous. It’s not all about being crushed by a lorry or run over by a car. A helmet can provide protection in many situations – nor all. Suppose you fall off your bike yourself because of a tram line or an unseen pothole or losing control because a dog or child or something dashes out in front of you, and hit your head off the ground as you land. I know I’d rather have a helmet taking most of the impact, rather than my skull. So why not wear one? What you’re saying is like saying that because seat belts in cars don’t protect you in absolutely every collision, you shouldn’t have to wear one of those either.
@Frankie Prendergast: your argument is equally ridiculous. Why would it be such a burden to carry a helmet if you’re going to cycle, whether you own the bike or are going to rent it? Thousands of people already do so every day.
@Jumperoo: no, what I’m saying is the many of the folk on here and elsewhere who respond to issue around rider safety by repeating that all riders must have helmets deflects attention from where the real issue is which is the cycling environment and the low level of driver awareness of how to be aware of, approach and overtake cyclists. The practicalities of enforcing (a popular word with the same posters) something like all cyclists must wear helmets are another thing. Also, equating helmets with seat belts is a adding another nice Potemkin village into the debate.
@All Hail Bukowski: I didn’t blame anyone, I did make reference to personal responsibility on behalf of all road users, which even includes cyclists! You seem too quick to call me a numpty, maybe spend more time reading my comment and less time jumping to personal insults, then I’ll take you seriously
@john murphy: *hug*
@Frankie Prendergast: don’t be too quick to dismiss regulation, In a sense I agree with you but with a significant build on your point, mandatory helmets will reduce the number of “irresponsible” cyclists on the road and make it safer for all.
@Ben McArthur: I doubt you need a helmet, it would appear you’ve nothing much to protect in there anyway!
@All Hail Bukowski: well, maybe not you then, but it’s still a fact that helmets can provide at least some protection in at least some situations, yet many cyclists are vehemently opposed to the suggestion they should wear one. And I think my comparison to seat belts is fair enough. Finally, congrats on being well read enough to introduce the term ‘Potemkin Village’ to the discussion.
@john murphy: conversely, drivers are more inclined to drive dangerously around cyclists wearing helmets than not
@Jumperoo: sorry you had to use your google machine there jumperoo. The point is clear. Bike helmets are not equivalent to seat belts. Rather than trying to force change in the victim why not force change in the perpetrators? And for those in the city why not create a safer environment for cycling which encourages bike use, reduces congestion in the city dramatically, improves the general environment and is people friendly? No one is going to deny a helmet is useful in a low impact situation but helmet use goes no way to addressing the issue that really affects cyclists. The drivers of cars, HGVs and buses kill people who ride bikes.
@john murphy: Far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes John, even with airbags and seatbelts. If you’re a big fan of helmets, you should really be wearing one every time you get into the car rather than worrying about preaching to others who are well capable of evaluating their own risks.
They would be able to see any hazards if they put lights on their bikes.
@Dave Hogan: in broad daylight?
The reaction to any mention of cycling on here is so predictable. The usual load of sweeping generalisations about all types of road users. Don’t think anyone’s mentioned jay-walking pedestrians yet but give it time. The thing is, every road-user does stupid stuff now and again. You interact with hundreds if not thousands of other road-users every day, and you don’t even notice the vast majority of them because they don’t cause you any grief. It’s just the ones being a-holes that you notice. And if you think you never do anything dumb on the road, then you’re probably one of the small minority that act like d1cks ALL the time…
That does look dangerous. I’d suggest rerouting
@Tom Collins: Instead of complaining? That is unlikely to happen.
No word from RSA to penalise cyclists for breaking red lights. Why not fine these people a weeks wages, make them pay for comprehensive insurance, road tax and make them sit a cycling test. They never use hand signals. What are the chances this will happen?
@scutterpumps: since nobody else pays road tax, how are you going to introduce that? There is no such thing.
@Scundered: ah, the stock cyclist response about how it’s actually called ‘motor tax’ instead. Simple solution to that. Change the name of it to something like ‘road usage tax’. It could still be based on emissions. Say €50 for a zero emission vehicle such as a bicycle. Current rates could stay for cars and other vehicles with actual CO2 emissions. Simple as.
@scutterpumps: at every junction every day cars break lights why not do all them so
@Bill Clear: Just to be clear, on the road cyclists are subject to the same laws, and over 500 fines were issues to cyclists for breaking red lights. There are some irrational red lights on dedicated cycle path that are ingnored, including one on the canal that is bypassed 99% of the time) ignored, but in general the gardai have the same right to fine cyclists as well as cars.
