ct225lawyaazgjfct22rbbxeae_5-2ct3gknmwaaakyo7

This evening.

In Dublin city.

Members of Dublin Cycling Campaign and supporters call for more of the Government’s transport funding to be steered towards better cycling infrastructure in the capital.

Previously: Two Wheels Good

Video and pics via Eamon RyanBrian Bolger, Arran Henderson and Kayla Walsh

56 thoughts on “Ring, Ring

      1. al

        because if you fall off a bike you’re falling about 6 feet …. hit your head after any 6 foot fall and you’re in serious trouble. please wear a helmet

        1. Praetorian

          The fact you even justified that stupid question with an answer is just as annoying as a cyclist.

        2. Gavan

          You’re right. We should wear them when jogging, hoovering and cutting the grass as well. Can’t be too sure.

        3. forfeckssake

          Please wear a helmet while walking around. If you fall and hit your head from a height of around 6 feet you’re in big trouble.

          Don’t pretend to care you’re just using this as an excuse to have a go at cyclists.

          1. al

            not at all … we make drivers wear seatbelts, we make motorcyclists wear helmets. we even make footballers wear shinpads … prevention of an injury is far better than the alternative

          2. Grouse

            al, many, many more drivers suffer from head injuries than cyclists. Drivers wearing helmets would undoubtedly, in some circumstances, have a reduced chance of head injury. Why don’t we insist that all car occupants wear helmets? I’m not being facetious.

            Cycling is not a dangerous activity, certainly not dangerous enough to jusfity demanding third parties wear safety gear every time the subject comes up. Wearing a helmet will not protect from head injury in many circumstances. It is a convenient focus point used to portray cycling as an extreme choice, thereby allowing people to ignore more pressing safety questions such as provision of amenities and education.

          3. Jess

            He’s not demanding, he’s asking nicely.

            I know a good few people who’s lives have been saved by their helmets. Whether motorcycling, biking or climbing I always consider ‘its cheaper and more convenient than a wheelchair’.

          4. Grouse

            Commuter cycling is not even slightly comparable to motorcycling or climbing in terms of risk of injury. It sounds like you would benefit from reading some of the studies. Of course, it’s very difficult to say whether a helmet “saved someone’s life” although people tend to say this whenever a head impact occurs. Most head impacts do not result in fatality or even brain injury. That’s catastrophic thinking.

            A massive overestimation of the dangers of cycling is part of why people are unwilling to do it, and why there are constant calls for safety equipment rather than promotion of cycling itself. It is much healthier for you to cycle without a helmet than to not cycle at all.

          5. Grouse

            I say this as someone who would make my children wear a bike helmet. It doesn’t mean that the constant focus on helmets when talking about cycling is not based on specious, over-cautious thinking!

          6. al

            you guys crack me up.

            i’m talking as someone who was knocked off a bike and looking at the helmet afterwards if i hadn’t been wearing it, at the very least, my hair line would look very different now.

            all i am saying is .. why take the risk? you know it’s dangerous out there, why else would people be protesting safety? so if you’re protesting people for not doing more to protect you then why are you arguing with me when i ask nicely for you to please, do one small thing, to try and protect yourself? you could fall off your bike on a perfect, empty road. compared to the price of bikes these days, helmets are pretty affordable. i can’t agree with any argument for not wearing one.

            i’m also asking as a motorist because if we do have a collision i have no doubt it would be the cyclist who would come off worse. and the thought that i played a part in someone getting a brain injury (or any injury, for that fact, but lets focus on my initial point here) would destroy me. i once studded a friends shin when playing football. he wasn’t wearing shin protection and still to this day, whenever i see him, i see the damage i did to him and the guilt is horrible. and he’s fine, doesn’t even have a scar or anything.

            i think forming my initial comment like that was a mistake. i meant only good. maybe people thought i was making a demand. of course it’s your choice not to wear a helmet, but it’s other people who have to live with the consequences if you don’t and there is an accident. but we could say that about alot of things so i appreciate your viewpoints.

            so this will be my sign off. it’s been fun but i don’t see any point in commenting any more. there’s no argument i can make that will change your mind nor you mine. so good luck out there kids .. from the sounds of the protests last night, you’re gonna need it.

          7. Jess

            “It is much healthier for you to cycle without a helmet than to not cycle at all.”

            Yeah but you can do both Grouse. If you don’t want to wear a helmet then go ahead, but I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at. Are you advocating that people don’t wear helmets? Because I don’t see the benefit in that at all.

