Cycle track right of way

dekbhoy

Who has the right of way on a cycle track ...... i start cycling recently to and fro work (along Dublin docklands quays) there are cycle tracks along most of my route that are constantly used by pedestrians and people pushing prams but when i stop or swerve i seem to get looked at as if im the one in the wrong ,i actually had a row with a guy the other day over the same thing because he walked in fornt of me as he was texting on his phone and only prevented from injury because of my vigilance to such ignorant idiots.

petethedrummer

Just cycle on the road and ignore taxi men if they beep at you.

Bobbins

I was verbally attacked the other day by some lunatic driver for not using a cycle path that a) I would have to dismount from my bike and lift my bike up onto it to use and b) as is the OP's, constantly populated by pedestrians and only lasts half a mile anyway.

She really was very aggressive and pulled into the kerb to prevent me cycling on the approach to traffic lights!! I cycled around the outside of her and as she screamed 'there's a cycle path for the likes of ye' :eek:, I replied 'there is a road too dear' and smiled and waved as I rode on and she got caught in another red sequence due to her lunacy......(karma)....however......

I too would be interested to know where I stand on this....are cyclists obliged to use a cycle path such as this.....?

(sorry for the hijack OP!!)

p

First of all, people aren't 'idiots' for using the cycle track, they're just people. You do plenty of things on your bikes that's annoying other people. A lot of cycling lanes lately have been built onto existing footpaths, so it's natural (albeit annoying) that people will do this.

Just get a bell, and give people a friendly bell when you a good bit away to give them notice.

desertcircus

If someone walks onto a cycle track without looking at anything except his phone and then ends up having a row with someone who points out that he needs to be a little more careful, it's probably understandable that the OP would call them an idiot. The Docklands cycle lanes are pretty clearly marked; if you're going to make the decision to walk onto them, at least watch where you're going.

kenmc

p wrote: »

First of all, people aren't 'idiots' for using the cycle track, they're just people. Just get a bell, and give people a friendly bell when you a good bit away to give them notice.

p
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Malmö

You don't get to cycle much in Dublin, do you? Ipodestrians do not hear a bell, friendly or otherwise. People walking on cycle tracks ARE idiots. They are clearly delineated.

tomasrojo

I did try a bell in Dublin and found the whole experience dispiriting (mostly people made fun of the bell noise or got shirty), so I've never put one on my bike since (I understand this is against the law, but since they're never going to enforce that particular law, I'm not worried). I usually just say a polite 'excuse me'. Or give a warning shout if circumstances warrant it.

As for the cycle lanes, yes, just use the road. Pedestrians pay no attention to cycle lanes, and never will. They've been around long enough now, and still people just aren't aware of them. So just forget about them. They're (almost) without exception worse than the road and you're far more likely to have a collision -- both with pedestrians and with cars.

@bobbins, yes, you are in theory obliged to use any cycle lane marked "cycle track". See here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66151688&postcount=38

On the other hand, no-one has ever been brought to court for not using them. If a Garda tells you to use one, say "Yes sir!", wait till he's gone and go back onto the road.

doozerie

dekbhoy wrote: »

Who has the right of way on a cycle track ......

They are a traffic lane, one theoretically just for bikes, so cyclists have right of way by default. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to the pedestrians that walk on them either, most of them just choose to be ignorant.

As already suggested though, don't use them. They give the illusion of being a "safe" area of the road for cyclists but in reality they are abused/mis-used by pedestrians/drivers/cycling salmon/etc., plus their basic design seems to push cyclist safety way down the list of priorities in the first place, so it is generally safer to use the road instead.

Slydice

I'd have thought that if a pedestrian was walking on a cycle path (track, lane, etc.) then the pedestrian has right of way.

From learning to drive, I'm pretty sure that if anything is in front of my car on the road, then I stop. Whatever is on the road first has the right of way.

So if a bicycle was there and I want to pass, that I give right of way to the bicycle and use caution if I try to move past.

