Cyclists and one way streets...

Knasher

Lumen wrote: »

In my experience, the sort of cyclists who hop on to the footpath tend to be the same ones that hop back off again without looking, right into my path.

Well seeing as they are breaking the law when they hop on, its hardly surprising that they are the irresponsible ones and not indicative of cyclists as a group.

Lumen wrote: »

Bikes are fast moving and hazardous to pedestrians, and should be on the road where pedestrians have an expectation of danger.

Well I did say that we should only be allowed to use the footpath when we are slow moving though I would concede that it's probably unenforceable to place a speed limit on cyclists.

Hermy

The roads of Dublin City are hazardous enough without encouraging cyclists to cycle against the flow of traffic.

Squidgy Black

Malahide road is constantly full of kids hopping off the paths into the cycle lane going the wrong way, sometimes 3 or 4 abreast.

studiorat

My Missus cycles through the Phoenix Park going the wrong way down the cycle lane daily.

There's only one cycle lane on one side of the road. Someone please have a kind word if you see her. She won't listen to me!!!

Cookie_Monster

doozerie wrote: »

I believe that experiments have been carried out in at least two cities in Europe where all traffic lights were powered off for some number of days/weeks, and I read of a similar experiment somewhere in Australia. From what I understand traffic flow improved and there were no obvious decreases in safety, but any time I've casually tried to find any info on these experiments online I haven't been able to do so, so I've only got anecdotes to go on about the real results. This is getting off-topic, I realise, but if anyone has any links to info on those experiments I'd be interested to have a read.

signage and other street furniture were removed also iirc, behaviour and accident rates improved substantially. There was a term for it but can't recall it

Doctor Bob

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

There was a term for it but can't recall it

'Naked street'?

doozerie wrote: »

I believe that experiments have been carried out in at least two cities in Europe where all traffic lights were powered off for some number of days/weeks, and I read of a similar experiment somewhere in Australia. From what I understand traffic flow improved and there were no obvious decreases in safety, but any time I've casually tried to find any info on these experiments online I haven't been able to do so, so I've only got anecdotes to go on about the real results. This is getting off-topic, I realise, but if anyone has any links to info on those experiments I'd be interested to have a read.

Hans Monderman in The Netherlands was one of the originators, and the town of Drachten was his primary lab. YouTube isn't a bad place to start if you're looking for a basic intro. (Try combinations of 'naked street', 'shared space', 'traffic calming', Drachten, Monderman, etc in Google Scholar if you want to dig a little deeper.) Ben Hamilton-Baillie in the UK is also a prominent proponent.

doozerie wrote: »

Pedestrians frequently demonstrate the same attitude along Westland Row too, where their desire to get to their train outweighs any safety concerns for cyclists in the cycle track who have to swerve to avoid them as the pedstrians use the cycle track as a means of overtaking everyone on the footpath.

(Confession: today I may have accidentally on purpose brushed a little too close to a girl who was jogging ahead of me [going the same direction] in the cycle lane. I'd had a hectic day, and she was the unfortunate final straw. Proud? No. Remorseful? No, not really that either.)

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

(Confession: today I may have accidentally on purpose brushed a little too close to a girl who was jogging ahead of me [going the same direction] in the cycle lane. I'd had a hectic day, and she was the unfortunate final straw. Proud? No. Remorseful? No, not really that either.)

Frotter.

Chips Lovell

Take the Raam approach. Smack her on the arse as you go by.

_sparkie_

the guards have a dirty double standard when it comes to cycling. yesterday i was heading towards parnell square on o'connell street and there was a red light with no traffic and people, i was going to break it but then i spotted two guards cycling towards on on the path. so i braked and stopped at the lights, the guards were obviously looking at me getting ready to give out **** to me for breaking the light but i beat them. they then hop down off the curd cycle the wrong way down o'connell street, to have a look at me and my bike and then procede to cycle down o'connell street in the wrong lane.

Doctor Bob

Lumen wrote: »

Frotter.

'Brushed' may have been understating the case slightly. Is it frotteurism (I prefer le French) to elbow someone back onto the footpath? /

el tonto wrote: »

Take the Raam approach. Smack her on the arse as you go by.

In hindsight, that might actually have been a better approach. (Except!- I could never do it in the name of Raam. "In these socks? I don't think so!")

***

Back on topic, Brussels has probably the most extensive contra-flow cycling arrangements of any European city. They revised the regulations so that now every street is, by default, two-way for cycling- on busy one-way streets using segregated lanes, on quieter streets using nothing other than painted bike symbols on the ground. Streets can be excluded, but only in special circumstances, and in reality very few have been. And it seems to work.

I've seen the Paris ones (mentioned above) in acrion and I was pleasantly surprised by them; though in reality the cyclists are often going at no more than walking pace, which may slightly defeat the purpose.

Rodin

A law unto themselves. Make it up as they go along. They just see it as a faster form of walking, with the rules of the road for cars only

Rodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's illegal so don't do it, not that that seems to bother anyone.

I rarely do it but sometime do when traffic is blocking the lane or to avoid red lights

that makes it alright then!
must edge the car on the path there then when the gap is a bit small to get through

buffalo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

though in reality the cyclists are often going at no more than walking pace, which may slightly defeat the purpose.

