Dotted line cycle-lanes

Glowing

Hi,

I cycle to work every day, and some of the way, there are cycle tracks. I don't use them when -

a) they finish at a dead end.
b) they pass a particular bus stop which is always broken, therefore the cycle track is always covered in glass.
c) the cycle track is shared with a footpath, there are always school-children, dogs, mothers with prams who step into my path without a glance and at the last minute, endangering their safety and mine.
d) the cycle track is shared with a footpath as above, and passes a number of driveways, out of which cars reverse and don't have visibility of who is on the cycle track (because of hedges, walls etc) until it is too late.

So in these situations, I cycle on the road. I would rather take the smaller risk of being knocked down on the road, than the much higher risk of having an accident on a cycle-track, even though I might be in a better legal position. I've had so many near misses on cycle tracks of drivers just pulling left and not checking their left wing-morrors, if I'm on the road, I'll be either straight ahead of them, or visible in their rear-view mirrors - a much safer stance in my opinion. My safety comes before any law ... I think most cyclists think that way.

Raam

Joe Malone wrote: »

Thanks for the invite but I generally prefer cycling on my own - at my own pace. I seriously doubt I would be able to keep up with serious cyclists such as yourself. I actually seek out "safe" routes such as the Phoenix Park - this whole taking control of a lane and being assertive does not do it for me - I empathise with the motorist that is getting delayed (just my outlook on life, don't shoot me for it)

Fair enough, but if you wish to reconsider, please do. The pace is kept at a level suitable for the group. I used to always cycle on my own, but I find the spins with groups to be good social fun and we get to learn from each other. If you want to leave the environs of the park and get into some great cycling country side, then a group like ours is a safe way to do it.

kenmc

Well when there's a cycle track provided, we lose the right to cycle on the road, since it is mandatory for a cyclist to use the cycle track. Yet we're expected to obey the rules of the road at all times.

Whatever about the rights, wrongs or legals of it all, my genes have a survival instinct built-in. I'd rather be alive than dead; my experiences have thought me that I stand a better chance of survival if I occasionally break "the rules". It's human instinct. Sue me.

Joe Malone

Glowing wrote: »

Hi,

I cycle to work every day, and some of the way, there are cycle tracks. I don't use them when -

a) they finish at a dead end.
b) they pass a particular bus stop which is always broken, therefore the cycle track is always covered in glass.
c) the cycle track is shared with a footpath, there are always school-children, dogs, mothers with prams who step into my path without a glance and at the last minute, endangering their safety and mine.
d) the cycle track is shared with a footpath as above, and passes a number of driveways, out of which cars reverse and don't have visibility of who is on the cycle track (because of hedges, walls etc) until it is too late.

So in these situations, I cycle on the road. I would rather take the smaller risk of being knocked down on the road, than the much higher risk of having an accident on a cycle-track, even though I might be in a better legal position. I've had so many near misses on cycle tracks of drivers just pulling left and not checking their left wing-morrors, if I'm on the road, I'll be either straight ahead of them, or visible in their rear-view mirrors - a much safer stance in my opinion. My safety comes before any law ... I think most cyclists think that way.

That is exactly the attitude that drives motorists bonkers. You simply do not have the right to flout the law because you are not confident or competent enough to use the infrastructure provided for you. You have summed up the issue perfectly though

Joe Malone

kenmc wrote: »

Well when there's a cycle track provided, we lose the right to cycle on the road, since it is mandatory for a cyclist to use the cycle track. Yet we're expected to obey the rules of the road at all times.

Whatever about the rights, wrongs or legals of it all, my genes have a survival instinct built-in. I'd rather be alive than dead; my experiences have thought me that I stand a better chance of survival if I occasionally break "the rules". It's human instinct. Sue me.

I'm not into sueing anybody, not my style - there is a flaw in your argument though - you make an assumption that its unsafe to use the cycle track - it is my assertion that your assumption is incorrect.