The same with pedestrians.

So, I'd have though bicycles are in the same sort of situation with bicycle lanes and roads.

That if a car or pedestrian was in front of me and blocking my way, that they have right of way cos they were there first. That if I try to pass them, I should use caution doing so.

tunney

Slydice wrote: »

I'd have thought that if a pedestrian was walking on a cycle path (track, lane, etc.) then the pedestrian has right of way.

From learning to drive, I'm pretty sure that if anything is in front of my car on the road, then I stop. Whatever is on the road first has the right of way.

So if a bicycle was there and I want to pass, that I give right of way to the bicycle and use caution if I try to move past.

The same with pedestrians.

So, I'd have though bicycles are in the same sort of situation with bicycle lanes and roads.

That if a car or pedestrian was in front of me and blocking my way, that they have right of way cos they were there first. That if I try to pass them, I should use caution doing so.

So if someone is walking down the M50 thats grand?

TherapyBoy

kenmc wrote: »

You don't get to cycle much in Dublin, do you? Ipodestrians do not hear a bell, friendly or otherwise. People walking on cycle tracks ARE idiots. They are clearly delineated.

Get an air-horn, I bet they'll move then...or have a heart attack

glic71rods46t0

doozerie wrote: »

They are a traffic lane, one theoretically just for bikes, so cyclists have right of way by default. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to the pedestrians that walk on them either, most of them just choose to be ignorant.

As already suggested though, don't use them. They give the illusion of being a "safe" area of the road for cyclists but in reality they are abused/mis-used by pedestrians/drivers/cycling salmon/etc., plus their basic design seems to push cyclist safety way down the list of priorities in the first place, so it is generally safer to use the road instead.

Just a word of caution. Many drivers have decided to take an a la carte attitude to the law, just like cyclists. If such motorists see a cyclist out on the road where when he should be on the provided cycle track then they treat the idiot like he's not there - pretty dangerous for the cyclist. Take the high moral ground if you will but all I can think of is OUCH:eek:

Idleater

tunney wrote: »

So if someone is walking down the M50 thats grand?

In so far as you have no right to run them over for the simple reason that you believe they shouldn't be there.




So, since it's Friday, I suggest we get this thread on the proper track:

I pay road tax because I cycle a planet-x, I never wear a helmet but always switch on my lights when cycling the wrong way down a street through pedestrian junctions while wearing headphones and talking on the phone

Raam

nereid wrote: »

I pay road tax because I cycle a planet-x, I never wear a helmet but always switch on my lights when cycling the wrong way down a street through pedestrian junctions while wearing headphones and talking on the phone

You're a menace!

EamonnL

The solution may be get a louder bell. I have an Air Zound (Google will bring it up). Pedestrians can hear it even listening to their ipods while sending texts.

doozerie

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Just a word of caution. Many drivers have decided to take an a la carte attitude to the law, just like cyclists. If such motorists see a cyclist out on the road where when he should be on the provided cycle track then they treat the idiot like he's not there - pretty dangerous for the cyclist. Take the high moral ground if you will but all I can think of is OUCH:eek:

Yes, there are drivers that see a cyclist on the road as a valid target to vent the frustrations of their own lives upon. Such people existed long before cycle lanes were introduced, they will continue to exist as long as they refuse to deal with their own issues that lead to them being casually aggressive towards others.

And whether intentionally or not your post seems to say that a cyclist on the road where a cycle track exists is an idiot. One does not imply the other. Yes there are idiots on bikes but they are idiots because they cycle their bikes in the same manner as some idiots drive their cars, or as some pedestrians choose to act, etc., which is without any regard for those around them. Choosing not to use a cycle lane does not in itself make someone an idiot.

Oh, and my advice to not use cycle lanes has nothing to do with the moral high ground, it has everything to do with safety.

Slydice

tunney wrote: »

So if someone is walking down the M50 thats grand?

well, if someone was walking in front of me in the M50, I'd let them have the right of way.