I see this as the great gulf between the cycling forum (imo*) and the Dutch cycling idyll - we want enough space to go as fast as possible down nice tarmac, whereas what most commuting cyclists want is enough space to safely potter about. It's not defeating the purpose, it's just a different purpose.

*obviously there are exceptions on here, but I would gauge the majority are racers who commute, with some avid commuters, and a mixture of others. Again, that's just my personal impression.

manwithaplan

_sparkie_ wrote: »

the guards have a dirty double standard when it comes to cycling. yesterday i was heading towards parnell square on o'connell street and there was a red light with no traffic and people, i was going to break it but then i spotted two guards cycling towards on on the path. so i braked and stopped at the lights, the guards were obviously looking at me getting ready to give out **** to me for breaking the light but i beat them. they then hop down off the curd cycle the wrong way down o'connell street, to have a look at me and my bike and then procede to cycle down o'connell street in the wrong lane.

The guards are having a bad week. First the camera in the back of the car in Mayo and now this.

GTDolanator

_sparkie_ wrote: »

the guards have a dirty double standard when it comes to cycling. yesterday i was heading towards parnell square on o'connell street and there was a red light with no traffic and people, i was going to break it but then i spotted two guards cycling towards on on the path. so i braked and stopped at the lights, the guards were obviously looking at me getting ready to give out **** to me for breaking the light but i beat them. they then hop down off the curd cycle the wrong way down o'connell street, to have a look at me and my bike and then procede to cycle down o'connell street in the wrong lane.

you would be surprised the ammount of laws pushbike cops break

ive yet to see one of them with a pair of lights when its dark

BostonB

The Garda I've seen on bikes go the wrong, way break lights, have no lights, go on pavements. Everything. They have no credibility.

monument

Re making it legal to go counter flow -- it depends on the streets, but this is my 2 cent from looking into the issue quite a bit...

Small one-way sidestreets -- yes, and examples in Dublin, Berlin and Paris etc show you can do this with marking and warning signs only at junctions. No barrier or kerb needed.

Wider one-way sidestreets -- more likely to need marking or kerbing, but that's not always the case.

Busy muilt-lane one-way streets -- almost never without kerbing or using other barriers, like a row of parked cars.

And just to be clear: I think any cyclist cycling against flow without it being legal should be stopped, just the same with cyclists breaking red lights or on footpaths. Also, cyclists cycling on the wrong side of the road should at the very least get at ASBO.

GTDolanator wrote: »

you would be surprised the ammount of laws pushbike cops break

ive yet to see one of them with a pair of lights when its dark

They break zero laws. Road traffic acts do not apply to them, and nobody breaks a law until a court has convicted them of such. Sure, some of them do some foolish things, but mostly what they do is fine and very much so safe.

I always see them with lights btw. Have seen some with badly placed lights on their person rather than on the bikes, but I don't remember seen more than one or two without lights at night and that's out of seeing them 100s of times.

Police officers cycling around urban areas -- including on footpaths -- is one of the most effective ways of policing city and town centers. They can't do everything, but it's a great thing to add to the mix of transport modes used.

Setting an example may apply with things like cycling with the flow and stopping at red lights (unless responding to an emergency), but it does not apply to cycling on footpaths or at least no more than setting an example applies to police cars driving down ped streets.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

captain P

Rodin wrote: »

must edge the car on the path there then when the gap is a bit small to get through

I see cars doing that a lot. When there's a queue to turn right and not enough room on the left to go straight, cars often edge up on to the path to get passed; regardless if there's anyone on the path or not (I know two places where this happens daily and have had to hop backwards on more than one occassion to avoid getting hit).

Back on topic of one way streets.... it's simply dangerous and illegal and shouldn't be done. I've seen Gardai standing watching people do it and saying nothing, which probably makes some people assume it's ok to do. These salmon cyclists have forced me to cycle in front of other traffic and it's really annoying :mad: !!!

I like the idea of Dublin being more cyclist friendly by the use of contra flow cycle lanes, but as it's been mentioned - these rarely get used correctly anyway!

HivemindXX

petethedrummer wrote: »

I see what your saying alright, but everytime a traffic light goes out people immediately become more aware and considerate of others.

Not universally true. The junction at Suir Road Bridge has four road heads, the entrance to a housing complex and a luas track. For some reason there was a period where these lights would go out on a regular basis. When this happened one line of traffic would fill the junction completely and nobody would yield to the cars coming the other way. Essentially one line would treat the broken lights as if they had a permanent green and the other line was forced to stop pretty much indefinetly.

I guess this sort of heavy traffic is not the sort of situation you are talking about but I think that sort of traffic is the primary reason we have traffic lights, to ensure that each direction gets a turn. They are only indirectly about safety, since a green light allows someone to shoot through a junction without slowing to check if it's safe.

Yesterday I was buzzed by a car in the bus lane who overtook at least 100 other cars on the Naas road before sliding back in to the line of traffic he should have been in all along so in light of that behaviour when there are rules against it perhaps I'm overly cynical about the notion that we'll all behave better if only there weren't rules telling us we had to.

