Why no cycle lanes along luas tracks?

zynaps

superrdave wrote: »

I regularly cycle along the luas lines from Connolly to Smithfield (but oddly I cycle up the quays going the other way) and I've never seen anyone falling off. Obviously, it happens, but like absolutely every other use of the road, provided you are careful and aware of your surroundings, it shouldn't happen to you. I mean, the most important thing to watch out for is other road users doing things they shouldn't. Do that and you'll be fine.

If your wheels happen to fit neatly into the track while travelling above maybe 15km/h, it becomes impossible to steer (obviously ) and trying to do so will cause the wheel to jump out of the track quite violently. The first time I cycled along the track shortly before the launch, on Adelaide Road, my front wheel bounced out about a foot high, followed by the back wheel - it was like riding one of those bucking bronco machines very briefly!

In general, my eyes want to be taking in the actions of other road users nearby rather than constantly check that I'm not straying towards one of the tracks which could cause the same mishap. So I don't particularly like cycling parallel with them, but then I don't need to

BostonB

When I tried using the luas tracks I found it slower than just using the road and an alternative route. So never go near them most of the time.

Be nice if they'd ran a cycle lane along side, in someplaces like Steevens lane down to Heuston St.

ED E

I've used the at night plenty of times from Harcourt to Windy Arbour. My brother does it during the day but I dont. You can run along the service lines most of the way. Every dog along it goes ballistic with the noise of them but hey, I didnt build the bloody thing. Its not faster but I do it when the lads are walking as far as Ranelagh.

Even if they did make paths, there would be chaos with pedestrians no?

Dord

100Suns wrote: »

Has anyone been stopped by the Gardai for cycling on the Luas tracks?

I got stopped cycling along the tracks near Smithfield a few weeks ago. I was in a hurry to get somewhere and stupidly decided to go up that way. Guards in a 4x4 pulled me over and gave me a stern talking to. TBH I can see where they're comin' from... I really shouldn't have been doing it.

I don't know if it was BS or not but the Garda told me it was an 800euro fine for driving or cycling along the tracks. Bit steep. They just told me to go on my way and use the cycle lanes instead.

BostonB

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

I've used the at night plenty of times from Harcourt to Windy Arbour. My brother does it during the day but I dont. You can run along the service lines most of the way. Every dog along it goes ballistic with the noise of them but hey, I didnt build the bloody thing. Its not faster but I do it when the lads are walking as far as Ranelagh.

Even if they did make paths, there would be chaos with pedestrians no?

Considering you get pedestrians on most off the road cycle lanes, it doesn't seem to a massive problem.

ED E

BostonB wrote: »

Considering you get pedestrians on most off the road cycle lanes, it doesn't seem to a massive problem.

Normally, but most are double width, beside the tracks they'd really only have room for a handlebar width track.

zynaps

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

Normally, but most are double width, beside the tracks they'd really only have room for a handlebar width track.

Yes... TBH I think it would be tempting fate and risking lives to put a cycle lane there, since people often tend to mentally switch off slightly when they're in one - both cyclists and drivers thinking the other will automatically stay out of their way. Cycle lanes already have a worse safety record than normal shared roads, and cycle "paths" are worse again.

BostonB

The Luas tracks maybe narrow in some places, but in may places theres loads of room.

As cycle lanes stop and start, I don't see why they can't have cycle lanes on some parts of the luas routes.

If all they did was get you past a difficult junction that would be worth it.

ED E

BostonB wrote: »

If all they did was get you past a difficult junction that would be worth it.

If only to pass Ranelagh, that place is a mess to cycle, how superquin ever got planning permission is a mystery....:mad:

zynaps

BostonB wrote: »

As cycle lanes stop and start, I don't see why they can't have cycle lanes on some parts of the luas routes.

If all they did was get you past a difficult junction that would be worth it.

I'm not a big fan of short cycle lanes added for tricky situations - they can often do more harm than good. There's a very strange little example on George's Quay which you can encounter when turning right from Talbot Memorial Bridge, where a cycle lane goes behind a thin island and then is invariably blocked by buses and coaches when traffic is busy.

If the cycle lane could be in some way demonstrably helpful though, then by all means add it. So far I haven't seen very many of them though?

