So, what happens when you’re a cyclist, who rides their bike into work every day, and suddenly – just because you’re now the city’s Deputy Lord Mayor – the powers that be decide to bestow upon you a somewhat unnecessarily large parking space?
You just park your bike in it, don’t you?
Well, that’s exactly what Colette Finn, a Green Party councillor and the current Deputy Lord Mayor of Cork, has chosen to do, as evidenced by this rather striking image – posted on Twitter by fellow Green councillor Dan Boyle – neatly depicting the vast chasm in space routinely provided for some commuters over others.
While several cyclists praised Finn’s decision to park her bike in her designated Deputy Lord Mayor’s spot, with different variations on “Love it” peppering the replies, the image did however strike up a rather heated debate (it is social media after all) on the use of so-called ‘car’ parking spaces for bikes – and whether designated parking spaces for officials should even still be the norm if we want to encourage active travel.
“Celebrating wasted space. Hilarious,” said Aodhán, while Orchard Man also described Finn’s bike parking as a “symbol of ‘road’ space wasted by cyclists”.
“If the space isn’t needed for cars, put in a bike rack,” he continued.
“Selfish though. Bet that same person will whine about a car taking up space on a cycle path,” added Nick, as if those two examples are directly comparable.
Meanwhile, Colum wrote: “I suppose it’s political humour but it’s wasteful. She could have requested removal of the sign.”
Others, naturally, were baffled by the backlash to a cyclist parking their bike in a reserved space for an elected official in an underground car park…
“People saying it’s a waste of space but no one can park in it but her so who cares if her bike is in it. That’s fine!” said greekman.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the issue of ‘wasted space’, some cyclists noted that another culprit could perhaps be responsible for taking up too much unnecessary room.
“I know, crazy how many bikes you can fit in the space of a car, isn't it?” wrote Tim. “Crazy waste of space, five empty seats and two tonnes of metal just to move somebody around when clearly this is all most of us need.”
“This makes you think how much space a commuter actually needs if we would be more conscious,” said the Cork Cycling Campaign.
Con, however, noted that the very concept of ‘privileged’ car parking was detrimental to the cause of active travel.
“As long as we dole out privileged parking places to an entitled few, we are never gonna see progress on the use of public transport or alternative transportation like cycling,” he said.
“The few isn’t the issue, it's a wider issue with council and civil service staff too,” added Cycling in Kilkenny. “How much will an entire council staff care about public transport if they get free parking?”
Add new comment
83 comments
Calling the Strada Bianche a monument is as ridiculous as calling that big road race aropund London a "classic". Neither can become such a thing without the significant, should I say major, impact of time. You cannot create a monument in a couple fo decades.
Safety is all about layers of protection. I support wear hi vis since it makes me more visible to other road users. But it can't overcome a driver who fails to look...
Yes. Although referring to hi-vis as "protection" is putting it a bit strongly...
I agree with layered safety though - big feature of "sustainable safety" but actually appears many places. We already do it for motorists in some cases! Consider eg. motorway design - single direction of motion, physical separation from other traffic, lanes, rumble strips, energy absorbing barriers...
Indeed, the swiss cheese model. Which contrary to the name, does not encourage the wearing of wheels of Gruyère and a casquette of Tete du Moines.
Even that's not enough to catch the attention of some drivists
What I think you'd appreciate is the hierarchy of protections, which puts PPE like hi-vis and helmets as the very last line of defence, as they presume that everything else has failed. Real, meaningful protections, like worthwhile infra that ideally removes the potential for vehicles and cyclists to interact completely, or more realistically significantly reduces the exposure, is the first step.
Though in this case when all the holes line up, drivers who don't bother to look still can't see through them.
(Yes I know that's really torturing the reference!)
I've been on Twitter on this driver who ran down the cyclist on the roundabout.
Best I have had so far is 'the cyclist was in front of the vehicle, and at traffic islands any driver knows you look to the right.'
Part of the driving test should be getting hit by 30kmh, it's the only way I can see people's attitudes changing. If you've been disqualified from driving, the speed goes up to 35kmh then 50kmh after you're third time.
I dont like main road roundabouts particularly... particularly going across or right round them rather than turning left. I worry about the closing speeds of drivers joining the roundabout who are so busy looking right for vehicles that they don't look straight on.
I generally ride central to my lane, to give me a chance of taking avoiding action if a driver doesn't see me when they are joining.
Certainly a trip I did once along sections of the Swindon ring road... dual carriageways, HGVs and big old roundabouts was quite an adrenaline buzz!
Meanwhile in The Netherlands...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/04/09/riding-random-roundabouts/
Meanwhile in Swindon (I can see a cyclist creeping round the edge):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kafx_GGHqVg
A couple of years ago I won the prize of a close, reserved parking spot at work for a month. Not a lot of value to me as I cycle in more than 80% of the time, and on the few days I do drive, I park in the far corner of the parking lot to get some extra steps in.
Plus, the parking lot is less than half of my walking. It's 250 m to my desk where I normally park, or 130 m from the reserved one. It mostly sat empty, but when I rode in on my one bike that had a kickstand, I parked it in the middle of the spot. It was about the same distance from the entry turnstile as the bike racks were.
GB News seems to be having a good day today as they also had an interview with Sarah Hope about killer drivers getting lenient punishments.
https://youtu.be/2vqVfKbtY1M?feature=shared
Right wing top trumps innit? Softy Lefty Judges(TM) versus The War On The Motorist(TM)
Is the "reinvigorating" in quotes ? because your impression is similar to mine that the road racing task force recommendations, are unlikely to reinvigorate a damn thing.
