Cyclist question

copacetic

I'm not I'm just saying that the cyclist in general cycles the safest way. It is motorists who are the dangerous 'crazy' ones. You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder for some reason?

In this case the cyclist doesn't sound like they took a 'gamble' on right of way, they were cycling along and get overtaken from behind and cutoff.

wingnut

I have been a cyclist and motorist for a good many years (all be it outside the captial). I would always move to the left of the straight ahead lane. I know it puts you in between too lanes of traffic but I find it much safer. I just check behind signal and move. I think it is a MASSIVE gamble to be on the very left and rely on the car to yield. In the perfect perhaps.

I do notice VERY few cyclists signal their intention. I put it down to people who just hop on a bike and do what they like.

Just to reiterate I am not on either side, there are good and bad cyclists and motorists.

masseyno9

OK, slightly off topic, but its been on my mind for a while and is kind of relevant but not worth starting a new thread over.

Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? I am specifically referring to the road from rathfarnham village to nutgrove shopping centre, and up towards the bottle tower pub. This is where i first noticed it, as i use the road every day, but have seen it elsewhere too. It is almost a daily observation at this stage.

Apart from being annoying (and possibly contra ROTR) it is more dangerous than being on the cycle path.

I say this as both a cyclist and a motorist. incidently its equally annoying when pedestrians stroll down the cycle lane ignorant of the fact its a cycle lane. Not a major deal but more of a display of open ignorance, which i hate!!

ok, rant over....phew!

BostonB

copacetic wrote:

I'm not I'm just saying that the cyclist in general cycles the safest way. It is motorists who are the dangerous 'crazy' ones. You seem to have some big chip on your shoulder for some reason?...

I don't get why you're giving cycling advice to a motorist for some reason.

You say that the big dangers are cars open their doors and turning left across in front of them. So where do you suggest the cyclist stays? On the left where alll these dangers are. Makes no sense to me. When I'm cycling and I know that others are likely to be confused, or overtake and pull across me. I stick myself in the middle of the lane and make myself 6ft wide so no one can get around me, at least until I'm past the junction.

As a road user, never assume other people can see you. Always assume everyone else is an idiot and give them an accordingly wide berth.

Victor

About Rathfarnham, IIRC that cycle path was added to the existing footpath by only adding red tarmac. It has pedestrians (3 year olds don't appeciate the change in colour - they've only been told keep off the road), a high kerb to fall off and obstructions like bus stops, signs and lamp posts.

http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123906_0357
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123924_0358
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_124408_0364

Now can someone tell me why cars park on the footpath? Why can't they stay on the road?

copacetic

BostonB wrote:

Always assume everyone else is an idiot and give them an accordingly wide berth.

I'm certainly taking this advice about you anyway, cheers.

BostonB

masseyno9 wrote:

...Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? ...

A lot of cycle paths are less than ideal so why not give them the benefit of the doubt they have a good reason not to be in them.

We had the discussion before and some posted they felt less exposed cycling in the traffic and even between the lanes of traffic. Due to the problems of people cutting across cycle lanes, pulling, stopping and generally not looking up their inside left for the cyclists.

BostonB

markpb wrote:

....On more than one occasion, the coronors court has cited DCC's continued use of left-of-left cycle lanes as being the primary cause of death...

Thats interesting. Do you have some links to that?

masseyno9

Victor wrote:

About Rathfarnham, IIRC that cycle path was added to the existing footpath by only adding red tarmac. It has pedestrians (3 year olds don't appeciate the change in colour - they've only been told keep off the road), a high kerb to fall off and obstructions like bus stops, signs and lamp posts.

http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123906_0357
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_123924_0358
http://www.273k.net/cyclegallery/2005-05-29/2005-05-29_124408_0364

Now can someone tell me why cars park on the footpath? Why can't they stay on the road?

3 year olds shouldn't be out on that footpath unsupervised for a start. its right beside a main road.

Granted some cycle paths are terribly done, but i have regularly used the cycle in question and its fine. If you are worried about 'falling off' a high kerb you probably shouldn't be on a bike, and definitely not on the road, not to mind a cycle path. Bus stops, signs and lamp posts get in your way...can you not steer around them?

I'm not saying motorists are always right, infact the sheer muppetry on the roads every day is worrying, but just because you don't want to cycle on a path provided for you doesn't mean you shouldn't.

As i've said before i'm a cyclist too, so can see both sides of the coin, however will always use a cycle path if there is one, particularly that one as the traffic lanes are so narrow that if a motorist was trying to overtake a cyclist there would be a high risk of an accident.