I'm pretty sure that driving over them would be against the law more than their own walking on the M50


edit to add: Thanks nereid, I didn't read your reply until after I posted. So yeah... I think that making someone dead or hurting them by crashing into them would be more bad than their blocking my path whether I'm on my bicycle or in my car.

RobbieTheRobber

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Just a word of caution. Many drivers have decided to take an a la carte attitude to the law, just like cyclists. If such motorists see a cyclist out on the road where when he should be on the provided cycle track then they treat the idiot like he's not there - pretty dangerous for the cyclist. Take the high moral ground if you will but all I can think of is OUCH:eek:

Are you suggesting that road users would break the law just to annoy a fellow road user?

If someone is willing to break the law to obstruct or injure someone then surely using the cycle path would make no difference to such a maniac, as they are already willing to break ROTR and any other laws they see fit to deal out vigilante style justice!

Chips Lovell

Bobbins wrote: »

I too would be interested to know where I stand on this....are cyclists obliged to use a cycle path such as this.....?

The government announced last year that it was removing the mandatory use provision for cycle lanes.

funkyjebus

if your talking about the cycle lane on sr john rogerson quay heading from grand canal to tara, its very unclear. there is a red cycle lane running all the way but before you get to the sean o'casey bridge there is an end sign, yet the track goes on and about 10 metres on there is a picture of a bike. very confusing.that place is a death trap. first week with my new felt and a german woman ran out and i had to slam on the breaks skided and hit my top tube into one of the bollards. dent and a scrap, what a cnut. ran on from the road miles away from the ped crossing. <br />
<br />
and it not like you can go on the road there its one way unless you cross the liffey.

short circuit

I am actually surprised at how at odds we are between right of way between pedestrians, cyclists, cars & luas.

Was in Nice earlier in the year and all along the beach, the cycle lane is on the footpath ... the entire this is about 6mts wide with about 2mts set aside for 1 lane of bikes going each way. And this was besides the road .. just 6 inches higher. People getting off buses looked both sides on the bike path before crossing it and the pedestrains just stayed off the bike path. Also, no one on the bike path was doing a Cancellara imitation with heads down doing 40kmph .... they were just riding a bit slower to account for the shared traffic and everything seemed to work fine.

Cyclists stopped at lights but had access to all areas accesible to pedestrians and they could ride across. People were even riding on the tram lines.

I didn't see any cyclists banging on car bonnets or car drivers honking at cyclists. We went on a bus journey up the hills and the bus and a few cars got stuck behind a cyclist in a single lane ... but there was no impatience of shaking of heads.

I think we in Dublin just need to shut the f*** up and start respecting everyone else who uses the roads and just drive, ride, walk a bit more defensively.

tomasrojo

I think the discussion of right of way is getting confused with "right of intimidation" or some similar concept. Right of way is to allow road users to co-exist without contention, and to make it easier in court to decide who is at fault in the event of a collison or other contretemps. It isn't a concept designed to allow any road user to drive at or near anyone else in an attempt to teach them a lesson.

In the case of off-road cycle lanes, pedestrians are most definitely not intended to walk on them, whatever about the legality of it. However, sometimes they very little choice, such as when a narrow footpath has been "re-purposed" with a narrow cycle lane added to it; in that case, what are they supposed to do when there are a lot of other pedestrians? Shuffle along slowly in single file, like the workers heading underground in Metropolis?

If you're on an off-road cycle lane and there are a lot of pedestrians adjacent to it, you just have to cycle slowly. There is no other safe way to proceed. Therefore, unless the road is very narrow with fast-moving traffic, it is easier to use the road. Despite what TimAllen Fencer says, no-one is going to deliberately collide with you, though they may shout at you. It's quite easy to ignore such types generally.

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes. I really don't think so. I have relatives who don't cycle and I notice that they wander onto cycle lanes all the time when they're out walking. They just aren't aware of them. This has been noticed in other countries as well, though in countries where there are a lot of cyclists, it's usually tourists who are wandering off-piste.