Agreed about Ranelagh being awful to cycle, but it's another example of a place made no safer by adding cycle lanes IMO - last time I cycled back Morehampton Road towards town it was a nightmare, vans, coaches and bin trucks pulling in right in front of me, forcing me to stop thanks to overtaking traffic giving zero clearance. If there's no room on the road for a cycle lane you're probably better off without one rather than cutting into the already-insufficient lane space.

nerraw1111

I got pulled over by a Garda on a motor bike for cycling along luas lines by the museum. Quite a bizarre encounter. He went all out with lights and siren.

Rather aggressively he appeared to ask me if I was a Luas. In my best talking to a Garda accent I asked if could repeat himself as I couldn't hear him through his helmet.

"Are. You. A. Luas?"

"No and I can see you're not a detective"*

"Well get off the ****ing track," before speeding off up the ****ing track!

*i did not actually say this, just thought it. Instead I confirmed to the good Garda that indeed I was not a luas.

tomasrojo

An obvious place to facilitiate cyclists in some way is Seán Heuston Bridge. It's a nice bridge that's already shared between the Luas and pedestrians, and it would allow cyclists going to Heuston station or beyond to avoid a nasty stretch of the southern quays (Usher's Island, Victoria Quay).

I suppose if facilitating cyclists in using the Luas line up to Benburb Street is impractical, cyclists can always go along Arbour Hill.

doozerie

In principle I like the idea of cyclists being allowed to cycle on or beside the LUAS tracks but if I put my cycling bias aside I can see real problems with allowing a potentially large number of often slow-moving cyclists to place themselves in the path of LUAS trams. The LUAS is trying to be a fast and efficient mode of transport in a city where public transport quite often sucks, and it already struggles to contend with some bizarre behaviour by other road users at intersections of the LUAS tracks and roads, so I think the potential for problems by opening up the LUAS tracks to cyclists is significant. The potential problems are not necessarily insurmountable though, but I think that a better thought-out solution would be required than simply lifting the ban on cyclists on the LUAS-only stretches of road.

The thing that really bothers me though is to hear more calls for cycle tracks. If we've learned anything from the cycle tracks that are already in place it's that in most cases they pose more problems/risks for cyclists than they solve. Unless the planners adopt a new attitude to cyclists (i.e. move away from the "ye're a hassle to other road users so we'll just shove ye out of the way" mentality), I think that any calls for new cycle tracks will make things worse for all of us.

BostonB

I find the cycle lanes (especially the red ones) often make motorists leave space for the cyclist. Otherwise they'd just cram two lanes of cars where they don't fit, and theres no room for the cyclist.

Like tomasrojo, I don't like the south quays, across at Heuston into the Park. Its very bike unfriendly. Bikes are actually not allowed on Steevens lane at all, its just pedestrians and the luas. Ditto Seán Heuston Bridge. That said a lot of cyclist use this and the luas tracks outside collins barracks, into town. Though the northside quays are better to cycle than the luas tracks.

zynaps

BostonB wrote: »

I find the cycle lanes (especially the red ones) often make motorists leave space for the cyclist. Otherwise they'd just cram two lanes of cars where they don't fit, and theres no room for the cyclist.

Agreed, but only when there was room to comfortably add the cycle lane (since they take away from pre-existing lane space). Thin lanes with a bicycle lane tacked on to the left can be a nightmare.
This is especially the case when they cram two lanes of cars where they barely fit and further reduce the left-hand lane by overlaying a bicycle lane and cars are parked on the left. :eek: I seem to recall Drumcondra Road Upper (heading to the city centre) being an example of this.

There's then the problem that drivers notice the cycle lane and are less accomodating to cyclists who may need to change lanes or avoid obstacles, thinking "he should be in the cycle lane". Many a taxi driver has pulled over to shout such thoughts to me, even when it's a cycle path I'm avoiding (the really awful one in Fairview, usually).

enas

doozerie wrote: »

I can see real problems with allowing a potentially large number of often slow-moving cyclists to place themselves in the path of LUAS trams. The LUAS is trying to be a fast and efficient mode of transport [...] I think that a better thought-out solution would be required than simply lifting the ban on cyclists on the LUAS-only stretches of road.