Another one, (apologies for being off topic again) cyclists breaking red lights...if you (or i) ride on the road, you obey the rules.

littlejukka

masseyno9 wrote:

Bus stops, signs and lamp posts get in your way...can you not steer around them?

a dedicated lane for a certain type of vehicle on a roadway and you don't mind seeing it blocked, kinked and chicaned due to the ineptitude of the people who design it?

i would be intigued to see the results if a sign post, traffic light or buslane was planked in the middle of a regular traffic lane occupied by cars, busses, taxis and cyclists alike. can you not steer around them?

markpb

BostonB wrote:

Thats interesting. Do you have some links to that?

I think it was mentioned in a document in the dublin cycling campaign's website but I can't find it now, sorry.

mikedragon32

Alun wrote:

You're surely not saying that in that situation a cyclist should stay on the left of the left-turn only lane and yet still go straight on are you?

That's exactly what I'm saying!

It makes more sense than having the cyclist weave across oncoming traffic.

mikedragon32

masseyno9 wrote:

OK, slightly off topic, but its been on my mind for a while and is kind of relevant but not worth starting a new thread over.

Does any one else get pissed off at cyclists that insist on cycling on the road when there is a cycle path right beside them? I am specifically referring to the road from rathfarnham village to nutgrove shopping centre, and up towards the bottle tower pub. This is where i first noticed it, as i use the road every day, but have seen it elsewhere too. It is almost a daily observation at this stage.

Apart from being annoying (and possibly contra ROTR) it is more dangerous than being on the cycle path.

I say this as both a cyclist and a motorist. incidently its equally annoying when pedestrians stroll down the cycle lane ignorant of the fact its a cycle lane. Not a major deal but more of a display of open ignorance, which i hate!!

ok, rant over....phew!

I travel the road a couple of times a week and in fairness to cyclists the quality of that cycle lane is appalling and also it's used by the residents of Nutgrove Avenue as parking, so why should the cyclist keep hopping up and down kerbs to accommodate the motorist?

Ciaran500

masseyno9 wrote:

Granted some cycle paths are terribly done, but i have regularly used the cycle in question and its fine.

Its much more work ride on a path like that. No cyclist would be comfortable cycling on that at 30+kph without worrying about someone walking out in front of them. Most bike paths you see are ok for leisure cycling but no where near the standard for commuting.

masseyno9 wrote:

If you are worried about 'falling off' a high kerb you probably shouldn't be on a bike, and definitely not on the road, not to mind a cycle path.

You can't drop an expensive road bike off a kerb like that, they're too lightweight to handle drops like that.

MarkN

Cycle lanes in general in Dublin are in a state. The surface is either in bits or there's glass everywhere. Pedestrians are the other problem but it has been mentioned.

If you're someone who goes into the opposite side of the road just to get past a cyclist then you're going to have a problem with a cyclist not using a cycle lane. But if that is you then you're a nervous driver and anything and everything is going to cause you panic and problems on the road IMO.

Ciaran500 wrote:

You can't drop an expensive road bike off a kerb like that, they're too lightweight to handle drops like that.

Exactly.

I know this isn't the cycling forum but masseyno9 you don't sound like much of a cyclist to me, I have a Giant road bike and one it's far too fast to be going past pedestrians and two it can't handle drops like you describe.

I cycle the Phoenix Park Monday-Friday and the amount of idiots that walk in the way on the cycle lane when there's a footpath just metres away but you don't see us cyclists waving and shaking fists and ranting on about it!!

Stark

masseyno9 wrote:

however will always use a cycle path if there is one, particularly that one as the traffic lanes are so narrow that if a motorist was trying to overtake a cyclist there would be a high risk of an accident.

That road isn't particularly narrow. Look at the pictures Victor posted, half the cars are out in the middle of the road already!

Also, if the road is too narrow, then you just have to hang back a bit until there's a gap in traffic coming against you. If you cause an accident by being impatient, that's your fault.

Steve

Sorry, I have to rant about this:

MarkN wrote:

the amount of idiots that walk in the way on the cycle lane when there's a footpath just metres away but you don't see us cyclists waving and shaking fists and ranting on about it!!

Ciaran500 wrote:

Its much more work ride on a path like that. No cyclist would be comfortable cycling on that at 30+kph without worrying about someone walking out in front of them. Most bike paths you see are ok for leisure cycling but no where near the standard for commuting.

Pot - kettle - black

So cyclists are avoiding cycle paths because of the right-of-way pedestrians. Motorists are still expected to keep clear of the weaving cyclists.

IMO 30kph is excessive and dangerous on a pedal bike simply because they don't have the stopping ability to deal with the unforseen.

@OP - sorry to hear that you got points because of a cyclist making an illegal manoever - unfortunately thats the way it seems to be.

@Cyclists reading this - the reason for the lack of respect from motorists comes from the group among you who to whom the ROTR do not apply and who show blatant disregard to traffic signals, turn restrictions etc... I know that you have as much right to be on the road as everyone else but with that right comes the responsibility to follow the same rules as everyone else.