@Jumperoo: And how much for pedestrians, since they also use the road?
You haven’t really given this much thought. Are you related to Scutterpumps?
@Scundered: pedestrians use the footpath and pedestrian crossings, if they’re on the road they’re either doing something wrong or forced to step out onto the road to get around some pr!ck parked across the path.
@Karen Wellington: You think all roads have footpaths? Have you never been outside a city? Are people in rural areas not allowed to walk?
@Scundered: that’s specious reasoning, do you walk in the middle of the road regardless of traffic on the basis that no path was provided or do assess the risks and keep as close to the verge as possible facing traffic?
@Gulliver Foyle: Ah okay, so you can ignore whatever law you feel “irrational” ?
Got it.
@Jumperoo: Your proposed change isn’t as simple as you think it is. A road usage tax would have to account for pedestrians and horses (c.f. common law rights to public roads) or be legislated such that it was specific to cyclists (which is what you want). This would in turn raise challenges through the courts to the removal of the common law rights enjoyed by cyclists which would be lengthy and probably not cost effective (for the state) overall. The road tax versus motor tax debate isn’t simply a semantics argument which is why cyclists are so vehement in referencing the difference
@scutterpumps: Would you be looking for fines of a weeks wages for all these motorists who break red lights all the time, Scutters? Or perhaps your blinkered views fails to see what really happens on the roads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk
lethal or insane says the heading-is that the cyclists.
Fu{kin cyclists
@Tony Murphy: Insightful and valuable contribution to the debate there, Tony.
@Tony Murphy: The world is a better place with your intellectual offerings. I see the whole article from a different point of view now.
@Tony Murphy: Couldn’t agree more. Over-entitled pretentious road-hogs to a man.
@Tony Murphy: It’s a good choice Tony. They are generally fitter and healthier than motorists, so they’ll be able to keep going for longer. Enjoy the ride.
@Jimmy Ireland: Road hogs? They take up far less space than all those cars with four empty seats that are stuck in the traffic jam, Jimmy.
Learn how to bunny hop and variations thereof…
Um everyone knows about the stupid LUAS works- why didn’t the cyclists dismount in work heavy areas such as college green and walk up temporarily? Or cycle up alternative streets?
Lots of cyclists are a pain in the rear, the amount of them that cycle up and down the footpaths in town is dangerous and annoying.
@Shauna McDermott: the vast majority of cyclists are a danger to pedestrians , only care about themselves. There should be compulsory insurance on these individuals.
@Shauna McDermott: This is related to the road works – ir is akin to a sinkhole being put in the middle of the M50 and complaining that the cars keep dropping in to it. Your solutions? go around it rather than fix it, or irrationally follow gus’logic – tax them off the road.
@Gulliver Foyle: the Luas works have been well publicised, either find another route or obey the diversions by getting off the bike and walking (in this specific example). If a road was blocked by roadworks and a driver just decided to mount the footpath and continue on their merry way there would be repercussions, unlike when drivers mount the footpath to park which just seems to be accepted. It’s possible that we’re all (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) just selfish a-holes.
@Karen Wellington: You do understand that the road is not meant to be dangerous? Cyclists are not being told not to cycle on O’Connell Street or being diverted from it. The road isn’t blocked either so your example is off. It is more like a road having a huge hole that would fling you out of a car if you hit it and it being the only route. The road work change layout every few weeks too.
@Kal Ipers: sorry, I was referring to the works on the RHB, and the cycle lane being half closed resulting in a number of cyclists moving onto the footpath, but I should have actually used words to expand on that. I’m a little concerned that you don’t acknowledge the risks associated with traffic, didn’t your parents ever warn you not to play on the road? Luas lines are meant to be crossed, the lack of provisions made for cyclists to travel along the lines is because they (cyclists) not meant to do so, if a road or lane is closed to regular traffic that includes cyclists.
@Kal Ipers: they’re not keeping the Luas works a secret, you can easily find out what areas will be affected.
@Shauna McDermott: Everyone knows about the overall project but not the discrete changes on a street by street level. These aren’t documented or signed (the @LuasCrossCity twitter account simply said “new tram rails are appearing on the streets” like it’s some sort of random spontaneous event – after the accidents started happening). So, you can cycle a route one day and on the next day the layout has changed because barriers have moved. The area around Pearse Street and College Street is a good example, you’re on the road among buses and taxis so you see a change with very little time to react. You can’t dismount because you’re on the road among the traffic and you can’t always reorient/ change direction to get a right angle crossing of the lines to cross them safely.