Glowing

Joe Malone wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude that drives motorists bonkers. You simply do not have the right to flout the law because you are not confident or competent enough to use the infrastructure provided for you. You have summed up the issue perfectly though

I haven't had an accident yet - I'll use the cycle track ONLY when it is safe to do so. You have to admit they're not always well designed are they?

oobydooby

Joe Malone wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude that drives motorists bonkers. You simply do not have the right to flout the law because you are not confident or competent enough to use the infrastructure provided for you. You have summed up the issue perfectly though

Her attitude is reasonable, it should not drive any sane person bonkers. It was pointed out here about a year ago by somebody with expertise that there is an over-riding rule of the road that a cyclist should not put themselves or other road users in danger. Look it up. She's not flaunting the law at all. Indeed she's obeying the law.

Glowing

I'm a SHE!!!

oobydooby

Glowing wrote: »

I'm a SHE!!!

fixed:o

kenmc

I never *assumed* that it was unsafe to use the cycle track, I know from experience that it is, based on the number of times that a motorist has endangered my life whilest using them; in my experience, I have been endangered less whilst cycling on the road, even though I have spent more time cycling on roads than cycle tracks.

On the other hand, however, many motorists who have never cycled assume that cycle tracks are safer than the road, since they do not have the experience of cycling on both to be in a position to make a valid judgement.

I will consider using the cycle tracks when motorists consider not using them. I think that's a fair compromise.

kenmc

Joe Malone wrote: »

That is exactly the attitude that drives motorists bonkers. You simply do not have the right to flout the law because you are not confident or competent enough to use the infrastructure provided for you.

But this infers that all motorists are competent enough to use the infrastructure provided for them, which is clearly not the case, judging by the amount of accidents on the roads. Unfortunately, in this dog-eat-dog world, you have to look out for number 1, cos no-one else will.

Glowing

One of the cycle tracks in particular that I 'flout' on a daily basis has cars parked on it regularly - how would one suggest I deal with this? Surely in this instance, it would be safer to cycle on the road? Or should I just weave in and out of them? Or should I cycle on the footpath?

blorg

Glowing wrote: »

One of the cycle tracks in particular that I 'flout' on a daily basis has cars parked on it regularly - how would one suggest I deal with this? Surely in this instance, it would be safer to cycle on the road? Or should I just weave in and out of them? Or should I cycle on the footpath?

If it is a mandatory cycle track (solid line) you MUST use it, and when you come across a parked car you MUST stop, and wait for the obstruction to be cleared. You are NOT allowed leave the lane to overtake the parked car (other than as a pedestrian, wheeling your bicycle.) This is the law.*

*If it is a non-mandatory cycle lane (dashed line), you can overtake the parked car. You cannot legally do this with a solid-line cycle lane (there should never be anything in the way in these lanes cough cough.

Joe Malone

Glowing wrote: »

I haven't had an accident yet - I'll use the cycle track ONLY when it is safe to do so. You have to admit they're not always well designed are they?

I agree that the design is not always optimal - but its mainly down to a lack of joined up integration and is more of an inconvenience than a safety issue. I simply do not believe cyclists who maintain that they avoid cycle tracks on safety concerns. I use them all the time and find the safety issues referred to as being over emphasised and exaggerated.
All road users are expected to act defensively and expect the unexpected. Many cyclists seem to feel they have the right to cycle at full speed which necessarily makes it impossible to mitigate the risks of the unexpected happening or perhaps more correctly, amplifies the risks. This is the reason the cycle track is "deemed" unsafe when it is in fact quite safe as long as you're in control and able to react i.e. not going at full tilt. It just defies logic that it would be safer to be on the main road in competition with HGV's, cars, buses etc when you have a safe haven of a cycle track.

Glowing

Is that what you'd do? Honestly?

Joe Malone

oobydooby wrote: »

Her attitude is reasonable, it should not drive any sane person bonkers. It was pointed out here about a year ago by somebody with expertise that there is an over-riding rule of the road that a cyclist should not put themselves or other road users in danger. Look it up. She's not flaunting the law at all. Indeed she's obeying the law.

Thats nonsense, plain and simple. Please do not make statements of fact without having anything but your opinion and wishful thinking to back it up. The law is quite simple and prescriptive. You must use the cycle track. Utter nonsense to suggest some unquoted "law" that requires a cyclist to deem a cycle track is dangerous and thereby exempt him/her from obeying an Act of the Oireachtas

kenmc

Joe your whole argument is extremely subjective. You have just refused to join Raam and his group on a spin, since you feel you would not be up to the pace; ergo you are happy to toddle along, sticking to the confines of the cycle tracks where you are clearly most at home. The more competent cyclists wish to travel further than the confines of the cycle track; surely if one is competent and confident enough to cycle on roads where there is no cycle track (which is the majority of roads in this country), then one is equally competent to cycle on roads at all times, no?

