A cyclist has died from his injuries after colliding with a pedestrian in Dublin’s Phoenix Park.
The Irish Times reports that the cyclist, a 59-year-old man from Castleknock, was riding in the cycling lane of Chesterfield Avenue in the direction of the city at around 8.40pm on Monday. Between the Castleknock Gate and Áras an Uachtaráin he collided with a man in his 30s.
The cyclist was taken to Beaumont Hospital but died from his injuries on Wednesday night.
Ryanair CEO hits out at Dublin City Council’s drive to get more people cycling
The pedestrian was taken to Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown with injuries to his back and leg, but has since been discharged.
Gardaí are appealing for information. Anyone with information can contact Cabra Garda Station on 01-666 7400, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111 or any Garda station.
40 thoughts on “Dublin cyclist dies after collision with pedestrian”
That is very sad.
That is very sad.
It is also one more fatality to a cyclist in a bike/pedestrian collision than the number of pedestrian fatalities in such circumstances. At least in Ireland in 2016.
Freaky. Must have landed
Freaky. Must have landed weird.
Tragic.
Tragic.
Tragic.
It is worth remembering that (at least in Royal Parks in the UK), cycle lanes are designated areas for cycling but pedestrians still have right of way within them:
Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately, especially when passing. Give space to allow them to pass safely.
https://www.royalparks.org.uk/park-management/park-regulations-and-policies/cycling-in-the-royal-parks/the-pathway-code-of-conduct-considerate-cycling
That white bicycle painted on the path does not give cyclists carte blanche. In parks, it pays to ride super-slowly around pedestrians , covering the brakes and ready to stop on a dime.
L.Willo wrote:
Resident car-supremacist is as predictable as ever!
Its surprising to me that someone devotes so much time to pushing an (entirely unconvincing) anti-cycling and pro-car agenda on a cycling site. Its a very weird hobby to have.
As for the accident, its tragic, and the only lesson I can see in it is that such events could be minimised, though never entirely eliminated, if things are arranged to give different transport modes with significantly different momentum/k.e. plentiful, good quality, and separated routes.
Willo, is anyone blaming the
Willo, is anyone blaming the pedestrian here?
The circustances are unknown, certainly from this report. I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame the bloke on the bike.
RIP
That’s given me the right
That’s given me the right chills as I saw a nasty smack last night on Tooley Street – The road has been closed to traffic from West to East for London Bridge station works, and the ped crossing by Hays Galleria has been moved.
As is usual no one seems to pay real attention when walking, so because the traffic is gridlocked people are using the crossing even though the cycle lanes are open in both directions.
Lo and behold, a guy on a cycle gets knocked over because people are too stupid to look both ways, AND ignoring the guy that the construction company has on each side of the temp crossing to help. (or more likely, think they’ve got the right to cross and he’ll slow down for them) luckily he got right back up again.
SuperPrick: There was a
SuperPrick: There was a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian in a park. In the UK at least, where pedestrians in parks have absolute right of way everywhere, even in the areas designated for cycling, it certainly was not the pedestrian’s fault.
Remember, parks were not built for bicycles!
It is nice that pedestrians generously allow us to share their space but we have no right to be there.
And no, I wouldn’t dream of cycling past pedestrians in a shared environment at a speed greater than 4mph. I always slow down to walking pace, let them know that I am there before overtaking, give them plenty of room and only accelerate when well clear. Don’t you, SuperPrick? If not, why not? Too busy chasing a nonsense PB on Strava?
No-one has any idea what
No-one has any idea what happened. That said, some posters might like to google Phoenix park and compare it to what they might think a cycle path looks like…..
This is the bike lane
The green lane is the bike lane. The path to the left is for pedestrians.
Ciarán Carroll wrote:
Is that serious or are you being humorous?
brooksby]
Is that serious or are you being humorous?
No, I’m serious
Ciarán Carroll]
Ciarán. I’m thinking Brooksby is looking at the grass verge and going WTF! That’s a bike lane in Ireland. I’m never going to complain about the ones in the UK again! Best point out to him that the footway is tucked in under thon trees!
giff77]
? Oh, OK. If I zoom in I can see a hint of tarmac right out at the left side of the photo- is that the cycle path?
brooksby]
nah. That’s the footpath. The cycle lane runs between that and the road. peds generally ignore the fact that they’re meant to stay off it. And the wardens don’t enforce this. while the Gards are still to determine who was at fault. All I can think of is that the pedestrian has been intending to cross and has stepped not thinking that a cyclist travelling at speed was there.
