A council in Ireland is debating implementing a speed limit for cyclists on a 23km greenway off-road path, the calls from local politicians coming in response to reports of a pedestrian being injured in a crash caused by someone on a bike and claims about “speed merchants” and “fellas in Lycra just whipping past”.
Cork County Council opened the second and final phase of the Midleton Youghal Greenway last December, the complete 23km path providing walkers and cyclists an off-road active travel route between several towns and villages.
However, the Irish Independent reported how a meeting of the East Cork Municipal District’s councillors heard calls from some local politicians to see a cycling speed limit introduced.
The council meeting heard that a walker had recently been injured in a collision with a cyclist, Cllr Michael Hegarty saying path users “should be more considerate of all the people that are using it”.
“I don’t know whether signs or something has to be done because some cyclists are abusing the situation,” he claimed.
Likewise, Cllr John Buckley expressed support for speed-cutting measures and predicted there would be a “serious accident” if people do not slow down. The councillor said he uses the path daily to walk his dog and claimed there are “social cyclists” who “ring their bell when they’re passing”, but also “speed merchants”.
“Some of these fellas in the Lycra are just whipping past you,” Cllr Buckley complained. “I didn’t know there was an accident but it’s only a matter of time before there’s another one at the speed these fellas are passing at. They need to slow down before there is a serious accident out there.”
The meeting also heard from Cllr Ann Marie Ahern who reported a local man and his son told her they had “given up” on the path “because of the speed of the cyclists”.
“He said he couldn’t enjoy it with his son, which is a pity because it’s supposed to be enjoyed by all and it’s not supposed to be just kind of railroaded by some,” she added, asking the council to implement speed limit signs asking for slower riding and “courtesy and respect to other users of the greenway”.
A representative for the county council accepted there had been “a lot of feedback” from path users. Michael Lucey called out “some of the professional cyclists as we call them going with the head down”, adding that he would note the councillors’ concerns and offer feedback to his team.
It is expected a safety plan will be produced in due course, speed limits and advisory signs to cyclists touted as possible inclusions.
50 thoughts on ““Some cyclists are abusing the situation”: Irish council considers cycling speed limit after reports of ‘speed merchants in Lycra whipping past’ pedestrians on popular greenway”
Whatever speed limit the
Whatever speed limit the choose to apply to cyclists will they apply the same limit to cars on all rural roads without separate pavements?
When will they bring in speed
When will they bring in speed limits for motorists driving *on* the pavements… 😉
chrisonabike wrote:
The pavement is just another lane of the highway so the usual speed limit applies 😉
The council might have
The council might have considered getting some legal advice before spouting about speed limits for cyclists to avoid looking stupid. In Ireland is there any legal requirement for cyclists to have a speedometer fitted? And if so is it enforced? Do cyclists have to take their bikes to a test centre periodically for it to be checked? I suspect the answer to all of these questions is no.
Quote:
The thing is, he’s right, there are. The problem is thinking that there shouldn’t be, rather than thinking that the infrastructure needs to segregate pedestrians from fast moving traffic just like a typical road would.
The clue is that this is an ‘active travel route’, not a playground.
The first two questions that
The first two questions that spring to mind are; In Ireland, can you set a speed limit for cyclists; and if you do who is going to enforce it.
If this does get put in place
If this does get put in place (though I’m not holding my breath) I hope they count the KSI stats before and after to show the difference it makes…
mitsky wrote:
You know that if it doesn’t make any difference they will claim they have to ratchet it down even further!
If one designs an arrow
If one designs an arrow straight, smooth tarmac level surface; guess what? Higher speed cyclists, Str*va, and likely confict if a shared route.
Alternatively, Sustrans could have designed something that would naturally have had few issues with speeding cyclists 😉
Of course when non-motorised
Of course when non-motorised users are fighting over scraps (certainly common in the UK and likely Ireland) then there are more likely to be issues. And the common way the UK does “infra” invites conflict:
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/11/shared-use-paths-create-conflict-and.html
But as you allude to it’s not that hard to fix things so that in fact cyclists can make good progress (and separately pedestrians can amble)…
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/speed.html
I love my bike wrote:
I can’t believe that would happen; when you make a wide straight route that trained, taxed and licenced drivers can use *they* never whizz along as fast as possible, bullying or scaring other road users off the road. And certainly they wouldn’t come from elsewhere to use it for that purpose…
I love my bike wrote:
The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (formerly Sustrans) doesn’t get involved in the design of active travel paths in the republic.
