A cyclist from Galway – where councillors last year controversially voted against a major segregated cycleway – who was hospitalised for four and a half months after being hit by a driver has described the Irish city as the “worst place I’ve ever cycled by a long shot”.
Simon Rowan was riding home from work in January when he was struck by a motorist at a roundabout, leaving him with multiple fractures, including a broken pelvis, as well as other serious trauma.
He underwent two major surgeries during a two-month stay in hospital, before being transferred to a rehab facility for another two months. Simon was finally able to return to his home this week, with the aid of crutches, with his wife Ruth acknowledging that there is still “a very long road ahead” in his recovery.
> Galway councillors vote for U-turn on Salthill cycleway, prompting "disgust and disappointment"
Speaking to the Irish Times, the cyclist – who lived in Los Angeles for a number of years, so should know a thing or two about cycling in a car-focused city – says the impact of his collision in January has underlined the need for safe, protected cycling infrastructure in Galway, a place where, it seems, the private car remains top of the pile.
Last year on the live blog we reported that plans for a major two-way, 3km-long segregated cycleway along the promenade in Salthill, a seaside suburb of Galway City, were scrapped when councillors – who initially backed the project – voted 13 to four against it after local business owners said the lane would create “havoc”.
In the aftermath of that decision, cyclists in Salthill left homemade signs on cars, some of which were permanently parked for advertising purposes, to make a cutting point about how the council appears to prefer road space to be used.
> "This could be a cycleway": Cyclist leaves homemade sign on abandoned car
And Simon reckons that the decision in Salthill is indicative of a local authority that cares more about parking spaces for cars that it does the safety of its residents.
“I would say this is the worst place I’ve ever cycled by a long shot,” he told the Times. “When I went to LA I expected it to be really bad. But it’s actually so much better than here.
“I have been thinking about what makes Galway so bad. It keeps on coming back to the council and councillors and the negativity towards cyclists here.
“The decision on the prom [in Salthill] really got to me especially now after my accident… To me it was that car parking space was more valuable than a child being safe, or some adults being safe on a bike.”
His wife Ruth added: “People are encouraged to cycle but there’s nothing happening to make it safer. You are still expected to share the road with every kind of vehicle: cars and buses and trucks.
“It is frustrating and heart-breaking to see that this happened to my husband. And to think that still nothing might change because people don’t like change.”
As Simon begins another phase of his long recovery at home, his message to Galway City Council – and any other local authority for that matter – is a pointed one: “These sorts of accidents are happening all the time. Like, they know where it’s at. They know where the traffic is. And not a finger lifted to do something about it.”
Add new comment
17 comments
Four Grimsby cyclists fined £220 and ordered to pay £284 in costs for cycling in prohibited zone
That level of fine would appear to be appropriate for drivers who significantly exceed the speed limit and put lives at risk, but totally inappropriate for riding a bike in a pedestrian area, unless it can be shown that they endangered someone's life. Given that all four got the same fine, I very much doubt that it can, and the amount of the fine is unjustified.
Can the size of the fine be challenged?
The Grimsby news - lets hope that poor driver doesn't resort to cycling during his 28 day driving ban: if they take a wrong turn and end up in the pedestrianised area they will be
hit with a larger finemore out of pocket than for driving at 165% of the speed limit.Riding a bicycle in a "prohibited area": £220 fine plus £226 costs and a £58 victim surcharge.
Driving a car at 66mph in a 40mph zone: disqualified from driving for 28 days. £323 fine plus £144 costs.
Not completely sure that those are proportionate sentences...
And I had to share this one with the class
Finnish businessman hit with €121,000 speeding fine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-wi...
Article in the Grauniad about 'shrinkflation' - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/06/hard-pressed-shoppers-f... ends with the following:
Yep "green growth" in car sales made my wince. Then again it's Mike Hawes.
Is he meaning that some enormous but unspecified percentage of those new cars are EV and therefore he considers them to be "Good/Green"?
The word 'green' goes with 'washing'.
Unreadable today, due to floating video (road.cc) and floating ads over content, with no way to make them go away. Please can you have a look at this? It's detrimental to the site.
Are you a subscriber, PT?
Look, I get what you’re saying, but you could say the same thing for every website online, and you can’t exactly pay £5 a month for every website you visit to make the site halfway-usable – nobody could afford to use the internet.
If Road.cc rely on ad revenue, then that’s fine – all they need to so is stop going out of their way to make the end-user experience absolute dog-shit, and they can have all the ad revenue they want. As it stands this website is unusable on desktop without ad blockers and unusable on mobile full-stop. There are hundreds of thousands of websites out there that rely on ad revenue and there are very few I can call to mind that are as aggresively unpleasant to use as Road.cc.
@admins/site owners. At the very least, can you take a look at the autoplay modal? The one at the top of the screen (that takes up a third of the screen and covers the menu) waits for the inner content to load before it renders the button to close it. I live in the middle of nowhere with Victorian internet – it takes AGES for the close button to appear. Please, render the close button as soon as the modal container exists.
Then there’s a banner ad at the bottom of the screen that takes up the bottom half of the screen. Underneath that is another banner ad with an autoplay video (that takes forever to load) and then forces you to watch 10 seconds of it before you can close it, YouTube style. Then underneath THAT is another, full-screen modal that advertises subscription.
Seriously, it takes like a minute to drill down through the adds until you can see the page content. If a casual reader (the kind that’s never going to subscribe, because it doesn’t really offer them any value) has to go through all of that just the see the front page, do you think that they’re going to put their hand in their pocket for a sub, or do you think they’re just going to go to Cycling Weekly?
I’m honestly using the site way less these days because of how shit the ads have gotten.
/rant over
Eeep.
Why would the Slovenian authorities be putting out messages to drivers in English? Suspect Photoshop!
I was just here to post the exact same thing...
A couple of people have said they've seen it, and that it switches between slovenian and english every few seconds.
While funny I suspect it will only encourage wannabes to bask in Roglič's glory and LARP as a racer for a few minutes.
My experience in Slovenia is that most residents speak better English than I do