Ciarán Carroll]
Urghh. (shudders)
brooksby]
The pedestrian footpath is to the left running between the trees. There is a wide grass verge between the cycle lane and the tarmac footpath. It just doesn’t show up well in the photo due to the low angle of the shot but it’s definitely there.
I cycle in the Phoenix park a
I cycle in the Phoenix park a lot. The bike lane in question is segregated from the road and there’s a footpath segregated from the bike lane. But people insist on walking in the bike lane. There are bike symbols painted on them and a walking man with a line through him clearly indicating you’re not supposed to be walking in it. Is it really so hard to walk 10 feet to the side and use the footpath?
SuperPython, you have him on
SuperPython, you have him on the ropes now he’s going for petty name calling!
Willo, I would assume if I collided and was travelling at 15mph that I’d be unlikely to die so the event in question is somewhat extreme. How do you know the cyclist was going at more than 4mph.
“where pedestrians in parks have absolute right of way everywhere, even in the areas designated for cycling, it certainly was not the pedestrian’s fault”
The 2 things you mention have no correlation – if you were passing someone at your pitiful 4mph you still risk a collision. If you gave them 5 metres, rang a bell, sent a telegram of your intentions and they sprinted into the side of you, is that still your fault?
Who is talking about the
Who is talking about the accident in Phoenix Park?
in both of my posts I have specifically talked about the rules in parks in the UK, where I live.
If anything good is to come out of accidents, it is that lessons are learned to prevent reoccurrences in future.
Maybe the people who run Phoenix Park could look at the rules that we have in the UK designed to prevent pedestrians being injured by travellers using unnatural means. If it isn’t the case, make it explicit that pedestrians have right of way everywhere, and can tapdance down the middle of the cycle lane if they want to.
The park was built for them to enjoy, not us.
L.Willo wrote:
The article and everyone else. But you have to turn another comments section into the Willo show because you’re bored or something.
Go back to the Daily Mail.
davel wrote:
A waste of time in my opinion, speculating about an accident in a foreign country when none of the facts have been established.
Much more useful in my opinion to debate the responsibilities of cyclists around pedestrians generally and especially in UK parks.
I raised my initial post because in talking to younger cyclists i realise that many of them don’t understand that the white bicycle sign in a park means, you may cycle here. It categorically does not mean, you should not / must not walk here.
Did you know that?
L.Willo wrote:
Bollocks.
Talking to people means using your mouth and vocal cords to form words in the presence of someone (plural as suggested by you), and isn’t just Internet texting.
Did you know that?
davel wrote:
except various Parks Authorities can establish their own bylaws for said parks. Pheonix has a list of do’s and don’ts so I’m nearly sure that pedestrians aren’t allowed to use cycle lanes whenever a footway is provided. The problem is that the Park Wardens don’t enforce it frequently enough. Meanwhile the Royal Parks stipulate that cyclists can’t stray out of their lane but pedestrians can wander wherever they wish. Though we should be grateful for this as the Royal Parks were originally hunting grounds and us serfs would not normally be allowed on the land.
L.Willo wrote:
Ha ha. The first rule of trolling is to at least pretend that what you have to say is related to the subject that everyone else is discussing.
It’s the usual self-defeating
It’s the usual self-defeating nature of cycle lanes being exposed.
It’s a typically unpleasant piece of infrastructure on which one frequently encounters pedestrians. But woe betide you if you ride so as to inconvenience a driver while completely avoiding the pedestrians.
This is a reasonablyaccurate report on it:
http://irishcycle.com/routes/phoenix-park-cycle-tracks/
Did you know that when you
Did you know that when you edit your post moves down the queue?
@ L.Willo
@ L.Willo
I bet you wank yourself blind everytime you see a story like this on road.cc
I am amazed how someone sees
I am amazed how someone sees that there was a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian in a park, and they assume it’s a shared use path, when it was described as a cycle lane. Googling for inages of cycling in Phoenix Park in Dublin turned up this:
https://idonotdespair.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dublin-skyline-from-phoenix-park.jpg
Looks a lot like a road without cars to me. But who knows what the “cycle lane” involved looked like?!
Please stop passing judgement with no knowledge of the facts.
DaveE128 wrote:
Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.
bendertherobot wrote:
Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship … I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her.
I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment.
It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck’s sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us.
Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world.
I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident.
Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling.
Regards
L.Willo
L.Willo wrote:
I note that you haven’t established how close too close is, on the NSW thread – or what punching distance might be, so you have no idea how close the rider was. Yet you continue asserting that the rider was too close, on a path you’re 0% familiar with.
Do fuck off.
L.Willo wrote:
Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.
— L.Willo Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship … I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her. I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment. It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck’s sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us. Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world. I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident. Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling. Regards L.Willo— bendertherobot
But that can’t hold true if the parks authorities have actually set out ‘this’ is a cycle path / ‘that’ is not a cycle path.