I love my bike wrote:
It’s Ireland – not Sustrans. 🙂 I think it would have been Transport Infrastructure Ireland who oversaw engineering work, possibly also Cork County Council. Financially supported by the DoT and the landowner Iarnrod Eireann (the state rail company).
Should we pause recording
Should we pause recording Strava on shared paths?
I love my bike wrote:
It’s not really a design, it’s a paved-over ex railway track. Most of them are superbly done from what I’ve seen.#
Also, when the oil runs out we’ll be putting tracks back down on them.
Also, when the oil runs out
Also, when the oil runs out we’ll be putting tracks back down on them
The oil running out was the story in late 60s/ early 70s. The problem is that it doesn’t run out, but becomes increasingly costly to extract in money/ environmental terms, but motorists don’t like that and complain about ‘ridiculous’ petrol prices and how they’re trapped in their homes by them. Climate change undertakings/ promises are all failed/ abandoned as governments pander to the idle masses and all fail to increase fuel tax in order to be re- elected by those masses who all claim to doubt climate science, but in reality just want to continue idling. We are up the creek, aren’t we?
I honestly have plenty of
I honestly have plenty of sympathy for this sort or thing. Cyclists riding too fast for the conditions is dangerous.
What I don’t like is the fact that someone was injured by a bike and now they are discussing speed limits for bikes. Where is the discussion whenever someone is hit by a car. Where is the discussion when someone is killed by a car. I’m not just talking about cyclists either. Suggest that speed limits should drop to 20mph and people act like you’re mad.
Oh and a final thought, perhaps they should be making rules about dogs on these shared use paths because every time I use this sort of thing I have to slow to 3-4mph and sit behind people who don’t bother to control their dogs. Do they acknowledge the fact I’ve slowed to an absolute crawl due to their dog? About 20% of the time. Most of the time I just get a look of misery or contempt despite saying a cheerful “thank you” if they bring their dog to them.
mctrials23 wrote:
The Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph suggested a more radical approach a couple of days ago with her article “It’s time to ban all dogs.”. I thought it was surprising that such a “news” outlet would suggest something that actually benefits cyclists as opposed to its usual output.
Pub bike wrote:
Banning all dogs wouldn’t benefit me in the slightest. Banning bad dog owners who are unable or unwilling to control their dogs, now that would be good.
Suzanne Moore in the
Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph suggested a more radical approach a couple of days ago with her article “It’s time to ban all dogs.”
Fortunately for this so-called newspaper, its readers will interpret this as ‘it’s time to ban others people’s dogs, especially those of the proles’
Its funny isn’t it. Most
Its funny isn’t it. Most rational people don’t jump to the “ban all” solution to a problem. Now I fucking hate dog walkers who don’t give a shit (pun intended) about other people. I hate it when I push my pram through a park and end up with dog shit on the wheels and up my leg. When I walk past piles of it just sitting on the pavement. When dog walkers have yappy or agressive dogs that they don’t keep on a short leash. When they take up the whole mixed use path and look at you like you’re the problem when you want to pass on your bike.
I never think “ban all dogs” though. I think “some dog owners are selfish twats”.
mctrials23 wrote:
I don’t have viable alternatives to the shared path that takes up most of my cycle commute, and as it’s by an estuary, parts of it have lovely views, which I enjoy, and I accept that it is reasonable that people will want to enjoy those same views for leisure trips by foot and by bike. But equally, except for those parts where you can access the beach, which you can’t do when the tide is in, it’s not great for the dogs that couldn’t care less for views as they get walked along a busy bit of tarmac.
It is a nice walk for people, without as many lumps and bumps (including dropped kerbs) that plauge pavements in residential areas. If you live nearby, then it’s an obvious choice for a quick dog walk. But what bugs me is that a lot will drive to it, when there are lots spaces nearby that are much better suited to a dog walk, many of which also have sea views. But it doesn’t matter how considerate I am. I slow down, use my bell when appropriate and always give a cheery ‘thank you’ even when they don’t deserve it, yet many still act as if a dedicated (dog) play & picnic area had been invaded by a biker gang.
