Pulled over by a bike cop...

Raam

Coronal wrote: »

You're not meant to be acknowledging them at all

Oh yeah

Lumen

senordingdong wrote: »

So what makes cycle lanes slow?

Pedestrians. Dogs. Bins. Poles. Joggers. Parked cars. Poorly designed junctions which require stopping and/or kerb hopping to merge. Stopping to fix punctures caused by all the glass. Stopping to argue with pedestrians who think you're riding on the footpath.

...

Coronal

senordingdong wrote: »

I see.

So what makes cycle lanes slow?

I can see clearly why many are dangerous.
Also, isn't it illegal to cycle on the footpath? (this amuses me because many cycle lanes are on foot paths now)

Cycle lanes are slow because they tend to get painted (on the footpath) around obstacles like bus stops, driveways, left turns, etc. Couple that with the fact that they're generally not wide enough to legally overtake somebody and that leaves them being quite slow.

It is illegal to cycle on the footpath. However, if there is an official sign marking the beginning of a cycle lane then you must use it, regardless of where it has been built/painted. Many lanes don't have this sign, so you are not obliged to use them.

senordingdong

Haha, another Irish solution...

Raam

Many of the cycle lanes/tracks/paths in Munich City are pretty much the same as described here. On the path and up and down at driveways. I find them incredibly annoying and a complete pain to use.

Coronal

+1

Add to that the fact that the streets are always lined with cars so cyclists are effectively screened from the drivers. I've been pulled over here for cycling on the road, and I know a guy who was fined for it.

Raam

Coronal wrote: »

+1

Add to that the fact that the streets are always lined with cars so cyclists are effectively screened from the drivers. I've been pulled over here for cycling on the road, and I know a guy who was fined for it.

I only just noticed that you are in Munich

My bro lives there and I've been over a bunch of times and done quite a bit of cycling around there.

I'm not convinced that cyclists in Munich City have it any better than here. However, they do have some nice roads out in the countryside which are separate from cars.

senordingdong

Raam wrote: »

Many of the cycle lanes/tracks/paths in Munich City are pretty much the same as described here. On the path and up and down at driveways. I find them incredibly annoying and a complete pain to use.

Yeah but atleast pedstrians have to stay out of them over there.

Raam

senordingdong wrote: »

Yeah but atleast pedstrians have to stay out of them over there.

They do and they don't, depending on who you meet. Many of the lanes are only safe to use if you are faffing about doing 10kph.

senordingdong

I see.

I thought I read that cyclists have the right of way though, basically meaning you can cream any pedestrian that gets in you way?

Coronal

Pretty much. Officially, yes, pedestrians must stay out, but there are always some stumbling out of a pub/restaurant/not paying attention.

I find it somewhat worse here, as you don't really have the option of using the road in the city due to the speed of the cars. They get very annoyed if you're on the roads, as do the traffic police.

OTOH, the countryside is beautiful And once you get out south, the view of the Alps is stunning.

Raam

senordingdong wrote: »

I see.

I thought I read that cyclists have the right of way though, basically meaning you can cream any pedestrian that gets in you way?

I'll defer to a higher authority on that one.

rp

Coronal wrote: »

+1

Add to that the fact that the streets are always lined with cars so cyclists are effectively screened from the drivers. I've been pulled over here for cycling on the road, and I know a guy who was fined for it.

Has mandatory use not recently been repealed in Germany, for safety reasons?

the_syco

thebullkf wrote: »

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

Please explain the purpose of a bike lane if one has to go at walking pace, to ensure that he doesn't hit a car as it emerges from it's drive, stopping on the footpath to check for cars?

Coronal

rp wrote: »

Has mandatory use not recently been repealed in Germany, for safety reasons?

Reading it here is the first I've heard of it. I don't think so. There are still plenty of their blue signs about the place and it was only about a month ago that I got pulled over for it.

seamus

The primary rule of the road, numero uno, the rule upon which all other road laws are based, is that you must use the roads in a way that you do not represent a danger to yourself or other road users. You are perfectly entitled to ignore a road traffic law if adherence to the law would present danger to yourself or someone else.

This is the basis on which I choose to not use the vast majority of off-road cycle tracks in this country, because to do so would present a larger and unreasonable danger to myself than cycling on the road. I will generally use on-road cycle lanes because they're usually no different to cycling on the road.