Somebody needs to check the archives to see if GB News or Eamonn Holmes covered the HC changes when they came in, because its absolutely the thing they would have covered for confusing the poor hard working motorists.
that Eamonn has forgotten about it, says far more about people's attitudes in general towards driving than it does about how much publicity the changes had.
"I bet Darren Grimes is fuming…"
So fuming, he will have had to whack off a swifty
Danny Kelly is a motoring journalist? When did that happen? Mate of Danny Baker and formerly working for the NME and Q? That Danny Kelly?
Sorry, that was my only takeaway from that story.
Different Danny Kelly. Thankfully.
Yes, not the former NME jornalist, Danny Kelly who called Rafa Benitez a nonce live on air, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kelly_(journalist) , but it's former used car salesman and now "motoring journalist" and BBC WM presenter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kelly_(BBC_WM_presenter) . He is presumably GBeenies choice of a driving expert. He admits he had a knowledge of the highway code when he took his driving test, 25 years ago, but know has "probably forgot all about it".
Awful to see and, sadly, an all too common occurrence based on how many people bring bikes to me after similar collisions.
Apart from best wishes to the rider I'd just like to raise my concern with Ryan's article with regard to the description of the driver having pulled onto the roundabout and "clipped" the cyclist.
The reason I say this is that I'm certain that it didn't feel like a clip - and because without fail drivers who have admitted liability in collisions with my customers, but are trying to belatedly make their excuses, all have used the term "clipped" to describe the impact of their vehicle on a vulnerable road user.
I know for sure the victims used words such as "hit" or "struck" - because that's what it felt like, and that's what it was.
No one here wants to make excuses for the driver, but it's very easy to inadvertently do so by using words that are designed to soften the language used to describe a frightening, violent, and potentially lethal, impact caused by another person's negligence or aggression at the wheel.of their vehicle.
Agreed. A "clip" might mean at worst a slightly bent wheel and almost always scuffs from tarmac contact, but the bike is otherwise completely sound. And unless the rider is extremely unlucky will most likely escape with minor injuries.
A proper impact will almost definitely have consequences for componentry and the rider is much more likely to suffer more serious injury.
Agree. Similar incident. Woman in a car hit me - yes hit as in broke my left leg and sent me flying across the roundabout to gather a load of road rash. She admitted it in front of witnesses luckily because she later told her insuance company I just fell off. But it was definitely 'hit' because it bloody hurt and took six-odd weeks of recovery.
100% agree.
As always, language matters.
http://rc-rg.com
Eamon Holmes said it, Highway Code revision courses should be done any time a photocard licence expires (eithwer photo renewal, information changes, end of a ban etc)
Honestly, its not the lack of understanding of highway code changes that is the issue, its the general standards of driving. There has never been a point where its okay to pull across a cyclist forcing them to either crash into you or slam on their brakes. There has never been a time when overtaking at speed 20cm from my bars has been OK.
Fundamentally, every sensible cyclists on the road rides to the reality of cycling, not the highway code. I don't undertake cars when passing a side road in case they just turn into me. I don't care that I have priority, I don't want to be injured or killed.
General standards of driving and attention need to improve massively and that could be achieved with a retest every 5 years and far more strict punishment for dangerous driving. Get caught intentionally putting other road users in danger? There goes your licence for at least 6 months. Get caught unintentionally driving poorly twice in a year? There goes your licence.
Generally, standards of driving and lack of undersatnding HC changes go hand in hand.
There are a minority of idiots who deliberately ignore everything they should do due to an entitled attitude. Most other drivers (any trust me, nearly every single driver makes at least one questionable decision on a semi-regular basis, even the careful ones) become complacent because they are not challenged to prove their competency. If you are regularly challenged (ie by taking a revision course on HC changes) then you will keep your standards higher for fear of being deemed incompetent.
The Government did not help by not making a song and dance about what were the biggest revisions to the HC seen in a long time, and certainly much bigger than any other in the time I have been driving. A proper PR campaign would have made a huge difference in people knowing of their existence and understanding what they mean. More drivers would follow the new rules and it would be easier to discern deliberately dangerous drivers from the rest of the motoring demographic, as the probability of carelessness from other drivers becomes greatly reduced.
..."oblivious motorist still managed to pull out onto the roundabout and clip them...."
I used to post suggesting road.cc stop using "punishment pass" and use "punishment pass AKA cowards pass" anyway what is being "clipped" ? It's a collision...driver steering a lump of metal into road user who has no protection...it's not being "clipped"
There is hope !!!
I'm winning the "separated / protected" vs "segregated" war.
Sharing this because (a) I'm sure lots of us have al fresco wees when riding through the countryside and (b) it may be a unique case of Freeman's views getting majority support on here - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/english-council-litterin...
needs to be contested in court, weeing in the wild on permeable surfaces cannot possibly be littering. Are the council going to require that dog owners take liquids as well as solids home?
If it is the case that urinating in the countryside is not allowed, then surely there is a requirement on councils to provide facilities, because "just hold it until you reach a town" is not viable. Further the policy of the majority of local councils to lock public conveniences at 16:00 -17:00 needs to be reassessed as a de facto curfew.
My rules for rural bladder emptying 1) not in view of a residence or normally occupied building (shop/office/warehouse), 2) not on an impermeable surface 3) not in a settlement of any kind. 4) preferably not in view of a road
Also, there's plenty of people that suffer from bladder issues or even just old age that can struggle to find appropriate facilities in time. To my mind, free toilets and free drinking water (both 24h) should be a minimum of civilisation.
Pages