I've lived in Montpellier in France that has a nice network of tram lines. They're pretty much similar to the LUAS network of Dublin, but without any section that's shared with cars (the Montpellier tram line was the first instance, in France and indeed anywhere else, of a high capacity tram line with Citadis trams, the model on which the Dublin network has been built). On non built-up areas, the track tends to be covered by grass, and a two way cycle path tends to be provided adjacent to the line, while on more built-up areas, the track is covered by tarmac-like material that allows cyclists to cycle on (see some pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montpellier_tramway). I don't think there is any rule against cycling on these parts (some sections are explicitly signaled as forbidden to any traffic, as the tunnel in the city centre, which would imply there's no restriction on the rest), and indeed the line was heavily used by cyclists of all sort. And it just works: trams have the absolute right of way, they can just ignore cyclists, and cyclists themselves have to accommodate to the presence of trams. In the few years I've lived there, and being a very frequent tram user and cyclist, I've never seen this causing any slight inconvenience (unlike motorists not stopping at traffic lights or not staying clear of busy junctions).

So long story short, I just think that no, sometimes you just don't need any fancy complicated expensive equipment to tackle the issue. Just let cyclists cycle there, and let them take responsibility for themselves (by yielding right of way to trams coming from behind them, between other things). It will self-regulate. I don't see why something that works in many other places wouldn't work for Dublin (and I don't buy the argument about Irish mentality etc. and their supposed lack of common-sense; people cannot be used to something that doesn't exist, and when a new situation arises, after some time people's mentality adapts to it, simply).

ColmDawson

alfalad wrote: »

We live in Ireland where we get a large amount of rain, this dip would nearly always have lying water in it therefore you would be cycling through a puddle constantly.

That wouldn't be nice!

Couldn't you just have a drain in the dip?

BeerNut

enas wrote: »

Just let cyclists cycle there, and let them take responsibility for themselves

When an injured cyclist takes Veolia (along with possibly the RPA, the DTO and Minister for Transport) to court for negligence, this defence won't fly. Irish public liability law is much stricter than France's and doesn't really allow for the-victim-is-plainly-an-idiot as a defence. Look-we-told-him-not-to is the only option, and their insurer likely insists on it.

BostonB

zynaps wrote: »

Agreed, but only when there was room to comfortably add the cycle lane (since they take away from pre-existing lane space). Thin lanes with a bicycle lane tacked on to the left can be a nightmare.
...

When I suggest a cycle lane, I'm kinda assuming it would be done properly, and where its useful. I'm not suggesting lets build more dire cycle lanes, just for the sake of it.

doozerie

enas wrote:

So long story short, I just think that no, sometimes you just don't need any fancy complicated expensive equipment to tackle the issue. Just let cyclists cycle there, and let them take responsibility for themselves (by yielding right of way to trams coming from behind them, between other things). It will self-regulate. I don't see why something that works in many other places wouldn't work for Dublin (and I don't buy the argument about Irish mentality etc. and their supposed lack of common-sense; people cannot be used to something that doesn't exist, and when a new situation arises, after some time people's mentality adapts to it, simply).

I certainly agree that a complicated solution shouldn't be necessary, but the simple solution that you describe will obviously only ever work if everyone really does take responsibility for themselves and their actions. I think that almost everyone is capable of doing so, but on a daily basis I see many people that clearly choose not to take responsibility for what they do, even when this puts themselves and/or others at risk. It's not a uniquely Irish trait but we do seem to be very fond of it as a general attitude.

enas

doozerie wrote: »

I think that almost everyone is capable of doing so, but on a daily basis I see many people that clearly choose not to take responsibility for what they do, even when this puts themselves and/or others at risk. It's not a uniquely Irish trait but we do seem to be very fond of it as a general attitude.

I don't know. I'm not Irish, I'm not French, I've lived in a couple of European cities. And what I observed, is that people are less unique and more similar than they believe they are (now that might come a bit as a disenchantment). You come to the conclusion that people behave pretty much the same and similar causes have similar effects. So if something works somewhere, it can at the very least be worth a try somewhere else. That's my point of view. Of course there are differences, like the following.

BeerNut wrote: »

When an injured cyclist takes Veolia (along with possibly the RPA, the DTO and Minister for Transport) to court for negligence, this defence won't fly. Irish public liability law is much stricter than France's and doesn't really allow for the-victim-is-plainly-an-idiot as a defence. Look-we-told-him-not-to is the only option, and their insurer likely insists on it.