          8. Grouse

            No, I’m not advocating that people don’t wear helmets. I’m advocating that people do not suggest that helmets are a requirement for safe cycling. There’s a big distinction there, tied up with very complex issues around perceived safety and barriers to entry. If people believe cycling is a form of transport that requires a crash helmet (as so many do in Ireland), they’re much less likely to see it as a viable form of transport for themselves or their children (helmet or no helmet).

            Imagine society began to suggest that it was irresponsible to walk in the city without body armour. Every time a photo of someone walking appeared in public forums, people would comment about how unwise they were to go out body armour. There would be real and true stories about pedestrians whose lives or limbs had been saved when they were hit by a car, because of their body armour. The body armour would irrefutably make pedestrians safer in the city. But it would also lead to fewer pedestrians, it would eventually make people think of walking in the city as an essentially dangerous activity. People would start to walk less often. The character of streets would change in response to fewer pedestrians and more cars. It would have an overall detrimental effect on health, happiness and street culture.

    1. forfeckssake

      Yeah, they want more that 0.5% of transport spending to go towards cycling infrastructure. Who do they think they are with their outrageous demands?!

    1. Semi-d

      I hear they’re sending an EU delegation to study red light adherence among motorists. We’re the only country where red ought breaking is not normalised.

  1. Junkface

    Never cycle near a big truck, especially near a bend.
    Also if you cycle with a whistle in your mouth to blow really hard whenever you get miffed with other road users then you are a t w at.

    I have a car and a bike so I’m not picking sides here.

    1. forfeckssake

      Unfortunately big trucks travel faster than bikes and do overtake cyclists. The assembly was about investment in cycling infrastructure. I don’t think anyone could argue that we have good cycling infrastructure.

        1. Turgenev

          The tax drivers pay is rated according to their vehicle’s carbon emissions. Cyclists do not produce carbon emissions. Roads are paid for out of general taxation.

          1. OhRowShayDoVahaWaile

            “It is a legal requirement in Ireland to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place. Motor tax is a charge imposed by the Government on some motor vehicles. The revenue from this tax is used to maintain and upgrade the road network in Ireland. “

  2. cyclist

    Just wondering….would €100 million not be enough for whatever infrastructure upgrades are needed?….

    1. Turgenev

      The government’s stated plan is to have 10% of journeys in the city made by cycling and walking. (That’s a pretty low target considering that Ireland is becoming the fatso capital of Europe, and children growing up now are set to have a shorter lifespan than their parents because of their lack of exercise and bad diet leading to diabetes, heart disease, cancers and strokes. Not to mention the endemic depression caused by lack of exercise and lack of open-air light.)
      Dublin is not a good city to cycle in. There have been a series of promises of twinkly new cycling facilities to come one day, all of which are cancelled or put off. The last straw for cyclists came last week when the government took away the funding allocated to three major cycleways that would provide health and pleasure to thousands of Dubliners: the linking-up of the half-built parts of the cycleways along the Grand Canal, and along the Royal Canal, and the Mountains-to-Sea cycleway following the Dodder River from Glenasmole to Ringsend; the money was instead allocated to the multi-billion-euro Luas building project.
      Cyclists decided to call the government on its supposed plan for 10% cycling and walking, and ask for 10% of the transport budget to be put into cycleways.
      It’s especially urgent for children that proper cycling infrastructure be built. Parents are too scared to let their kids cycle to school. The 2006 census, for instance, showed that “Of the 247,000 primary school children who were driven to school in 2006 (55% of the total) 44,000 were driven 1 kilometre or less. A further 105,000 were driven 4 kilometres or less.”
      As for secondary school children, “45% were driven 4 kilometres or less to school, representing 43,000 car journeys”.
      It’s not a question of “cyclists want” or “drivers want”. It’s a question of providing good, safe infrastructure that everyone can use – children, grannies, people going to work, people in wheelchairs (who also use cycle lanes).
      Look how they’ve done it in Vancouver, where they’ve made their city a pleasant place to live by making it cyclable. We could have this in Dublin too:
      https://vimeo.com/183441272

  3. Lucyloo

    Can we also have a pedestrians’ march protesting close encounters and near misses with bicycles?

    1. Sheila

      And with motorists? As a pedestrian I see plenty of cars break red lights too.
      Just sayin like

  4. Pixxyman

    Not enough helmets or reflective gear in those pictures.

    Why don’t we have camera’s on traffic lights to catch people breaking the lights? it would stamp it out over night. Cars would see the orange light and start slowing down, not put the foot down.

  5. Feidlim MacSásta

    People who hate cyclists are just fat lazy selfish oafs who feel bad about themselves when see a slim fit looking chap whizz past them as they sit in their car, bloated and looking older than their years.

    :O

Comments are closed.