Someone here said recently that they'd been told at a public meeting that the legislation to rescind mandatory use of cycle tracks was at draft stage. The last newsletter from the Dublin Cycle Campaign said that the legislation was "imminent".

DirkVoodoo

Has anyone ever seen "Fortress"?

Maybe we should make everyone swallow one of those bombs. They cross a line they are not meant to...boom!

Bluefoam

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes. I really don't think so. I have relatives who don't cycle and I notice that they wander onto cycle lanes all the time when they're out walking. They just aren't aware of them.

Agreed. I had to laugh (to myself), I had read allot on boards about pedestrians in the Phoenix Park using the cycle lanes & only paid attention recently while driving through. Who the hell decided to put the footpath under the trees... Of course people are gonna walk in the cycle lane...

dekbhoy

Watching the germany game i just got a brain wave ......... i need a vuvuzela mounted on the handle bars , that will certainly move any unsuspecting idiot walking on my designated place of transport and if the sound doesnt shift them i can hit them over the head with it whilst cycling quickly past.Thread Closed!!!!!:P

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes. I really don't think so. I have relatives who don't cycle and I notice that they wander onto cycle lanes all the time when they're out walking. They just aren't aware of them. This has been noticed in other countries as well, though in countries where there are a lot of cyclists, it's usually tourists who are wandering off-piste.

I think people instinctively gravitate toward the tinted tarmac and bright white lines that they can align themselves with. There's a lane in Rathfarnham that's on the footpath with very obvious boundaries, and more often than not, people walk on the cycle path. There's no fighting it, just slow down and cycle around them. Point out the cycle lane to them if you really want, but to me it's like pointing out a traffic light to an RLJ - they probably know it's there, they just don't see a problem with ignoring it.

chogxox

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the discussion of right of way is getting confused with "right of intimidation" or some similar concept. Right of way is to allow road users to co-exist without contention, and to make it easier in court to decide who is at fault in the event of a collison or other contretemps. It isn't a concept designed to allow any road user to drive at or near anyone else in an attempt to teach them a lesson.

In the case of off-road cycle lanes, pedestrians are most definitely not intended to walk on them, whatever about the legality of it. However, sometimes they very little choice, such as when a narrow footpath has been "re-purposed" with a narrow cycle lane added to it; in that case, what are they supposed to do when there are a lot of other pedestrians? Shuffle along slowly in single file, like the workers heading underground in Metropolis?

If you're on an off-road cycle lane and there are a lot of pedestrians adjacent to it, you just have to cycle slowly. There is no other safe way to proceed. Therefore, unless the road is very narrow with fast-moving traffic, it is easier to use the road. Despite what TimAllen Fencer says, no-one is going to deliberately collide with you, though they may shout at you. It's quite easy to ignore such types generally.

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes. I really don't think so. I have relatives who don't cycle and I notice that they wander onto cycle lanes all the time when they're out walking. They just aren't aware of them. This has been noticed in other countries as well, though in countries where there are a lot of cyclists, it's usually tourists who are wandering off-piste.

Someone here said recently that they'd been told at a public meeting that the legislation to rescind mandatory use of cycle tracks was at draft stage. The last newsletter from the Dublin Cycle Campaign said that the legislation was "imminent".

I've just started cycling to work recently and have been horrified by 1. the state of the so called cycle lanes/roads and 2. the treatment of cyclists in general. I am also a driver, use Dublin Bus and walk a lot also so I have seen situations from every view point and in general we area very intolerant and aggresive country. There is no right of way given to anyone (everyone thinks they have the right to be first no matter whether they are in the right or not) and will literally push you off the road so that they can get to their destination faster. If we all just took our time and considered others a bit more, commuting would be a much more pleasant experience for everyone. I realise this sounds very idealistic but it's not safe as it is (has anyone seen Leeson St Bridge on a weekday morning???)