I admit I don't know about the differences between liability laws in Ireland and France. It's true that the common law system here in Ireland allows for more "flexibility" in establishing where there was negligence. But if the problem in only (or mainly) legal, couldn't the law be changed to accommodate that? I mean, if it's clearly stated somewhere (in a law and clearly reminded on signs?) that the tram has absolute right of way, and that though officially not recommended cyclists can use the tracks at their own risks (i.e. it is not a punishable offence), wouldn't that be enough to cover from public liability in case of an accident? Of course that's a purely theoretical question, as I don't see laws changing to accommodate cyclists, given the endless process of abolition of mandatory cycle lane use.

BeerNut

enas wrote: »

I mean, if it's clearly stated somewhere (in a law and clearly reminded on signs?) that the tram has absolute right of way, and that though officially not recommended cyclists can use the tracks at their own risks (i.e. it is not a punishable offence), wouldn't that be enough to cover from public liability in case of an accident?

Possibly yes and possibly no: you don't know until it goes to trial, which is expensive. So the insurance company just says: ban cyclists from the tracks and your premium is x; allow cyclists on the tracks and your premium is 5x, or 8x, or 10x or whatever. That's not likely to change a whole lot even if the statute law is altered in Veolia's favour.

roboshatner

I fell twice into the tram tracks.

Was cycling and my front wheel went into it and slam crashed to the ground.

Not cycled into town much since.

They should put down cycle lanes cause everyone cycles along the luas line.

monument

Although not advanced far at the moment, there are plans for segregated cycle lanes along the quays.

It's part of the cycle policy sections of the Dublin City Development Plan.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Although not advanced far at the moment, there are plans for segregated cycle lanes along the quays.

It's part of the cycle policy sections of the Dublin City Development Plan.

Interesting. Any idea where they'll put them? I'll be very interested to see the junction designs.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Interesting. Any idea where they'll put them? I'll be very interested to see the junction designs.

I think there is no specific prohibition on cyclists using any stretch of the Luas. They prohibition is implicit in the "Trams Only" rule.

Closing off much of the tramway to cars and trucks makes eminent sense, to assure good transit times for the Luas, but there's no particular reason to include cyclists. Cyclists are able to get out of the way of the Luas at virtually any stage and don't block up the route the way cars and trucks do.

Obviously the Luas would have to have right of way.

I tend to agree that long stretches of the Luas lines are usable for cyclists as they are, and would be more so if the cobbles were replaced with something more even. I can't see any huge advantage in trying to add some parallel cycletracks partcularly as this would be taking more space from pedestrians, who deserve far more in this city than they currently get.

I appreciate that it is difficult to negotiate branching and crossing Luas tracks, but parallel tracks on straight sections are easy to stay between, and easy to cross at right angles to exit.

On legal matters, as said already, surely the authorities just have to make it clear that you're using the route at your own risk? How else can Dublin City Council get away with cycle tracks that place you on the left of left-turning traffic?

tomasrojo

Incidentally, this is what the Cycle Review for Dublin City Council from 2006 had to say:

The LUAS

6.20 The commitment to public transport provision in Dublin is to be
congratulated but it was disappointing to find that the introduction of the
LUAS has not only resulted in the cycle-unfriendly gyratory systems but
also the sterilisation of routes that would otherwise have given cyclists
advantage through accessibility and permeability in a virtually traffic
free environment. Many cyclists were observed ignoring the
requirement to keep away from these areas, and ensuring compliance
is probably impossible, so it is regrettable that cyclists and trams are
not allowed to mix in the same way as in many other cities in Europe.

And then this image:

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote:

On legal matters, as said already, surely the authorities just have to make it clear that you're using the route at your own risk? How else can Dublin City Council get away with cycle tracks that place you on the left of left-turning traffic?

I'll leave it to people knowledgeable of the law to comment on whether you can achieve legal cover simply by putting up signs disclaiming responsibility but I believe it is not as simple as that. As for those cycle tracks, I honestly have no idea how they can be allowed in law, they fly in the face of all common sense.

doozerie

monument wrote: »

Although not advanced far at the moment, there are plans for segregated cycle lanes along the quays.

It's part of the cycle policy sections of the Dublin City Development Plan.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!