Once they’ve done that, then surely it’s not unreasonable to expect cyclists to have some sort of priority on the cycle path (and then for pedestrians to have priority on the other path/track)?
brooksby wrote:
That is precisely why I posted my first message, I will repeat a part of it here:
Pedestrians have priority over all other users of pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes. You are asked to use these pathways considerately, especially when passing. Give space to allow them to pass safely.
https://www.royalparks.org.uk/park-management/park-regulations-and-polic…
In effect, the cycle path sign is there to warn pedestrians that cyclists might be using that area but it does not alter priorities. In UK Royal Parks pedestrians have priority everywhere.
@everyone:
cycling forum:
a) a place where like minded people who share identical opinions meet to have a circle jerk.
b) a place where people with a common interest (the advancement of cycling as a viable urban transport option), meet to share their often very diverse ideas and learn from each other.
I vote for b). I am not a troll. I love cycling and it saddens me that in the last 10 years or so, it has become politicised and wrapped in a fog of nauseating self-entitlement which has been 100% counterproductive.
As for rudeness, after weeks of provocation I have taken the gloves off with very specific posters … they know who they are. If they cannot take it, they really need to think again before they dish it out. They had my respect. They lost it. They need to behave themselves to get it back.
I look forward to continuing courteous discussions with everyone else.
L.Willo wrote:
Ah, but L.Willo is just talking about parks generally, in the UK, presumably because the word park appears. Or something.
— L.Willo Close. More like discussing the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists in shared space. I note on the trip wire article your observation that there is often an uneasy relationship … I note also the NSW blog poster who found herself in trouble, trying to overtake a nutty pedestrian far too close, so close that the lout was able to punch her. I suggest that this is often because cyclists have false assumptions about our rights in these environments and a lack of empathy and respect for pedestrianism, the purest form of mobility and the one which does by far the least damage to the natural environment. It is not uncommon to hear cyclists bemoaning headless chicken, headphone wearing pedestrians in parks / shared space not watching where they are going? Why on earth should they? It is a park for fuck’s sake. They were here first. Parks were built for them not us. Parks are places designated for leisure. They are precious spaces, especially in urban environments where people should be able to roam freely without a care in the world. I think we would all do well to remember that and always defer to pedestrians. Probably worth making that explicitly clear to Phoenix Park cyclists in the wake of this tragic accident. Seems like I will be the first to wish the young man who was crashed into a speedy recovery and I hope this awful experience has not made him anti-cycling. Regards L.Willo— bendertherobot
i was going to pick apart your argument. But there’s no need, as you’re just a tiresome individual. Do you need some sort of professional help? Maybe a call to The Samaritans would be a start:
http://www.samaritans.org/how-we-can-help-you/samaritans-free-call-helpline-number-faqs
RIP brother.
RIP brother. 🙁
What a shame that what could
What a shame that what could have been an interesting and serious discussion on shared use and potentially fatal collisions degenerated into name calling and rudeness.
Is there any way to block
Is there any way to block comments from certain users appearing?
I’m not going to advocate a ban – free speech and all that – but over the last couple of weeks the level of trolling from one particular individual has been both noticeable and is getting more vitriolic/personal. I’d rather not have to see it anymore.
Some forums and comment spaces I visit allow users to block comments from certain other users, so that they don’t have to take the time to read something that has already proved itself to be intrinsically valueless. The troll still gets to play his games, but users who have already got sick of it simply don’t see it anymore.
Does BR allow me to do the same? Or should I treat it like the Daily Mail comments section, where the level of bile is such that it’s best not reading ANY of it?
Richard D wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree. Ban this tiresome wanker, whose absence none would miss. There is no freedom of speech argument here. If he wants to prattle on about his useless guff, then he can go to Speakers’ Corner.
Bikebikebike wrote:
I disagree completely. I have no use for the assumptions or arguments held by said user. But I completely disagree with banning him/her. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that they see themselves as a provocative gadfly stirring the mindless groupthink of the cycling masses to a higher level of contemplation. But what’s wrong with that? Smile and pass on. Not everything needs to be banned. In fact the more banning there is the less collective intelligence there is. Dealing with people we perceive as unpleasant is just part of the price to pay for that.
Ush wrote:
If I want ill thought out trolling on the subject of cycling I can turn to any non cycling medium and get my fill. I’m interested in what thoughtful cyclists think about cycling topics, and I’d rather read those comments than trolling or the responses to trolling. This is hardly an issue of fundamental rights, and I’m sure Voltaire had no love for annoying no-marks who just waste people’s time.