If a cycle lane has an arrow, please follow it! A drivers plea

Cunning Alias

The estate I live in has one entrance/exit on to a dual carriageway where you have to join going one way. There are cycle lanes either side of the road that clearly have arrows showing what way you should be going. The thing that annoys me is that some cyclists don't seem to realize that this is for a reason.

I had an incident where I was exiting my estate. I stopped, looked right, saw a clear opening, went to accelerate, looked forward and had to hit the breaks as a cyclist going the wrong way down the cycle path (from the left) was right in front of me.

Ok fine, no damage done and it only delayed me a few seconds. My issue is that most people would continue to look right at their opening without looking in front of them as they would never expect anyone to be in front of them (and no one should be). You may argue that there may be pedestrians, but you would see them when driving up to the exit.

Some mornings I get the bus about 20 meters down the road from the exit and I watched almost every car drive out with the driver only looking to the right.

Cyclists please (and I know its a tiny tiny minority of you) please stick to the proper side of these roads. Try to imagine what the driver is thinking. My left knee if ****ed for life because of a muppet tearing out of his driveway when I was cycling to school a good few years ago. you could easily end up in the same situation or worse.

serendip

I don't think you'll find much disagreement around here. As a cyclist, it drives me bonkers having to squeeze past another cyclist coming the wrong way in a narrow cycle lane. It's just dangerous. Punkt.

Lumen

This just proves that the standard of road use in Ireland is almost universally poor. In the event of an accident you would both have been at fault.

Road users should look where they're going. In the situation you describe, both parties have a responsibility be able to stop in the space that is positively clear and is likely to remain so.

I don't know what the law is on "salmoning" on cycle lanes. It is very annoying (but thankfully quite rare) on single carriageways with on-road cycle lanes, but on wider roads with big junctions and off-road cycle paths it seems to be more commonly practiced and less dangerous.

Cookie_Monster

N11 every morning on the way to work, pass the same 2 or 3 morons cycling the the wrong way in the outbound lane :mad:

ThisRegard

Always look both ways,be you on foot, bike or car. Does no one remember their safe cross code. Seriously though, it's common sense.

victorcarrera

OK, fair point and it should not happen.
However I have seen this look right only behaviour catch out many drivers at on ramps to dual carriageways, motorways and roundabouts where the vehicle in front hesitates or stops. Also be careful to look left before turning left onto a main road as there may be an overtaking vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Unexpected? Yes. Possible? Very.

Cabaal

As the road safety advert says, "Expect the unaexpected"

Never ever assume a person will do whats logical, we should all know from experience that people no matter the mode of transport can do some very very stupid things

nosedive

you should always look both ways anyway, doesnt anyone in this country remember the driving test?

i came close to having a bad accident because of this one morning. i was overtaking a slow van on a straight stretch of road when someone pulling out of a petrol station came out on to the road looking over his shoulder <without stopping/slowing down> to the right without seeing me doing 60mph towards him in on the same side of the road! i was lucky to see this develop and pulled back behind the vehicle i was overtaking with stoopid white van man none the wiser.

That said i feel we all have the right to share the roads and as such must meet our responsibilities by obeying the rules and respecting other road users.

spokeydokey

If a cycle lane has an arrow, please follow it! A drivers plea

I'm all for following the arrow... except the ones that send me towards a kerb, bus-stop, pillar, dog on a lead that is so long it defeats the purpose,
lamppost, parked car, right angle to a busy road, ditch, bins, glass/gravel, garda car parked outside a spar shop, pedestrians or sure death at the next junction.


rollerbladers too;)

Hermy

Reading this thread I'm reminded of the time I was driving through Donnybrook village on a busy Friday evening and had to stop because a cyclist was coming towards me in the cycle lane. It was laughable really, particularly his insistence that he was quite entitled to be in the cycle lane.

morana

in Belgium for instance you can go either way!. I think as the previous posters said do us a favour and look both ways not just left or whatever...on that point I travel the north starnd every day and would like to ask all the drivers out there not to encroach on the bike lane with its continous white line! or to the gardas when they pull in a driver not to leave the themotorbike in a position that forces me further out into the traffic.....and it goes on and on and on...

BostonB

If you are merging with traffic you have to keep looking on direction. Glance the other ways yes, keep glancing yes, but its impossible to look two different directions at once. Its effectively a blind spot as the bike/car pulls out, as people can be hidden behind the a pillar when you glance to check.