@Gus Sheridan: Gus – motorists kill about 50 pedestrians each year. Cyclists kill about one pedestrian every 20 years. Now tell me again who causes the danger to pedestrians?
Here’s a novel idea, if people know an area is dangerous why don’t they get off their bike for that section and walk the bike (cue lots of comments about ‘why should they??? ‘Bike users have as much right to use the road, etc, etc….’). How about avoiding those areas if possible (again, cue lots of comments about ‘why should they??? ‘Bike users have as much right to use the road, etc, etc….’). Its only until the works are finished, this is not permanent.
@John D: The issue with tram lines predates this set of works. Risks were flagged on the original Luas project with the ask that they be mitigated through the use of rubber inserts in the tracks (this measure was refused). So, it will still be an issue in the future where road flows take cyclists parallel to tracks without opportunity to cross the tracks at a sufficient angle to avoid catching a wheel. Perpendicular crossing of the tracks is ideal but not always possible unfortunately. This should’ve been dealt with at planning stage rather than causing accidents and bring out unpleasant conflict between road users
Yeah,my heart aches for the poor cyclists.
God love them.speeding up one way streets,breaking lights,behaving aggressively,
No lights front or back on their bikes!
Ah sure it’s not their fault at all.
It’s all the motorist’s fault.
The cyclists don’t do anything wrong.
@Gerry Fallon: are you typing this while driving?
Some people seem to be responding to suggestions that cyclists should follow the rules of the road by saying, oh yeah maybe car drivers should too. Well that’s not really a rebuttal. ALL road users should follow the rules of the road. That’s what they’re for.
@Damocles: Where would you suggest focusing the enforcement activity Damocles? On the group that kills 4 or 5 people each week? Or the group that kills about 1 person every 20 years?
Blah blah blah cyclists are ruining my life, blah blah blah they all break red lights, they all cycle on the paths while I’m trying to reply to Whatsapp groups while I’m driving blah blah blah
A friend of mine knocked down by a cyclist on nasseau Street yesterday cycling wrong way up a one way Street is still in hospital
@Tony Mcgrath: Happened to me, still got the scar on my calf – and it happened on a pavement!!!!!
@Tony Mcgrath: Motorists kill about 50 people each year, Tony. Cyclists kill about one person every 20 years. Just in case you need help understanding where the real dangers on the road come from.
Five months after my fall on a Luas works track at College Street, I’m still working on shoulder physio to regain strength and mobility.
All the warning signs appeared a week after my fall. Might have had something to do with the traffic jam it caused!
Adapt and survive.
After a very bad fall in O’Connell Strreet, 2 others fell as well, I have bought a bike with 2.4 inch balloon tyres. They don’t get caught in the lines. It is an expensive solution. Most cannot afford it.
The previous bike was written off in the fall. Frame was damaged. No compensation.
The whole thing is a complete mess.
Busses taking up road space with bus lanes.
Luas taking up road space with tracks.
Cyclists taking up road space with cycle lanes.
It’s utter crap.
No wonder we have a traffic problem with most of the road space in the city dedicated to public transport and to cycling.
All this public infrastructure should be completely separate.
Trains should be underground with a proper metro system meaning we could do away with much of the busses on the roads.
Cycle lanes should be built independant of the road system.
It’s a total joke, the Dublin transport system.
I don’t mind cyclists they should mind me! my van is bigger (see who come out the worst) go on i Dar you to cycle out in front of me..
@Adrian: It’s pretty clear to see how you ended up being a van driver Adrian.
@Scundered: Yeah wasn’t dumb enough to be a cyclist.
@CeannairBlue: Well done you on failing to spot the difference between a job (van driver) and a means of transport (cycle).
The irony in using the word dumb.
@Scundered: Driving a van is not necessarily a job. Driving a van is however definitely a mode of transport.
You sure the Dublin cyclists didn’t say ‘its deaaddddlyyy’.
@Beanstalk: Jesus…
been an issue since before luas. sure the tracks down near the point, O2 or what ever the place is called now roundabout have been taking people out for years. just gotta be more aware there is only so much space the issue is proper cycle lanes. and before anyone asks I am a cyclist and a motorist who has a long term back injury from fall at a bad drain. SO I understand the problem well.CYCLE LANES ONLY SOLUTION
@I.S. Slevs: agree, there’s no point expecting an improvement without implementing the proper infrastructure.