In Switzerland, pedal cycles have number plates and (I'think) require insurance to use a public road. They also get fined and punished for breaking the law. I have witnessed on several occasions cyclists here scratching / denting / removing wing morrors from parked cars whislt trying to squeesze through a gap or cycling too fast for conditions - most times they continue (unidentified) on their merry way without a thought for the damage they did. Only once did I see a guy stop and leave a note on the car he damaged.

/rant

Many years ago while learning to drive, I asked my instructor how much room should you leave a cyclist. His reply stuck with me to this day:
"Enough room to fall off....".

Ciaran500

stevec wrote:

So cyclists are avoiding cycle paths because of the right-of-way pedestrians. Motorists are still expected to keep clear of the weaving cyclists.

We avoid the paths because pedestrians wander out into cycle paths and sometimes completely block cycle paths with out look. You won't find a cyclist doing that on a road unless he has a death wish.

stevec wrote:

IMO 30kph is excessive and dangerous on a pedal bike simply because they don't have the stopping ability to deal with the unforseen.

You're kidding, right?

Steve

Ciaran500 wrote:

We avoid the paths because pedestrians wander out into cycle paths and sometimes completely block cycle paths with out look. You won't find a cyclist doing that on a road unless he has a death wish.

From my experience (17yrs driving in Dublin) it appears some of them do:D
I'm not saying all cyclists are lile this - most are not - there are muppets though. Similarly, most pedestrians will look before crossing a cycle lane - there are also muppets.
If a cyclist hits the muppet pedestrian it's thier fault (and admittedly will probably injure themselves in the process) - therefore they avoid the cycle paths. If a motorist hits the muppet cyclist, it's also their fault but they do not have an option of not driving somewhere else.

Ciaran500 wrote:

You're kidding, right?

The speed itself is not an issue - inappropriate speed for the conditions is just as dangerous on a bike as in a car and, as you said earlier, if a pedestrian is liable to walk out then it's excessive.

Ciaran500

stevec wrote:

From my experience (17yrs driving in Dublin) it appears some of them do:D
I'm not saying all cyclists are lile this - most are not - there are muppets though.

Like anything there are ***** every where and they've nearly hit me at times aswell, just use a smaller brush when talking about us

stevec wrote:

Similarly, most pedestrians will look before crossing a cycle lane - there are also muppets.

TBH as long as I've been cycling I have never, ever seen someone look behind them when moving into a cycle lane connected to a path.

stevec wrote:

The speed itself is not an issue - inappropriate speed for the conditions is just as dangerous on a bike as in a car and, as you said earlier, if a pedestrian is liable to walk out then it's excessive.

Which is why people don't use them, cause you can't hit the same speeds as on the road safely. Cyclists shouldn't be forced onto the cycle paths where they have to go slower and use more energy just because they are there.

Steve

Apologies Ciaran, I was trying not to generalise.

I think the conclusion here is that some cycle lanes are poorly designed and constructed and thereby unusable?

To stay on topic - Nothing excuses the behavior of the guy who ignored the left turn only lane and caused the incident with the OP.
OK I know it's difficult to negotiate traffic etc on a cycle - there was nothing to stop him dismounting and crossing the road as a pedestrian - I guess that would have added 2-3 minutes on to his journey though :mad:
Don't get me wrong - While I like to make progress myself and will sometimes chance an amber light - I have the same issue with idiotic drivers who will also take stupid risks to save 5 mins on their journey.

prospect

Hi all,

To all the cyclists who think they do no wrong, and to all the motorists who think similarily, please stop being so general and inaccurate. Both groups make mistakes in equal proportions.

Here is a question based on the OP scenario.

Assuming the cyclist stays on the left of the left turn lane. The traffic lights change, but, only the left filter comes on. Now, what should the cyclist do? Should he/she remain stationary, inside the left turning traffic? If so, what happens when the full green light comes on, does he just start cycling and expect the flow of left turning traffic to just stop and accomodate his manouvre?

Steve

prospect wrote:

Now, what should the cyclist do?

Chain his bike to the nearest lampost and go figure out why he shouldn't have been there in the first place;) .

What if the muppet had been in a car? should he put on the right indicator and cause havoc till the lights change?

Victor

stevec wrote:

OK I know it's difficult to negotiate traffic etc on a cycle - there was nothing to stop him dismounting and crossing the road as a pedestrian - I guess that would have added 2-3 minutes on to his journey though :mad:

How about you get out of your car and cross as a pedestrian?

masseyno9 wrote:

3 year olds shouldn't be out on that footpath unsupervised for a start. its right beside a main road.

The cycle path shouldn't be part of the footpath. It would be one thing to do it in a parkland setting, but in the pictures above, it is ludicrous.

Have you never had a 3 year old lurch away from you? Do you not realise that the councils put up illegal signs, blurring the cyclist / pedestrian domain?