That said I'm just amazed at the number of cyclists, but 9 out of 10 times its pedestrians that choose to enter this blind spot, when cars/bikes are pulling out. You see it almost daily. As a cyclist its not uncommon to meet other cyclists going the wrong way, and meeting them head on is no fun. They do it night with no lights too.

Face it, theres a lot of nutters out there.

morana

I dont think they choose to enter a blind spot.

You cant just glance you have to look an be sure before you merge....theres plenty of time just chill and take the extra look...btw I do drive also!

And I do agree there are plenty of nutters on 2 and 4 wheels

-Chris-

To be honest, I think the cyclist has a lot of the blame here.

Yes, the driver should have looked both ways, yes the cyclist shouldn't be cycling the wrong way down the cycling lane (although I don't think it's that big of a crime), but to be cycling along the cycle lane and come across a car that's pulling out with the driver looking the wrong way, and presume you're ok to cross in front of him, is just stupid.

Make eye contact, or you're going to get done in.

Iwannahurl

I'd be interested to see photos or other details of the stretch of road in question.

A lot of Irish cycling "facilities" are pure rubbish. Combine this with the generally poor standard of driving in Ireland (which includes cyclists) and woefully ineffective traffic law enforcement and you get the chaos and muppetry we see every day.

You say "cycle lane". Do you mean a "cycle path"? If the latter, direction arrows are fairly meaningless. What is the situation at either end of the cycle path? Are there roundabouts or other junction types that ignore or intimidate cyclists?

The reason I ask is that I am aware of one road with four carriageways and a "cycle path" on either side with the arrows you mention. Cyclists routinely cycle both directions on both sides for the simple reason that there is a dangerous roundabout at one end and an anti-cyclist set of traffic signals at the other. In the middle there is a pedestrian/cycle exit from a housing estate. If cyclists were to follow the arrows they would have to turn left, cycle a considerable distance down the road, traverse a 5-arm roundabout and come back up again on the 'correct' side with the flow of traffic. A completely stupid expectation on the part of the roads engineers who 'designed' the cycle path. No wonder so many cyclists ignore the arrows -- it's the most likely adaptation in the circumstances.

We are unlikely to get a high standard of cyclist behaviour in this country until we get a critical mass of road engineers and policy makers who have even the most basic clue about decent cycle facilities.

Incidentally, "wrong way" cycling on such "cycle paths" is highly dangerous, with a relative risk of collision of about 12x at junctions compared to cycling on the road.

BostonB

morana wrote: »

I dont think they choose to enter a blind spot.

You cant just glance you have to look an be sure before you merge....theres plenty of time just chill and take the extra look...btw I do drive also!

And I do agree there are plenty of nutters on 2 and 4 wheels

I know what your meant to do. But practically, I'm not a believer that people can look 360 degrees (or even 180) all at the same time.

Lumen

-Chris- wrote: »

To be honest, I think the cyclist has a lot of the blame here.

The "slice of a pie" model necessarily used by insurance companies to allocate costs is not a useful way of judging moral responsibility for an accident.

Each party makes independent decisions and is responsible for compensating for the others mistakes and doing everything reasonable to avoid an accident.

So in this sort of case, the cluelessness of the cyclist does not detract from the observation failure of the driver, and vice versa.

We all have a responsibility both to anticipate and be predictable.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

We are unlikely to get a high standard of cyclist behaviour in this country until we get a critical mass of road engineers and policy makers who have even the most basic clue about decent cycle facilities.

Having subjectively poor facilities is no excuse for bad cycling.

ashleey

I want to meet these pedestrians and cyclists that have an expert idea of the blind spot in each model of car at each crossing point and then aim to put themselves in it just to be awkward.

Always assume the lowest level of other road user behaviour and it will help you avoid trouble and anger.

-Chris-

Lumen wrote: »

The "slice of a pie" model necessarily used by insurance companies to allocate costs is not a useful way of judging moral responsibility for an accident.

Each party makes independent decisions and is responsible for compensating for the others mistakes and doing everything reasonable to avoid an accident.

So in this sort of case, the cluelessness of the cyclist does not detract from the observation failure of the driver, and vice versa.

We all have a responsibility both to anticipate and be predictable.

I'd probably apportion the cyclist a decent share of the moral blame/responsibility too, nothing to do with insurance issues.

The rest of your post is spot on.

BostonB

ashleey wrote: »

I want to meet these pedestrians and cyclists that have an expert idea of the blind spot in each model of car at each crossing point and then aim to put themselves in it just to be awkward.

Always assume the lowest level of other road user behaviour and it will help you avoid trouble and anger.