I travel between Leeson Street and Stillorgan everyday the cycle paths are a disgrace (both along the N11 and the Blackrock route) but when you use the road you're holding up the traffic (Donnybrook Village) which are all impatient to get home asap, so they will nearly kill you and each other to pass you out.

This week is Bike2work week but I have to laugh, they want people to get onto their bikes and out of their cars but won't provide a safe route for cyclists. The intention is there but they need to start improving the facilities and educate people on the rules and way to use the roads before it's safe enough for people to get out on their bike.

Anyway, I just think everyone needs to work together to try make it safer for everyone rather than it being cyclists against bus drivers etc, again an ideal situation but maybe achievable

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes.

That may have been my post above, and is based on my experiences on my commute. Most of the cycle lanes that I encounter are on-road, so pedestrians using them have to make a conscious decision to step off the footpath onto/into them i.e. they couldn't move from one to the other without noticing. The stretch of cycle lane on Westland Row in particular is a good example as quite often people heading for the train station in a hurry use the on-road cycle lane as a means of overtaking slower moving pedestrians on the footpath. I've found myself in a game of chicken along there many times as the oncoming pedestrian in the cycle lane expects me to pull out into moving traffic to my right so that they don't have to slow down or step back onto the footpath to allow me past.

Off-road cycle lanes certainly do pose a different challenge, but a lot of the time I believe that people walking in the cycle lanes there "unknowingly" actually remain ignorant of what they are doing out of nothing more than (mental) laziness. The lanes are surfaced in a different colour and are marked out with lines, both of which should at least trigger a person's brain into some level of thought about why these differences exist. Having said that, there are many cycle lanes where the picture of a cyclist either is not present on the cycle lane or the pictures occur only at the start and end, and in those cases it is certainly understandable that people don't recognise the lanes for what they are. However, fundamentally I think that many people simply don't bother applying their brains to thinking about what they are doing simply because they believe they are not at risk by walking in cycle lanes, a misguided belief I think. If the same people were driving I think they'd be a lot less inclined to wander between lanes of the road because of the perceived risk to themselves more than anything else.

Anyway, I'm in danger here of sounding like I am trying to defend the reservation of cycle lanes for cyclists, whereas I really just want to see the poxy lanes removed entirely so that all road users go back to sharing the roads again. Amongst the many benefits that would result is that the delineation between pedestrian routes and traffic routes would be a lot clearer than it is right now.

tomasrojo

Well, if pedestrians are salmoning down an on-road cycle lane, I guess that counts as flouting!

Edit: On Westland Row, I do just pull out into traffic and leave the pedestrians to salmon in peace. They're definitely in the wrong, obviously. I also don't go that way every day, or even very often at all. Maybe I'd be less sanguine about it if I used it more often. On a regular walking route of mine, I was a bit passive-aggressive in the Phoenix Park yesterday in making no effort to go single-file with my wife to allow a pavement cyclist to pass. He become instantaneously overwrought, so I kind of regretted it. I was wheeling a bike, so he figured I was flouting the law as well. I attempted to explain the Latin roots of the word pedestrian, but he countered that I was f-in eejit. Touché, I muttered.

doozerie

chogxox wrote: »

I am also a driver, use Dublin Bus and walk a lot also so I have seen situations from every view point and in general we area very intolerant and aggresive country. There is no right of way given to anyone (everyone thinks they have the right to be first no matter whether they are in the right or not) and will literally push you off the road so that they can get to their destination faster.

I agree.

chogxox wrote: »

If we all just took our time and considered others a bit more, commuting would be a much more pleasant experience for everyone. I realise this sounds very idealistic but it's not safe as it is (has anyone seen Leeson St Bridge on a weekday morning???)

I agree with your sentiment here, but I think it highlights one of the big challenges in dealing with traffic generally, whether that be pedestrians, cyclists, or drivers. Trying to find a balance between allowing people to get from A to B without unnecessary delay, and facilitating that travel safely, is what the problem usually boils down to I think.