But it doesn’t matter how
But it doesn’t matter how considerate I am
There aren’t many ‘shared spaces’ up here, because there aren’t many cyclists, but the Morecambe Bay Cycleway includes the odd section where the nutter dog walkers are loose. I was cycling a bumpy section near Greenodd on the way to Coniston, when I encountered a couple with a dog going the same way. I gave the aforementioned cheery ‘hello’, to which the irate old nutter (could have been as old as me) berated me with ‘why don’t you use a bell?’ I think most of us have suffered the ‘don’t you ring a bell at me!’, so I just carried on. There’s no point disputing with the ‘determinedly angry’.
Same here. I just try to be
Same kind of experience here. I just try to be positive (“at least they weren’t in a car” / “I can out-cycle their fella/ dog”) and charitable (“perhaps he was bitten by a cyclist as a child?”)
I don’t always succeed.
Like speed limits on roads,
Like speed limits on roads, this can be a flawed approach; when they are artificially slow they lead people into thinking they are going ‘at the limit, must be safe’ – irrespective of developing hazards. Near me there’s a shared path advising cyclists to go ‘no faster than jogging speed’ – far too slow most of the time, way too fast when a family and dog have their backs to you where a bell and patience are essential.
Unintended consequences – 20 limits on roads have made it harder for for drivers to pass cyclists safely, and some people assume you should drive at 60 on a national speed limit road through not understanding the word ‘limit’.
I hope they abandon this idea, and instead work on engagement and education.
Ben Graham wrote:
“Artificially slow” – because of course there is a “natural” speed always… that is more relevant to walking, and then to some degree cycling,cars not so much.
The issue is we have social conventions / “how it is” – and that tends to be self- reinforcing (BTW including the convention that drivers must get in front of cyclists – which in my experience seems to apply at any speed and regardless of signed limits…)
However that is largely arbitrary (and especially for motor vehicles) – this we can know because it varies across the place and has varied over time.
The idea of speed limits for *cyclists* is generally nonsense (and as you say – in an ideal world there should be at least as much emphasis on the conditions). But for motor traffic the harm is largely predicated on speed so (despite “I can decide for myself” assertions by some drivers) I think there should be limits.
AFAICS the key points are that:
– I agree that for drivers in the UK these currently become “minimum speed limits” – at least, without a lot of controls / enforcement (since going faster simply means depressing the pedal).
– cyclists try to maintain momentum – so ideally not slowing but certainly not coming to a stop
– cyclists and pedestrians are generally “fighting over scraps” left from the road network
… so “engagement and education” strategies tend to work little in isolation and a lot less well than when combined with other ideas like “separate space for different modes”.
Ben Graham wrote:
That is the opinion of some drivers as opposed to an established fact.
It doesn’t seem to stop those drivers of poor judgement trying even though they are creating more risk for themselves and others.
Drivers have absolutely no
Drivers have absolutely no issue passing cyclists at over 20mph and if they can’t quickly pass them whilst staying under the speed limit then perhaps they shouldn’t be overtaking them because their speed delta to the cyclist is so small that it makes no difference to their journey.
If it’s a 20 limit why do you
If it’s a 20 limit why do you need to overtake?
“20 limits on roads have made
“20 limits on roads have made it harder for for drivers to pass cyclists safely”
I call BS. I feel much safer cycling in a 20 zone than a 30 zone.
Speed limits are a joke! I
Speed limits are a joke! I race since many years and know perfectly well how to handle my bike at speeds well over 45km/h even on wet roads and in a hectic bunch.
meanwhile most boomers almost fall of their bike at the slightest breeze at 25km/h since they only jump on the bike once a month
cycking requires skill and practice – who is a council to judge what’s adequate for me.
punish those that crash! But don’t punish those who know how to safely handle fast training rides
“Speed limits are a joke! I
“Speed limits are a joke! I race since many years and know perfectly well how to handle my car at speeds well over 45km/h even on wet roads and in hectic traffic. meanwhile most boomers almost crash their car at the slightest breeze at 25km/h since they only get behind the wheel once a month
driving requires skill and practice – who is a council to judge what’s adequate for me.
punish those that crash! But don’t punish those who know how to safely handle fast driving”
Rian_constant wrote:
Exactly the same argument used by car drivers, “I’m perfectly safe do do 120mph so why should the government be able to tell me I can’t?” No idea whether a speed limit or some other form of control measure is necessary on this path but in any regulatory system allowing users to set their own limits based on their perceived skill is not a good idea as a huge majority overestimate their abilities.