Don't forget that mankind used think that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth, as they didn't know any better, so people can be forgiven for thinking that cycle tracks are safer than roads.

Joe Malone

Glowing wrote: »

Is that what you'd do? Honestly?

The act allows you to leave the mandatory cycle track when it is blocked by parked vehicles -

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.


(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,


(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or


(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or


(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.


(4) Where a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left-hand side of each lane.

John_C

Joe Malone wrote: »

Thats nonsense, plain and simple. Please do not make statements of fact without having anything but your opinion and wishful thinking to back it up.

My rules of the road book says that my primary responsibility is to my safety and the safety of other road users. I know that book isn't a law but I'd be very surprised of there wasn't a law saying something very similar.

That said, I think this entire debate hinges on this statement:

I simply do not believe cyclists who maintain that they avoid cycle tracks on safety concerns.

kenmc

ah but only if it's a bus (ii) or if it's loading or unloading (iii). If it's not a bus and it's just sitting there with the driver on the phone, picking their nose or empty, then you may not leave the cycle track unless you dismount. However if the bus driver is picking their nose then you can cycle around them. I don't know what happens if the bus is unloading or loading though.

Glowing

kenmc wrote: »

I don't know what happens if the bus is unloading or loading though.

Obviously, according to Blorg, I wait until the obstruction is cleared (and be very late for work)

oobydooby

Gonna break this one down Joe, we're still not in agreement.

Joe Malone wrote: »

I agree that the design is not always optimal - but its mainly down to a lack of joined up integration and is more of an inconvenience than a safety issue.

It's a safety issue. Did you read glowing's post a moment ago? Would you consider the dangers she outlined as a safety issue? (Obviously poor tracks are also an inconvenience)

I simply do not believe cyclists who maintain that they avoid cycle tracks on safety concerns.

Why not, quite a few of us here have attested to it. Doubtless at a more sociable time many other honest cyclists would also attest to this.

I use them all the time and find the safety issues referred to as being over emphasised and exaggerated.

This contradicts your (very reasonable) post [post =56398224]above. [/post]

here

All road users are expected to act defensively and expect the unexpected.

We can agree on something.

Many cyclists seem to feel they have the right to cycle at full speed which necessarily makes it impossible to mitigate the risks of the unexpected happening or perhaps more correctly, amplifies the risks. This is the reason the cycle track is "deemed" unsafe when it is in fact quite safe as long as you're in control and able to react i.e. not going at full tilt.

In the city, many cyclists would break the speed limit if they went at full tilt. I certainly would. I doubt many commuting cyclists would put themselves in such danger. If cycling at a speed appropriate to the conditions, a responsible cyclist should: push their bike and walk on the path; not use a dangerous cycle track; take an appropriate position on the road (IMO). Glad to see your line is softening during this debate.

It just defies logic that it would be safer to be on the main road in competition with HGV's, cars, buses etc when you have a safe haven of a cycle track.

No, it is perfectly logical but yes, it is counter-intuitive. It is important that other road users (cyclists and motorists) can think about this and see why this is a logical position for cyclists to take.

Joe Malone

kenmc wrote: »

Joe your whole argument is extremely subjective. You have just refused to join Raam and his group on a spin, since you feel you would not be up to the pace; ergo you are happy to toddle along, sticking to the confines of the cycle tracks where you are clearly most at home. The more competent cyclists wish to travel further than the confines of the cycle track; surely if one is competent and confident enough to cycle on roads where there is no cycle track (which is the majority of roads in this country), then one is equally competent to cycle on roads at all times, no?

Don't forget that mankind used think that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth, as they didn't know any better, so people can be forgiven for thinking that cycle tracks are safer than roads.

Ken, of course my opinion is subjective, so is yours. Its a little dramatic to say I refused to join Raam. I declined his/her kind offer to join his/her group - for my own reasons and doesn't make my point more or less valid.