Thats just inane. People moving into blind spots is a serious issue.

While 73 per cent of fatalities were at a left turn (all involving HGVs) almost one-third resulting in serious injury to the cyclist involved a left-turning vehicle.
...
The traffic department is to put recommendations to city councilors tomorrow. Chief among these is a recommendation that Cyclops mirrors be fitted to HGVs so they can better see cyclists on their left. The report found that in the majority of left-turning collisions the HGV driver did not see the cyclist.

TBH I can't imagine any one who has driven, hasn't experienced pedestrians or cyclists, moving into their blind spot at some point. Often at the most bizarre times. While is easy to roll out the old dogma of you have to look every direction at all times. Thats just not physically possible. If it was we wouldn't have mirrors and blind spots, and driver instruction to check blind spots.

nosedive

BostonB wrote: »

Thats just inane. People moving into blind spots is a serious issue.

...and drivers not checking to see the way is clear isn't??

You mentioned earlier that you can't / shouldn't look both ways when merging with traffic - I think this is where the problem lies. I can think of few examples apart from being on a slip road specifically intended for merging to a another road (in which case the slip will be one way) where you can get away with sinmply checking right. In any other case you're not merging, you're joining a new carriageway which calls for a STOP, CHECK LEFT AND RIGHT.

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what you've said this seems to be your mindset (ie if pulling out going left, you're simply merging and only need to check right - my opinion on this is it's wrong. Plain and simple. It's dangerous and you're not driving responsibly, you'll likely hit someone one day and then give them a b****cking for wandering into your blind spot.)
The roads are for all people, not just cars. For example, who take precedence on the roads, the operator of a motor vehicle or a person in charge of animals?

I also hate the argument that drivers use against cyclists that the roads are for tham as they pay road tax. There are 2 major flaws in this argument, firstly, I pay tax and therefore contribute towards the upkeep of roads 9road tax DOES NOT PAY FOR ROADS, it goes to a central fund like all other tax revenue.
Secondly, if you want to stand by that argument, shouldn't you pull in/give way to a jeep/lorry on the roads? After all they'll be paying more tax than cars and by extending that logic, have more of a right to the roads than you.

Rant over, car drivers - just accept you have a responsibility to drive safely and to share the roads - it's basic manners. The flying equivalent exercised by pilots is called 'airmanship' and it's well respected.

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

Having subjectively poor facilities is no excuse for bad cycling.

What's the objective definition of "bad cycling"?

Iwannahurl

nosedive wrote: »

BostonB wrote: »

I also hate the argument that drivers use against cyclists that the roads are for tham as they pay road tax. There are 2 major flaws in this argument, firstly, I pay tax and therefore contribute towards the upkeep of roads 9road tax DOES NOT PAY FOR ROADS, it goes to a central fund like all other tax revenue.

No such argument could be valid anyway. I am not aware of any road tax. There is a Motor Tax, however.

BostonB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

BostonB wrote: »

I also hate the argument that drivers use against cyclists that the roads are for tham as they pay road tax. There are 2 major flaws in this argument, firstly, I pay tax and therefore contribute towards the upkeep of roads 9road tax DOES NOT PAY FOR ROADS, it goes to a central fund like all other tax revenue.

No such argument could be valid anyway. I am not aware of any road tax. There is a Motor Tax, however.

I didn't say that. nosedive screwed up the quote tags.

BostonB

nosedive wrote: »

...
You mentioned earlier that you can't / shouldn't look both ways when merging with traffic - ....

No, I said...

BostonB wrote: »

If you are merging with traffic you have to keep looking one direction. Glance the other ways yes, keep glancing yes, but its impossible to look two different directions at once....

BostonB wrote: »

...While is easy to roll out the old dogma of you have to look every direction at all times. Thats just not physically possible. If it was we wouldn't have mirrors and blind spots, and driver instruction to check blind spots.

-Chris-

nosedive wrote: »

You mentioned earlier that you can't / shouldn't look both ways when merging with traffic - I think this is where the problem lies. I can think of few examples apart from being on a slip road specifically intended for merging to a another road (in which case the slip will be one way) where you can get away with sinmply checking right. In any other case you're not merging, you're joining a new carriageway which calls for a STOP, CHECK LEFT AND RIGHT.

How does that significantly differ from the situation the OP was in?

nosedive wrote: »

I also hate the argument that drivers use against cyclists that the roads are for tham as they pay road tax. There are 2 major flaws in this argument, firstly, I pay tax and therefore contribute towards the upkeep of roads 9road tax DOES NOT PAY FOR ROADS, it goes to a central fund like all other tax revenue.
Secondly, if you want to stand by that argument, shouldn't you pull in/give way to a jeep/lorry on the roads? After all they'll be paying more tax than cars and by extending that logic, have more of a right to the roads than you.