Nice insult against “boomers” by the way, why do people think it’s OK to generalise and denigate a whole generation?
This is quite the hot take.
This is quite the hot take. Last time I checked, racing your bike on roads is a little different to flying along a shared use path with pedestrians, dogs etc. People are unpredictable. If you are going at any real speed you could be the second coming of Pogacar and still not be able to avoid hitting them.
Rian that attitude is
Rian that attitude is appalling. Pedestrians don’t know you are coming along at speed so you need to SLOW DOWN because pedestrians are unpredictable. No matter how skilled you are you will be unable to prevent a collision at speed if someone walks across the path infront of you. There are hundreds of CRASHES in WT races each year, many involving spectators, and those riders are far more skilled than you.
How is the CYCLIST? Sorry to
How is the CYCLIST? Sorry to hear a pedestrian was hurt but if that’s the case then it’s highly likely the CYCLIST fella was too. I’m a cyclist fella who uses cycle paths (shared-use path) on his way to work and REGULARLY have people wander infront of me without looking or jogging across solid white lines demarking cycle-only areas. It’s bloody dangerous out there and not because of what I’m doing on my bike.
Do you give them 1.5m of
Do you give them 1.5m of clear space when overtaking? If you can’t do so, don’t overtake!
Robert Hardy wrote:
That seems excessive. The reason why motorists should give 1.5m space is due to their much larger vehicles, their increased speeds and sometimes a lack of distance judgement.
With cyclists, they’ll likely get hurt if there is a collision, they’re much smaller and the speed difference is smaller, to it should be quite easy to overtake safely with maybe 0.5-1m space (also most shared paths don’t have enough space for leaving 1.5m).
Robert Hardy wrote:
If it’s a UK shared-use / cycle path, then likely there isn’t room… also what are the rules on overtaking on shared use paths…
Cork isn’t in the UK.
Cork isn’t in the UK.
roboito wrote:
But HawkinsPeter (who Robert Hardy was querying) often (usually? ) is, you see…
Point of order: Robert Hardy
Point of order: Robert Hardy was replying to stevemaiden (HP then replied to RH). I don’t know where stevemaiden normally is.
Ah yes… thread order is not
Ah yes, thank you. Thread order is not causation again!
The internet?
Robert Hardy wrote:
One of the silliest tropes of the anti-cycling lobby is to try to say that the rules for car drivers should be imposed wholesale on cyclists. There is no rule whatsoever about the distance a cyclist should leave for a pedestrian when passing, for the very good reason there is no need for it.
I think you’re saying there’s
I think you’re saying there’s no need for a rule (agree), rather than that there’s no need to leave space when passing (with which I would disagree). I like to give as wide a berth as I can lest they need to avoid a puddle / dog mess / can’t walk straight because they are distracted by their phone.
quiff wrote:
100%, always slow down, always leave a considerate space, but it doesn’t need legislating, particularly as there is no realistic way of meaningfully policing it.
I would love to see my local
I would love to see my local streets made safer for cyclists by a presumption of cycle priority over motorists, but the corollary of that must be the presumption of pedestrian priority over that of cyclists.
Or … just have
Why absolutes?
Just have straightforward rules on specific situations / infra with some “no tech” fallbacks – like the simple triangle markings the Dutch use to indicate default priority. (The UK has similar eg. triangular give way marks – they’re just used rather sparingly).
Combine that with “but none of the above gives you the right to drive into anyone – or even scare them out of the way” and I think it’s job done.
Robert Hardy wrote:
We already have that in the Highway Code hierarchy.
So, to address the issue of
So, to address the issue of some cyclists not behaving, they’re going to introduce a law so that the same cyclists can ignore it? Or do they have hordes of police/officials just waiting to enforce the speed limits on the cyclists – they currently see the cyclists speeding along, but can only shrug and point at the lack of speed limits.