Unfortunately, I think that cycle lanes in general attempt to deal with only one small aspect of this problem - they remove so-called slow moving cyclists from being "in the way" of motorised traffic and shove them onto poorly designed cycle lanes which increase the travel time for cyclists and increase the danger for them too. Irish Cycle lane design, in my view, is basically based on the premise that it is okay to add delays to commute cyclists if it yields shorter commute times for motorists. They are a poorly conceived idea that simply make things worse for everyone and unfortunately push the idealistic scenario that you describe even further beyond reach.

chogxox

doozerie wrote: »

I agree.



I agree with your sentiment here, but I think it highlights one of the big challenges in dealing with traffic generally, whether that be pedestrians, cyclists, or drivers. Trying to find a balance between allowing people to get from A to B without unnecessary delay, and facilitating that travel safely, is what the problem usually boils down to I think.

Unfortunately, I think that cycle lanes in general attempt to deal with only one small aspect of this problem - they remove so-called slow moving cyclists from being "in the way" of motorised traffic and shove them onto poorly designed cycle lanes which increase the travel time for cyclists and increase the danger for them too. Irish Cycle lane design, in my view, is basically based on the premise that it is okay to add delays to commute cyclists if it yields shorter commute times for motorists. They are a poorly conceived idea that simply make things worse for everyone and unfortunately push the idealistic scenario that you describe even further beyond reach.

I completely agree with you here. The problem with so many of Dublin's roads is they were designed long before the concept of cycle lanes so there isn't the width needed to facilitate a lane so they have just robbed some of the road/bus lanes or footpaths to accommodate the cyclists but haven't considered the implications. In an area like Donnybrook Village where an already bad situation with the bus lanes and traffic merging they then decided to add a cycle lane to the mix. Or outside Donnybrook fair where people pull in to get a coffee in the morning and open the door straight out into the cycle path so you either slam on the brakes, swerve into the traffic or slam straight into the car door... I don't really know what the solution is but i do know it's lethal as it is!!!

doozerie

@tomasrojo, I often pull into traffic too to avoid the pedestrian salmon, as it is often the lesser of two evils of merging with traffic versus a potential confrontation or even a collision with a brass-necked pedestrian(s) at speed. It is a type of scenario that arises very often, and your experience on the footpath with an ignorant cyclist is certainly another example of it.

Essentially you have to make a decision each time whether you are willing to put yourself out to accommodate, or pander to depending on how you look at it, someone else who is clearly doing something they shouldn't be doing. On the one hand that's just life and something that you encounter in one form or another in every area of life, on the other hand I often find myself adopting the attitude that I've had enough of pandering to such people and decide to assert my own rights in the situation in the vague hope that it might even trigger some recognition in the other person that they are in the wrong and maybe they won't be so careless/stupid/obnoxious the next time round. Ironically, I find it very similar to the internal debate that went on in my head when doing my driving test and trying not to fall foul of the "failing to make progress" rule which basically either encourages you to assert your rights on the road, or to drive like an obnoxious dick, depending on how you look at it.

Unfortunately, there is sometimes an extremely fine line between asserting your rights and being seen as aggressive, which makes the decision of how to deal with idiotic behaviour by others a tricky process in many cases.

tomasrojo

I don't think that Donnybrook is lethal. It certainly could be better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's lethal. I only cycle that way occasionally, but I've found it ok. You have to take the lane in some places, it must be said.

In places, it might help to try cycling on the very outside of the cycle lane, with your wheel just inside the rightmost white line. You have to keep an eye behind you for close-passers, but they're easier to spot than sudden door-openers.

If you really find that stretch of road hard to deal with or even just stressful, try changing your route. It's often the best thing to do. Hassle is something we can all do with less of, and even if your route ends up a bit longer, it's just more exercise.

tomasrojo

doozerie wrote: »

Unfortunately, there is sometimes an extremely fine line between asserting your rights and being seen as aggressive, which makes the decision of how to deal with idiotic behaviour by others a tricky process in many cases.