That's a can of worms right there, and liable to completely derail this thread...

nosedive wrote: »

Rant over, car drivers - just accept you have a responsibility to drive safely and to share the roads - it's basic manners. The flying equivalent exercised by pilots is called 'airmanship' and it's well respected.

Have you completely absolved the cyclist's responsibility to cycle safely and share the roads (and have manners), or did you just forget to include it in your post?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What's the objective definition of "bad cycling"?

You could start with "you should not endanger yourself or others with poor anticipation and observation".

BostonB

A lot of drivers don't look. We all know that. But cyclists (and pedestrians) could do themselves a favor by anticipating what a driver is doing. Many fail to do that. That said while its annoying, and looks dangerous, it rarely causes accidents. Everything in context.

Iwannahurl

BostonB wrote: »

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I didn't say that. nosedive screwed up the quote tags.

It's still happening!

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

You could start with "you should not endanger yourself or others with poor anticipation and observation".

That is far too general, and could apply to anyone anywhere really.

I'd be interested to hear from Lumen on this point.

Lumen wrote: »

Having subjectively poor facilities is no excuse for bad cycling.

seamus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is far too general, and could apply to anyone anywhere really.

You asked for an objective definition.

Bad cycling, like bad driving is any action which places yourself or others in unreasonable or unnecessary danger and/or requires other road users to take otherwise unnecessary actions to compensate for yours.

That is, a driver should not be forced to swerve for a cyclist jumping off the path/cycle track onto the road any more than a cyclist should be forced to brake for a car which has drifted left.

On the topic of the thread, the cycle lane on the left-hand side of the road being in poor condition is not a good enough reason to cycle against the flow of traffic on the opposite side of the road. The obvious solution is to cycle with the flow of traffic, but not use the cycle lane.

BostonB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

BostonB wrote: »

It's still happening!

Oh no it isn't....;)

BostonB

seamus wrote: »

....
...The obvious solution is to cycle with the flow of traffic, but not use the cycle lane.

I realise the following is completely different to the above example. But...

In the phoenix park around the back of the zoo theres a cycle lane on the road but only on one side. You often see people cycling the wrong way on this, head on to traffic, I assume confused. Perhaps they are tourists used to driving/riding on the other side of the road.

Just thought I'd share that.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

Bad cycling, like bad driving is any action which places yourself or others in unreasonable or unnecessary danger and/or requires other road users to take otherwise unnecessary actions to compensate for yours.

On the topic of the thread, the cycle lane on the left-hand side of the road being in poor condition is not a good enough reason to cycle against the flow of traffic on the opposite side of the road. The obvious solution is to cycle with the flow of traffic, but not use the cycle lane.

There is something in what you say.

I'd still like to get Lumen's perspective though.

manwithaplan

I sometimes do not use cycle facilities that are poorly designed and/or dangerous (on-path cycle lanes on each side of the Royal Canal bridge heading towards town on the North Strand being a case in point). I believe, nonetheless, that it's my responsibility to cycle safely regardless of the conditions. I don't always live up to that responsibility but that's no-one's fault but my own.

I support* initiatives to improve facilities for cyclists but I mostly just get on with going about my business. If I was cycling the wrong way up a cycling path and got sideswiped by a driver, I would be very slow to resort to "but you didn't look" or "the City Council should have done more for me".

*In my own head - I don't actually go so far as to do anything.

-Chris-

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'd still like to get Lumen's perspective though.

Do you mind me asking why you're addressing Lumen specifically? Is there something in what he said that you don't agree with? Is there something in Seamus or my posts that is incomplete that only Lumen can elaborate on?

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'd still like to get Lumen's perspective though.

Bad cycling is cycling that is unsafe, inconsiderate or unstylish.

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

Do you mind me asking why you're addressing Lumen specifically? Is there something in what he said that you don't agree with? Is there something in Seamus or my posts that is incomplete that only Lumen can elaborate on?

Because Lumen made this specific point earlier (emphasis added by me).

Lumen wrote: »

Having subjectively poor facilities is no excuse for bad cycling.

Lumen wrote: »

Bad cycling is cycling that is unsafe, inconsiderate or unstylish.