If you are worried about 'falling off' a high kerb you probably shouldn't be on a bike,

What about being push or knocked off?

and definitely not on the road, not to mind a cycle path. Bus stops, signs and lamp posts get in your way...can you not steer around them?

Sure, but that means either using the footpath or the road.

Another one, (apologies for being off topic again) cyclists breaking red lights...if you (or i) ride on the road, you obey the rules.

And motorists also break red lights, usually at speed. All offenders should be punished. I thought this thread was about learning some anticipation skills, not about bashing one group or another?

the_syco

mikedragon32 wrote:

Wrong.

If a cyclist is turning left OR going straight ahead, he should keep to the left. The cyclist should only move out if he is turning right.

Ah, ok. I'm a learner driver, but have cycled for many a year. I always thought that the cyclist doesn't go on the "going left" lane, on the left, if they're going straight on, as if the light said for that lane to go left, but that cars couldn't go straight on, the cyclist would be in the way.

littlejukka wrote:

i never use the straight on signal in city traffic. the majority of motorists wouldn't have a clue what it means.

Eh, what? You don't use the signal, because other people won't know what it means... and you know this... cos you never used it?

littlejukka wrote:

i would be intigued to see the results if a sign post, traffic light or buslane was planked in the middle of a regular traffic lane occupied by cars, busses, taxis and cyclists alike. can you not steer around them?

The county council calls them "traffic calming measures". Always fun being a a bus going through some parts of Ballyfermot, where the bus has to serve around them:rolleyes:

Ciaran500 wrote:

stevec wrote:

IMO 30kph is excessive and dangerous on a pedal bike simply because they don't have the stopping ability to deal with the unforseen.

You're kidding, right?

I think they may mean that if a ped walks infront of you, and you're going 30kph, can you stop in time? Oh, and I'm talking about the cyclists who don't use lights, yet expect me to see them coming at full speed down the road in the dark?

=-=

Oh, and for the record, if I'm going straight on, and there's a left lane, I stay a foot inside the straight on lane. I've as much right to be on the road, but I want to be seen by the driver behind me, esp when they're in a truck, so that they can see me, that I'm there.

A cyclist wishing to go straight on, waiting for the trucks to go by will get squished, as the truck won't see, with the cyclist being in their blind spot. But, if the cyclist is on their right (and to the left of the cars going straight on), they'll see the cyclist.

BostonB

Ye good auld safety bubble.

blorg

On the original point, it is a difficult one for cyclists.

A cyclist moving out from the left of the road into the going straight lane is very likely to get beeped at by cars behind them, who presumably think cyclists should be on the extreme left no matter where they are going.

I don't agree with the "left hand side of the middle lane" idea either, if you are in any lane other than the left one, middle of the lane is the only safe place to be.

prospect

stevec wrote:

What if the muppet had been in a car? should he put on the right indicator and cause havoc till the lights change?

Big difference, according to the majority of posts here, the Cyclist MUST be in that position on the road, therefore the scenario I pointed out would occur every time.
However, if a car is in that stiuation, it would be more of an isolated incident.

Steve

prospect wrote:

according to the majority of posts here, the Cyclist MUST be in that position on the road

Correct - that is what a lot of posters are saying, however, having just read ROTR again, in particular the bit about cyclists, there is nothing to back this up. They say the cyclist SHOULD keep left except when changing lanes.

There is nothing in the ROTR that exempts a cyclist from a mandatory left turn - it states that cyclists MUST follow mandatory signs at junctions. Therefore if the cyclist was in the left turn lane he MUST turn left and, in fact, he broke the law by going straight.

Ciaran500:
In the photos that Victor posted, there is a solid white line bordering the cycle lane - according to ROTR page 159 this designates a "mandatory cycle track" and further points out that cyclists MUST use it (I didn't realise this myself) which I would take to mean that it is illegal for cyclists to cycle on the road as opposed to the track..

All:
Please feel free to correct me if I've missed something in ROTR that allows / compells a cyclist to be in the wrong lane at a junction.

blorg

@stevec- the cycle track also has to have very specific legally defined signage (and this does NOT include the round cycle/pedestrian sign) along with the white line to be legally a cycle track that cyclists are compelled to use. I don't see this sign in Victor's photos. There are also exemptions that a cycle path does not have to be used if it is "obstructed" - exactly what this might mean is unclear, but parked cars, joggers, pedestrians, signposts and trees probably count.

Back to the original point with the lane choice: to a certain extent you have to apply common sense. It is all very well saying that a cyclist should behave like any other vehicle and move into the correct lane at the earliest opportunity but the reality of this is that any cyclist moving into the centre of the road is going to majorly annoy the drivers behind them in the lane they move into, especially if they do it well in advance of the junction (as you would in a car, to avoid being stuck.)