I didn't make up the law, cyclists are required to use cycle tracks regardless of their competence. You want to use the road in preference to the cycle track because it allows you the opportunity to cycle at faster speeds. In built up areas, where cycle tracks are found, we all have to sacrafice speed. Cars cant go around at whatever speed they want, neirther can cyclists. We all have to compromise. So, slow down and use the cycle track, its quite safe.

oobydooby

Joe Malone wrote: »

Thats nonsense, plain and simple. Please do not make statements of fact without having anything but your opinion and wishful thinking to back it up. The law is quite simple and prescriptive. You must use the cycle track. Utter nonsense to suggest some unquoted "law" that requires a cyclist to deem a cycle track is dangerous and thereby exempt him/her from obeying an Act of the Oireachtas

I'm right, but I'm not looking up the reference now. To be honest I suspect you are trolling. Goodnight.

kenmc

Yes cyclists are required to use cycle tracks; no-one here has denied that to the best of my knowledge.

But what does seem to be quite clear is that there are many people here who attest to feeling safer on the road than on cycle tracks - whereas you appear to be a voice in the wilderness. If you are more comfortable on the cycle tracks, then by all means stick to them. And if you have never left a cycle track illegally then I salute your superior morals; otherwise of course I shall have to call you hypocritical.

However, if you well excuse me, I will take leave of this conversation and retire to bed, since I shall be cycling in the morning - not in the cycle tracks of course. It's been fun.

Joe Malone

Oobydooby - the fact remains that the law is the law, and law breaking cyclists risk a lot by flouting the law. The general attitude by many is one of being a world authority on what constitutes safe. The government has decided that the safe place for cyclists is on cycle tracks. You should therefore, obey the law and cycle at a pace that conditions on the track allow (and thereby mitigate these risks you are so worried about) rather than taking the anarchy option. Its only a matter of time before a cyclist is involved in a serious collision when he/she should have been on a cycle track. As I said already, the law flouting cyclist will be in serious trouble trying to get compensated for possible serious medical bills and/or loss of earnings. I wouldn't take that risk.

Joe Malone

oobydooby wrote: »

I'm right, but I'm not looking up the reference now. To be honest I suspect you are trolling. Goodnight.

You are WRONG and you have been caught out so you use the usual "out" and accuse me of trolling. Pathetic. Good night

I'm right and I know I'm right, its just I can't prove it, but in the land of obbydooby, its right because I say it is!!!

Glowing

Joe Malone wrote: »

As I said already, the law flouting cyclist will be in serious trouble trying to get compensated for possible serious medical bills and/or loss of earnings. I wouldn't take that risk.

Well I take that risk daily - fine by me. As I said before, the chances of me being in an accident are much higher on a cycle track ....

How many of these law-makers do you think cycle to work eh? I'd be surprised if any of them did .....

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Joe Malone wrote: »

Let it go you loser. Maybe you should dream up another imaginary friend - perhaps some imaginary female company might help you to chill out on a saturday evening:D

Nice. Real mature. You must be a real professional.

niceonetom

my my, you have been talking some rubbish in this thread Joe...

anyone who describes city cycles lanes as "safe havens" is marking themselves out as, at a minimum, very inexperienced or, more plausibly, just plain stupid.

Joe Malone wrote: »

I didn't make up the law, cyclists are required to use cycle tracks regardless of their competence. You want to use the road in preference to the cycle track because it allows you the opportunity to cycle at faster speeds. In built up areas, where cycle tracks are found, we all have to sacrafice speed. Cars cant go around at whatever speed they want, neirther can cyclists. We all have to compromise. So, slow down and use the cycle track, its quite safe.

where's this talk of speed coming from? i haven't read anything in this thread about cyclists wanting to use the roadway for better speed - it's been exclusively about safety. you're making big assumptions about other people's motivations here to bolster your creakingly awful argument. strawman?

i almost never use off road cycle tracks (painting half the footpath red an transport infrastructure does not make), and i don't use them because i do not consider them to be safe in the majority of cases. pedestrians do not respect them, making most of them only very very slightly different from just cycling on a normal footpath - something i don't do either. it's not incompetence on cyclist's part that makes many of these tracks unsafe for use, it's fundamental to the design of the tracks themselves.

i would rather be alive than legal. and i cycle accordingly - you propose (in some situations) cycling in a manner that is more dangerous but more legally defensible should the eventually accident end up in court. ri-fúcking-diculous.