I like the "unstylish" part , but I would suggest that "unsafe" and "inconsiderate" are subjective terms in the present context.

ashleey

Whatever the rights and wrongs are is irrelevant. Someone could be in your blindspot at any time either accidentally or stupidly and not just cyclists. Try not to crash into them. If they crash into you it is a different matter. As lumen says that position might change if they are unstylish in any way with say mountain bike shorts on and baggy t shirts for example.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would suggest that "unsafe" and "inconsiderate" are subjective terms in the present context.

No, they're not at all subjective.

Unsafe means "behaviour which is likely to lead to an accident". If you want authoritative sources, probably some combination of Roadcraft and whatever the defensive cycling book is called (Cycle Craft?).

"Inconsiderate" means cycling without consideration for other road users. Surprising people, scaring people, not indicating, generally raising other peoples stress levels without just cause. It's an attitude thing.

IMO, arbitrary law breaking comes under "consideration". Deliberately showing disrespect for the ROTR winds people up, and it's not necessary. Mandatory cycle lanes are an exception for obvious reasons.

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

No, they're not at all subjective.

Unsafe means "behaviour which is likely to lead to an accident". If you want authoritative sources, probably some combination of Roadcraft and whatever the defensive cycling book is called (Cycle Craft?).

"Inconsiderate" means cycling without consideration for other road users. Surprising people, scaring people, not indicating, generally raising other peoples stress levels without just cause. It's an attitude thing.

IMO, arbitrary law breaking comes under "consideration". Deliberately showing disrespect for the ROTR winds people up, and it's not necessary. Mandatory cycle lanes are an exception for obvious reasons.

Thanks for that.

So why "subjectively poor" cycling "facilities"?

nosedive

-Chris- wrote: »

How does that significantly differ from the situation the OP was in?

I never said it did or it didn't. What's your point? (apologies all for the messy quotes - they don't seem to work well on my machine).



Have you completely absolved the cyclist's responsibility to cycle safely and share the roads (and have manners), or did you just forget to include it in your post?

You'll note from my first post I refer to the responsibilities of ALL road users. I'm a driver too. My post was not to antagonize or to defend reckless cycling but to put across my feelings that although the cyclist, in this case, would appear to be in the wrong it does would not excuse the driver running him/her over for not checking the way ahead was clear.

BostonB

ashleey wrote: »

...if they are unstylish in any way with say mountain bike shorts on and baggy t shirts...

Hey steady on...

Its called relaxed fit. Useful as an airbrake on fast descents...

Cunning Alias

The area I am talking about is on the N11 between Cabinteely village and Loughlinstown. I will take a pic next time I am walking out.

Jawgap

Cunning Alias wrote: »

The area I am talking about is on the N11 between Cabinteely village and Loughlinstown. I will take a pic next time I am walking out.

a pic? - how very 20th century of you - will Streetview demonstrate the issue?

morana

going home now just want to make sure I dont drift into anybodys blind spot on purpose who cant look 360 deg...or even 180 deg...:D

-Chris-

Probably somewhere along here.
http://goo.gl/maps/vGV8

To be honest, I can see why someone would cycle the wrong way down that lane, there aren't many places to cross the road, and you've probably been on that cycle track since before Foxrock Church when you were avoiding the shambles of a track between White's Cross and Cornelscourt.

Cunning Alias

This is the one

the_syco

Cunning Alias wrote: »

The area I am talking about is on the N11 between Cabinteely village and Loughlinstown. I will take a pic next time I am walking out.

I'm guessing you mean here, in which case the cyclist was totally in the wrong, for a number of reasons.
a) not following the flow of traffic (they would be going against it; heck, it's akin to going the wrong way on a one way street!)
b) not obeying the traffic light

/edit
Just saw your post when I posted.

Cunning Alias wrote: »

This is the one

The cyclist is going the wrong way on a duel carriageway. Is the f**ker suicidal, or just brain-dead?

Cunning Alias

I figure the main reason people do it because it is shorter to cycle past there if you are heading up to the tullyvale apartments or the business park.

If you were on the proper side of the road, you would have to go up and over the bridge.

the_syco

Cunning Alias wrote: »

I figure the main reason people do it because it is shorter to cycle past there if you are heading up to the tullyvale apartments or the business park.

If you were on the proper side of the road, you would have to go up and over the bridge.

Not only will the cyclist be going the wrong way, but they'll be going the wrong way next to a bus lane (as opposed next to a hard shoulder which would mean a gap between cyclist and traffic). The "shortcut" will cost someone a limb, or loss of life. If going fast enough, the sudden "push" of air going around the bus will surely send them into the grass, or a lamppost?