If the N11 has such a problem with cyclists in the bus lane holding up busses, then rip up the cycle tracks and widen the bus lane. Problem solved.

-Chris-

senordingdong wrote: »

Why do cyclists hate using cycle lanes?

Is it just because of the condition the Irish ones are in?

senordingdong wrote: »

I see.

So what makes cycle lanes slow?

I can see clearly why many are dangerous.
Also, isn't it illeagal to cycle on the footpath? (this amuses me because many cycle lanes are on foot paths now)

In terms of condition, slowness and why some people refuse to use them, have a look at these pics.
Photo 221 to 240 are of the specific section that the OP had an issue with. From 240 onwards, the lanes are quite good and easy to use.
http://picasaweb.google.com/luckyiguess/BikeLanesCherrywoodToDublinToCherrywood?authkey=Gv1sRgCP2j3qyo_YLd5wE#5509464855875589746

chakattack

Overature wrote: »

your the guy who holds up ever damn bus and vehicle in that lane, i know its in bits, but its for buses and taxies

If a slower moving vehicle is impeding your progress -> check your right mirror, check your blind spot, indicate and overtake where there is space and it is legal to do so. No big deal.

rp

Coronal wrote: »

Reading it here is the first I've heard of it. I don't think so. There are still plenty of their blue signs about the place and it was only about a month ago that I got pulled over for it.

They intended to repeal it back in 1997, but left a loophole in the law, allowing local authorities (Behoerde) to put up mandatory use signs for exceptional circumstances. These exceptions had become the rule, so there was an amendment made last year that removed some of those (although the local authorities has been slow to react and change the signage).

Here's a handy page, although it doesn't seem to have the Sept 2010 amendments.
This page discusses the amendments, and interestingly points out the problem of falsely signposted cycle track - nothing special to Ireland, then.
Another interesting point it makes is that if you have well designed cycle paths, you do not need to make their usage mandatory.

Highway_To_Hell

who in their right mind could say it is safe to put a cycle lane right through a bus stop, this is an accident waiting to happen (even at slower speeds)



http://picasaweb.google.com/luckyiguess/BikeLanesCherrywoodToDublinToCherrywood?authkey=Gv1sRgCP2j3qyo_YLd5wE#5509465330119529170

rp

-Chris- wrote: »

Photo 221 to 240 are of the specific section that the OP had an issue with. From 240 onwards, the lanes are quite good and easy to use.
http://picasaweb.google.com/luckyiguess/BikeLanesCherrywoodToDublinToCherrywood?authkey=Gv1sRgCP2j3qyo_YLd5wE#5509464855875589746

From my understanding of the law, from 221 to 237, you would be breaking the law if you cycle on the footpath on this section, as the sign clearly specifies the bus lane as shared use with cycles (ROTR, page 180, top left). Only from 237, is there a clear and legal cycle track sign (RUS009).

BTW, if the OP was pulled on this section, perhaps a complaint to the Guards would be in order?

penexpers

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

who in their right mind could say it is safe to put a cycle lane right through a bus stop, this is an accident waiting to happen (even at slower speeds)

The picture before this one shows a yield sign before the bus stop. If I was using that cycle lane and I saw a bus pulling in, I might use my common sense and stop and wait until the bus has left the stop before continuing on.

rp

penexpers wrote: »

The picture before this one shows a yield sign before the bus stop.

The picture before this one (231) clearly shows that you would be breaking the law to be on the path at that point, pavement graffiti notwithstanding. Picture #232 shows what seems to be the bottom half of a UK-type shared-use sign, but that has no meaning in the Republic of Ireland.

Captain Havoc

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

who in their right mind could say it is safe to put a cycle lane right through a bus stop, this is an accident waiting to happen (even at slower speeds)



http://picasaweb.google.com/luckyiguess/BikeLanesCherrywoodToDublinToCherrywood?authkey=Gv1sRgCP2j3qyo_YLd5wE#5509465330119529170

A few weeks ago I was up in the big smoke there and I was cycling in the bus lane. There was a load of people at the bus stop so I decided I would go onto the cycle lane after the stop. Fúck head in the bus starting beeping at me, despite the fact he was about to stop 100 metres ahead to let on a lot a people. DB drivers seem to have calmed down in the last year or so as this was the only time one beeped at me and none seem to have had the urge to see how close they could get without knocking me over. Back on subject, those random lines were only put down to keep the tree huggers happy as a bit of a gesture.