True, and it also means that cycling is unattractive to the shy and timid, since asserting your rights in the face of aggression by others really isn't to everyone's taste.

manwithaplan

Is it really that bad? I have commuted by bike since the early nineties and found it a cheap, safe, efficient and healthy way of getting around. I don't encounter these daily problems and when I hit the odd snag/do something stupid/meet another road user doing something stupid, I deal with it and continue on my merry way.

I would recommend cycling to anyone. Would you?

Edit: that was a general "would you?" and is not directed at the previous poster.

glic71rods46t0

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the discussion of right of way is getting confused with "right of intimidation" or some similar concept. Right of way is to allow road users to co-exist without contention, and to make it easier in court to decide who is at fault in the event of a collison or other contretemps. It isn't a concept designed to allow any road user to drive at or near anyone else in an attempt to teach them a lesson.

In the case of off-road cycle lanes, pedestrians are most definitely not intended to walk on them, whatever about the legality of it. However, sometimes they very little choice, such as when a narrow footpath has been "re-purposed" with a narrow cycle lane added to it; in that case, what are they supposed to do when there are a lot of other pedestrians? Shuffle along slowly in single file, like the workers heading underground in Metropolis?

If you're on an off-road cycle lane and there are a lot of pedestrians adjacent to it, you just have to cycle slowly. There is no other safe way to proceed. Therefore, unless the road is very narrow with fast-moving traffic, it is easier to use the road. Despite what TimAllen Fencer says, no-one is going to deliberately collide with you, though they may shout at you. It's quite easy to ignore such types generally.

There was a suggestion here that pedestrians are deliberately flouting cycle lanes. I really don't think so. I have relatives who don't cycle and I notice that they wander onto cycle lanes all the time when they're out walking. They just aren't aware of them. This has been noticed in other countries as well, though in countries where there are a lot of cyclists, it's usually tourists who are wandering off-piste.

Someone here said recently that they'd been told at a public meeting that the legislation to rescind mandatory use of cycle tracks was at draft stage. The last newsletter from the Dublin Cycle Campaign said that the legislation was "imminent".

Ignore at your peril - there are many motorists who will make it their business to teach cyclists a lesson, one at a time - be wise and heed what you're being told!

Imminent since last year - or in other words, the law remains and must be obeyed. Or maybe we'll all continue ignoring the laws that dont suit us.
What one will I ignore? .... oh I wonder which one it will be ..... target practice is such fun on sunny days ...

Marvinthefish

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Ignore at your peril - there are many motorists who will make it their business to teach cyclists a lesson, one at a time - be wise and heed what you're being told!

Imminent since last year - or in other words, the law remains and must be obeyed. Or maybe we'll all continue ignoring the laws that dont suit us.
What one will I ignore? .... oh I wonder which one it will be ..... target practice is such fun on sunny days ...

Idleater

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Or maybe we'll all continue ignoring the laws that dont suit us.

But I pay my road tax

doozerie

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Or maybe we'll all continue ignoring the laws that dont suit us.
What one will I ignore? .... oh I wonder which one it will be .....

The one that says that children should be seen and not heard, apparently.

tomasrojo

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Ignore at your peril - there are many motorists who will make it their business to teach cyclists a lesson, one at a time

No, there are hardly any. Almost all will content themselves with shouting indiscernible rants out the window.

vynkdc73hg0xb4 wrote: »

Or maybe we'll all continue ignoring the laws that dont suit us.
What one will I ignore?

I think Henry David Thoreau has already answered this.

tomasrojo

manwithaplan wrote: »

Is it really that bad? I have commuted by bike since the early nineties and found it a cheap, safe, efficient and healthy way of getting around. I don't encounter these daily problems and when I hit the odd snag/do something stupid/meet another road user doing something stupid, I deal with it and continue on my merry way.