10 years plus of me cycling along the quays without dying. Segregated cycle lanes might well put paid to that record in no time.

p

VERYinterested wrote: »

I bet pedestrians would also have used them and then give us cyclists evils for using them, like they do on designated cycle paths. (The bit painted pink is ours, you guys use the rest of the ample footpath, please)

Why can't we all just get along? If we're more flexible on how multi-use areas are use then there's a lot more opportunities than if we all fight to have separate areas.

BeerNut

tomasrojo wrote: »

surely the authorities just have to make it clear that you're using the route at your own risk?

And if they put up signs that said "Pedestrians use Dublin footpads at their own risk" they'd save a fortune on all those cases of people tripping over paving stones each year. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

tomasrojo

BeerNut wrote: »

And if they put up signs that said "Pedestrians use Dublin footpads at their own risk" they'd save a fortune on all those cases of people tripping over paving stones each year. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

Are there very many such cases? And do the plaintiffs get much compensation?

I know there are cases against the councils for failing to sweep up leaves but I'm not au fait with minor legal actions taken by Dubliners every year. I do remember a German lady was killed on the quays a few years ago when she hit a massive pothole and came off her bike and went under the wheels of a truck. I don't remember any legal case over that.

The DublinBike scheme seems to have itself covered with a simple at-your-own-risk clause in the contract.

I'm not saying that it is as simple as saying that cyclists use at their own risk. I just wonder why it seems adequate in some cases and not in others.

mcgratheoin

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not saying that it is as simple as saying that cyclists use at their own risk. I just wonder why it seems adequate in some cases and not in others.

As far as I understand it, you cannot sign away your rights, therefore regardless of what you do sign, you have the right to take legal action if you feel someone has been negligent in their duty of care.

As an example, you obviously would sign a disclaimer against getting hurt in the normal course of a bungee jump, but you would be well within your rights to take action if they let you jump without fastening your harness properly.

roboshatner

I wouldn't cycle along the quays to save my life its to dangerous.

its a lot easier to cycle along on the south side then the north side.

monument wrote: »

Although not advanced far at the moment, there are plans for segregated cycle lanes along the quays.

It's part of the cycle policy sections of the Dublin City Development Plan.

tomasrojo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

As far as I understand it, you cannot sign away your rights, therefore regardless of what you do sign, you have the right to take legal action if you feel someone has been negligent in their duty of care.

As an example, you obviously would sign a disclaimer against getting hurt in the normal course of a bungee jump, but you would be well within your rights to take action if they let you jump without fastening your harness properly.

That makes sense.

However, given that they don't seem to be worried about legal action taken by cyclists using the stretches of Luas line that all traffic use -- and these stretches have exactly the same hazards as the Luas-only stretches, and then some -- why should they be worried about the Luas-only stretches? They warn you about the dangers of slipping on the all-traffic stretches, so why can't they do exactly the same for the Luas-only stretches? I really don't see how the two are so different.

I personally suspect that it's merely because the RPA do not wish to give any consideration to this because it isn't part of their business to facilitate cycling. Witness their refusal to allow cyclists off-peak, although it is government policy that they should do so.

tomasrojo

roboshatner wrote: »

I wouldn't cycle along the quays to save my life its to dangerous.

its a lot easier to cycle along on the south side then the north side.

Do you get those the wrong way around? The southern quays are the ones with the bad safety record. Especially once you're past the Civic Offices.

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

That makes sense.

However, given that they don't seem to be worried about legal action taken by cyclists using the stretches of Luas line that all traffic use -- and these stretches have exactly the same hazards as the Luas-only stretches, and then some -- why should they be worried about the Luas-only stretches? They warn you about the dangers of slipping on the all-traffic stretches, so why can't they do exactly the same for the Luas-only stretches? I really don't see how the two are so different.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it have to do with that in one case it's the LUAS temporarily using the road network and in the other that's it's the proper segregated LUAS network (similar to a railway network)?

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it have to do with that in one case it's the LUAS temporarily using the road network and in the other that's it's the proper segregated LUAS network (similar to a railway network)?

As far as I know, all the Luas red line inside the city centre after Heuston runs along what used to be normal roads that cars (and cyclists) used. Cars (and cyclists) were excluded from all the streets where it was possible or acceptable to exclude them.

This exclusion was was far easier on the green line where the Luas follows what used to be the old Harcourt street rail line, essentially running between houses and not along what were or still are roads.