Stark

Captain Havoc wrote: »

DB drivers seem to have calmed down in the last year or so as this was the only time one beeped at me and none seem to have had the urge to see how close they could get without knocking me over. Back on subject, those random lines were only put down to keep the tree huggers happy as a bit of a gesture.

Had one brush off me yesterday at speed because I had the cheek to cycle through the Red Cow interchange. They're as aggressive as they ever were imo.

Morgan

thebullkf wrote: »

well then i'm afraid i can't help you. if you use the road-use the rules of the road.:)

thebullkf wrote: »

well again. i can't help you.

thebullkf wrote: »

rhetoric my dear voodoo.

I kinda stopped reading after these.

Translation: "I know I'm wrong but I really want to keep this discussion going".

Mosiki

Comforting to know how our taxes are being spent - stopping cyclists on their commute, as the bankers drive past in their limos.

tomasrojo

rp wrote: »

Another interesting point it makes is that if you have well designed cycle paths, you do not need to make their usage mandatory.

I made this point to Roisin Shortall before the last general election. I was emailing her to ask whether Labour would consider rescinding the mandatory-use legislation. She thought rescinding would not be a good idea, because -- and I quote -- cyclists would have "carte blanche to use the road".

Her plan to deal with unsafe lanes was never made clear to me.

Raam

tomasrojo wrote: »

I made this point to Roisin Shortall before the last general election. I was emailing her to ask whether Labour would consider rescinding the mandatory-use legislation. She thought rescinding would not be a good idea, because -- and I quote -- cyclists would have "carte blanche to use the road".

Her plan to deal with unsafe lanes was never made clear to me.

Carte blanche! Was she planning on repealing all road laws wrt to cyclists?

tomasrojo

Raam wrote: »

Carte blanche! Was she planning on repealing all road laws wrt to cyclists?

I got the strong impression she had no idea how the law applied to cyclists, in Ireland or elsewhere.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Carte blanche! Was she planning on repealing all road laws wrt to cyclists?

No, she was going to give us all blank cheques. Sounds like a great idea. Vote Labour for free money!

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

No, she was going to give us all blank cheques. Sounds like a great idea. Vote Labour for free money!

I can finally get that third set of deep section wheels I so crave.

ED E

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

who in their right mind could say it is safe to put a cycle lane right through a bus stop, this is an accident waiting to happen (even at slower speeds)

There are at least three bus stops on the cycle path on Nutgrove avenue. Its a nightmare around rush hour when there can be like 15+ people waiting.

bytey

did he mention he was also stopping motor cyclists and mopeds
from using the cycle lane in return ?

stupid dumbass Wiggum

too scared to fight real crime .

Blowfish

Raam wrote: »

Gah! How the hell are we expected to celebrate commuter race wins? A wry smile?

It doesn't say you can only remove hands to change gears/signal, only when doing it. This means you can wave/fingerbang etc. with one hand as long as you are changing gears/signalling with the other.

chakattack

Stark wrote: »

Had one brush off me yesterday at speed because I had the cheek to cycle through the Red Cow interchange. They're as aggressive as they ever were imo.

If you got the reg or even bus number and time of day, please report it soon and insist that cctv footage is taken from the bus immediately.

Stark

It was the 51b at about 6:15. Would have probably been the one that left Grange Castle at 17:45. Is there much involved in making a complaint? Can I just send an e-mail or do I need to ring them and send letters and stuff?

Doctor Bob

rp wrote: »

Picture #232 shows what seems to be the bottom half of a UK-type shared-use sign, but that has no meaning in the Republic of Ireland.

Really?

From the Department of Transport's Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 5):



I could agree that the sign has been widely mis-applied - specifically, its use seems to be the norm rather than only 'in exceptional circumstances' - but it's not a 'UK-type shared-use sign'.

This thread is depressing.

-PornStar-

-Chris- wrote: »

In terms of condition, slowness and why some people refuse to use them, have a look at these pics.
Photo 221 to 240 are of the specific section that the OP had an issue with. From 240 onwards, the lanes are quite good and easy to use.
http://picasaweb.google.com/luckyiguess/BikeLanesCherrywoodToDublinToCherrywood?authkey=Gv1sRgCP2j3qyo_YLd5wE#5509464855875589746

Jaysus, that truly is awful. The few good sections are shared with pedestrians. And the rest of it would surely require a mountain bike, in order to ride in any sort of comfort/safety.