I find that it's very much dependent on the route. I was encountering quite alarming and depressing amounts of intimidation on the North Circular Road for a while. It's hardly surprising when you look at it: very narrow lanes with fast-moving, heavy traffic, resulting in very few opportunities for safe over-taking.

I changed my routes to use as little of the NCR as possible and now my life is every so much quieter.

manwithaplan wrote: »

I would recommend cycling to anyone. Would you?

I'm always recommending it to people, but I've had only a few converts. I usually give advice about routes and road technique so that the timid can avoid the worst roads.

I agree though. The experience of cycling, for me also, is overwhelmingly positive. I really enjoy it and consider a day wasted on which the sun has set without some time spent on the bike.

SubLuminal

Just out of interest then, if one steps into me on the cycle lane and I get hurt can I sue him? Because I could do with a few bike upgrades; maybe next time I won't pull the brakes as hard

Hermy

petethedrummer wrote: »

Just cycle on the road and ignore taxi men if they beep at you.

Ah, don't be like that - some of us mean well.:)

petethedrummer

Hermy wrote: »

Ah, don't be like that - some of us mean well.:)

I don't have a particular problem with any type of driver. But the only ones who have beeped at me for this sort of this thing is taxi drivers.

tomasrojo

I guess taxi drivers speak from a position of knowledge, as they are the only other road users who can claim that they've tried out the cycle lanes before asking others to use them.

The trying out has consisted mostly of parking on them, but it's experience nonetheless.

(Not having a go, Hermy!)

Hermy

Bloody cycling lanes aren't nearly wide enough to park in...:o:p
Y'know I'd be first in the queue when it comes to bad mouthing taxi drivers but like Pete I don't single out any particular road user - we're all equally capable of making bad decisions.
Back when I was cycling though, I always found not using the cycle lanes on the Stillorgan dual carraigeway meant taking your life in your hands. The Dublin Bus drivers always went to great effort to pass me with inches to spare.

fullstop

tunney wrote: »

So if someone is walking down the M50 thats grand?

No, you might notice signs coming onto all motorways with the rules of who can and can't use motorways...if you read this, one on the list is 'NO PEDESTRIANS'.

cyclopath2001

fullstop wrote: »

No, you might notice signs coming onto all motorways with the rules of who can and can't use motorways...if you read this, one on the list is 'NO PEDESTRIANS'.

ROTR are:

1: Nobody is allowed hurt anybody else, even if it's a pedestrian on a cycle track.

2: Pedestrians are required by law to use footpaths where provided.

3: Pedestrians required (like everyone else) to take proper care and attention for their own safety and that of others.

4: There is no such thing as a shared cycle track/footway. There must be separate areas marked for pedestrians and cyclists.

tomasrojo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

4: There is no such thing as a shared cycle track/footway.

And yet they are implied in quite a few places. Such as the footpath that runs along St. John's Road down to Heuston station. The bus lane has the (legally meaningless) bus-only bus-lane sign (the standard bus-lane sign, but with the bicycle blanked out), and the footpath has the (also legally meaningless) pedestrian/cyclist shared path sign.

This one I think it is:

chogxox

tomasrojo wrote: »

True, and it also means that cycling is unattractive to the shy and timid, since asserting your rights in the face of aggression by others really isn't to everyone's taste.

You're probably right Tomasrojo, I haven't been cycling in Dublin long enough and I'm probably too shy to assert myself with motorists but I'm sure as time passes I'll become more confident on the roads. Saying that I love cycling! I love being out in the fresh air and find it a great way to get some extra exercise and switch off after work. I have been exploring other routes and although I don't always have the time in the mornings, in the afternoons I don't mind adding a little extra time onto my journey.

tomasrojo

I guess, on reflection, my statement was a bit broad! I do know a few people who were put off by intimidation, but others who haven't seen any. How much intimidation you get depends quite a bit on others' assumptions about you. This includes how you look, I suppose.

You're right though; the route is the main thing. Some roads are very nice and hassle-free. Search these out and cherish them. As you say, a little extra time is worth it.