“the barriers had been ‘cable tied’ to the traffic lights”
So you do know what they are! Obey them.
Oh boo hoo, he had to get off his bike.
You can’t stop progress. The world will continue to turn with or without you.
Unfortunately tram tracks are very dangerous for cyclist, I fell a few time before in Toronto and Milan.
The big problem here is that the roadworks force you into crossing the lines multiple times and as the space is very limited it’s not unlikely that you will have to do so with a bus inches from your back. I’m actually very surprised no one got killed yet or badly injured. I cycle every day by Trinity and it’s quite bad.
To all the hypocrites that complain about cyclist invading the pedestrian path (legal btw) or crossing with red traffic lights, the only ones that can speak are the one who:
as a pedestrian
1) never cross the road on a red light or out of traffic lights
2) never walk on the cycle lane
3) never cross the road on stopped traffic without looking for a coming cyclist
as a driver
1) never go over the speed limit
2) never turn without signaling
3) never burn a yellow/red light
4) never invade or stop on a cycle lane
If you have done any of these things, you really have no rights to talk.
@Mattia Accinelli: I have never done any of those.
So – cull cyclists now. There ya go.
@Mattia Accinelli: Cycling on footpath is only exempt under the FCN for cyclists to cover little kids, and cyclists can be fine under the ‘Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration’ heading, also worth noting that ‘Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area’ is an offence too. While there are sections of Luas tram tracks which you are allowed to cycle on, it is against the law to cycle on tram-only lanes in Dublin, and you can be fined for cycling along the Luas tracks, as it often requires breaking more than one law.
Cycling through Dublin’s medieval streets mashed up by a long running huge roadworks project, a Wall of Steel from the many double deck buses, the angry and hostile Taxi drivers, the frustrated and careless yummy-mummies in the huge SUV’s, the Zombie drug addicts, the smartphone addicts with the massive headphones and the locked stare onto the touchscreen…
Dublin is a city for no one on 2 wheels…!
I’ve figured out a brilliant way to avoid injury due to cycling on tram tracks.
Don’t cycle on tram tracks.
Also, that caution sign is illegal. Irish is required to come first.
cyclists should go to specsaver! they dont give a dam about other road users or people on footpaths
These clowns have no say. They should pay for all these cycle lanes and ehen they cause accidents.
@Brendan Keegan: where you think the money comes from? Everybody pays for the roads through general taxation which motor tax is only one tax.
i am from amsterdam, i cant see any problem here. to understand why just vit this link https://www.google.ie/search?q=amsterdam+trams&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAwPfe7dHTAhXJAsAKHaCnCJQQ_AUICigB&biw=1517&bih=751#q=amsterdam+trams&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CR1h9H3ybjuEIjhgwGBxSCSjyomQLP4GNuDiR4rggeBdbxoyYAh0dewSyHr8DgYPBDmPQvkzjXP9fQ3l8s5SG6NipioSCWDAYHFIJKPKESD5bY9aUMMTKhIJiZAs_1gY24OIRkusjKz1JjpAqEglHiuCB4F1vGhGLeHi1jZvR1CoSCTJgCHR17BLIEcRMbkA3xL19KhIJevwOBg8EOY8RAOb8jfnBWykqEglC-TONc_119DRFcmp78aBuWMioSCeXyzlIbo2KmEahEIqKRu5yd
what is the problem, i am originally from amsterdam. to understand what i mean, vist this link https://www.google.ie/search?q=amsterdam+trams&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAwPfe7dHTAhXJAsAKHaCnCJQQ_AUICigB&biw=1517&bih=751#q=amsterdam+trams&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CR1h9H3ybjuEIjhgwGBxSCSjyomQLP4GNuDiR4rggeBdbxoyYAh0dewSyHr8DgYPBDmPQvkzjXP9fQ3l8s5SG6NipioSCWDAYHFIJKPKESD5bY9aUMMTKhIJiZAs_1gY24OIRkusjKz1JjpAqEglHiuCB4F1vGhGLeHi1jZvR1CoSCTJgCHR17BLIEcRMbkA3xL19KhIJevwOBg8EOY8RAOb8jfnBWykqEglC-TONc_119DRFcmp78aBuWMioSCeXyzlIbo2KmEahEIqKRu5yd
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say