Raam

-PornStar- wrote: »

Jaysus, that truly is awful. The few good sections are shared with pedestrians. And the rest of it would surely require a mountain bike, in order to ride in any sort of comfort/safety.

Probably with 2.5" wheels and 29ers.

Bunnyhopper

Raam wrote: »

Probably with 2.5" wheels and 29ers.

Dutch Commuter Bike:


Irish Commuter Bike:


:rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Really?

Is there any legislation or SI that actually mentions RUS 058? Is the Manual itself sufficient legal basis for the use of the sign? I'd have thought that it shouldn't be in the Manual without some prior statutory basis, but then this is Ireland (and I don't know what the exact status of the Manual itself is).

I think monument asked through FOI about the use of that sign and Dublin City Council couldn't tell him what the legal basis of it is.

EDIT: This is the post - but it refers to a slightly different sign.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66688893#post66688893

Doctor Bob wrote: »

This thread is depressing.

Very...

rp

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Really?
I could agree that the sign has been widely mis-applied - specifically, its use seems to be the norm rather than only 'in exceptional circumstances' - but it's not a 'UK-type shared-use sign'.

Do these signs have any legal basis? I cannot find them in the ROTR (2007 edition), nor in any Act or S.I.

chakattack

Stark wrote: »

It was the 51b at about 6:15. Would have probably been the one that left Grange Castle at 17:45. Is there much involved in making a complaint? Can I just send an e-mail or do I need to ring them and send letters and stuff?

Don't bother with Dublin Bus. Go to the Gardai at the nearest station to the incident and ask to report a case of dangerous driving. Don't let them fob you off with putting it into the "system" for investigation. Insist that they retrieve the footage immediately or any charges will be cancelled lacking evidence.

If you think he sideswiped you to teach you a "lesson" I think it is reasonable to want to "press charges". If you feel strongly enough about it and think that the video will back you up then I think you should. This sort of thing really pisses me off, I can live with an innocent mistake but not with intentionally endangering someone.

Maybe Brayblue can offer some advice if he's reading?

tomasrojo

RUS058 and RUS058CL, as far as I know, do not appear in any legislation or statutory instruments. They certainly don't appear in the mandatory-use legislation (SI 274/1998, I think it is).

They also use the wrong sign all the time, even if the signs had a legal basis. They keep using the Shared Space version, even when there is a painted cycle track.

Also, somewhat off-topic, why did they settle on "cycle track" as the word for all cycle facilities? "Cycle lanes" and "cycle tracks" are usually two different things.

The term cycle track / cycle path (UK) or sidepath (USA) refers to a footway- or sidewalk-type structure, for cyclists only, alongside (not on) a carriageway (UK) or roadway (USA).

[...]

The term cycle lane (UK) or bike lane (USA) refers to a lane, for cyclists only, marked on an existing portion of a carriageway (UK), roadway or shoulder (USA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities

Doctor Bob

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Is there any legislation or SI that actually mentions RUS 058? Is the Manual itself sufficient legal basis for the use of the sign? I'd have thought that it shouldn't be in the Manual without some prior statutory basis, but then this is Ireland (and I don't know what the exact status of the Manual itself is).

rp wrote: »

Do these signs have any legal basis? I cannot find them in the ROTR (2007 edition), nor in any Act or S.I.

Apologies for the delay, but my, um, sources were a bit awol.

What I've been told since this discussion is that, from the courts' perspective, the legislation and SIs are the only show in town, and you're right, the sign isn't in either of them. However, the Traffic Signs Manual is being revised at the moment, and should be out before christmas. Its status won't change, but I understand that there will be accompanying legislation/SIs to back up the bits of the TSM that aren't currently covered already, including, yes, the shared use sign.

I'll let you know if I hear any more detail.

Chips Lovell

As long as mandatory use is repelealed, as promised, at the same time, I won't mind.

Doctor Bob

el tonto wrote: »

As long as mandatory use is repelealed, as promised, at the same time, I won't mind.

Sources remained tight-lipped on the matter of mandatory use repeal, saying only That would be an ecumenical matter before running to hide in some nearby bushes.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Sources remained tight-lipped on the matter of mandatory use repeal, saying only That would be an ecumenical matter before running to hide in some nearby bushes.

So it won't be repealed, I'd guess. This government will be gone soon anyway.

cdaly_

If it's a matter of a Statutory Instrument it may survive the government. The SI will get signed in by the next minister...