Cookie_Monster

Rodin wrote: »

that makes it alright then!

I never said it made it alright, I just said I do it

Rodin wrote: »

must edge the car on the path there then when the gap is a bit small to get through

I do that too:p

BostonB

monument wrote: »

....
They break zero laws. Road traffic acts do not apply to them, and nobody breaks a law until a court has convicted them of such. Sure, some of them do some foolish things, but mostly what they do is fine and very much so safe. ...

I would be surprised if that is true. I would assume that its the same as with cars. They can only break laws if responding to a call. Otherwise they have to adhere to them the same as everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like see where it says otherwise.

You can break a law and not be convicted of such. You've still broken the law. Thats a bit like a tree falls in the forest theory.

petethedrummer

HivemindXX wrote: »

Not universally true.

I'm not saying we just turn off every light and the problem is solved, some junctions would obviously need a little redesign. anyways we're OT.

I don't get all the bike Gard bashing. They're there to patrol the city, so they may have bend a few rules to do this properly. Keeping the Gardai off the pavement would be like stopping a park keeper from cutting the grass because there is a 'keep off the grass' sign.

BostonB

Most of the time they are doing it, they don't need to do it. They are just being lazy for no good reason. You can't uphold the law then ignore it yourself.

Rew

BostonB wrote: »

I would be surprised if that is true. I would assume that its the same as with cars. They can only break laws if responding to a call. Otherwise they have to adhere to them the same as everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like see where it says otherwise.

You can break a law and not be convicted of such. You've still broken the law. Thats a bit like a tree falls in the forest theory.

He's correct. They don't have to be responding call and the bikes are as much Garda vehicle as cars and vans so the rules are the same across the board. They just have to be in the course of their duties that may mean their just on the beat.

Gardai on bikes are generally community police, they cycle on paths to for a few reasons like to have a better view of properties as they go past and to be seen patrolling the area. We should have a lot more of them, its a great way to cover a large area and much more approachable then if there in a car.

BostonB wrote: »

Most of the time they are doing it, they don't need to do it. They are just being lazy for no good reason. You can't uphold the law then ignore it yourself.

Sounds to me like your assuming quite a bit about their reasons and the law

monument

Examples from Dublin:

This...


...feeds into this:







There are a few other examples from Dublin too -- some bad, some, good and some need to be worked on.


Berlin:





Warning sign at a t-junction noting that it's one way for motorists but both ways for cyclists:



Paris:

BostonB wrote: »

I would be surprised if that is true. I would assume that its the same as with cars. They can only break laws if responding to a call. Otherwise they have to adhere to them the same as everyone else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like see where it says otherwise.

You can break a law and not be convicted of such. You've still broken the law. Thats a bit like a tree falls in the forest theory.

It's true. With the road traffic acts they are exempt in the line of duty (ie all the time while working) not just responding to a call or in an emergency. A narrower restriction would be problematic. That does not allow them to act recklessly, but it does allow them drive on the likes of Henry and Grafton streets, and cycle on footpaths.

It says otherwise in the road traffic acts (I'm not digging it out at the moment but will do some other time if somebody else has not).

BostonB

Rew wrote: »

He's correct. They don't have to be responding call and the bikes are as much Garda vehicle as cars and vans so the rules are the same across the board. They just have to be in the course of their duties that may mean their just on the beat.....

Do you a link where it states that.

Rew

BostonB wrote: »

Do you a link where it states that.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/sec0027.html

BostonB

Rew wrote: »

...
Sounds to me like your assuming quite a bit about their reasons and the law

Short of stopping them and asking them wtf are you doing. How am I meant to know their reasons. But I don't see how going the wrong way on Nassau street while chatting is right. Or breaking every light from dame street to thomas street, while just chatting to each other. On the bike you see them do this kinda crap all the time.

I've yet to see someone post a link otherwise.

tomasrojo

The comparison with police driving in Henry Street and Grafton street seems an apt one. It seems directly analogous.

BostonB

Rew wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/sec0027.html

How is going the wrong way on a one way, and breaking lights not dangerous and endangering other road users.

petethedrummer

BostonB wrote: »

How is going the wrong way on a one way, and breaking lights not dangerous and endangering other road users.

If noone gets hurt.

BostonB

petethedrummer wrote: »

If noone gets hurt.

Thats not the meaning of endanger....

...to expose to harm or danger; imperil, put in a dangerous, disadvantageous, or difficult position...

petethedrummer

BostonB wrote: »

Thats not the meaning of endanger....

yeah I was waiting for that.

The bike gardai are usually pootling about at walking pace when they are on the pavement. That's hardly endangering anyone. Its easy enough to cycle on a pavement and to break red light without endangering anyone.

BostonB

Poor backtrack. I wasn't talking about about being on a pavement and braking a red light. I was talking about when I've seen them, I was surprised by them cycling head on into head on traffic on a busy road, but not intimidated enough to swerve away, but I can certainly imagine others might be. I've also seen them cut across red lights against busy traffic on a bad rainy night at Christchurch. I've seen this kinda stuff enough times to know its must be a habit with them. This is entirely different than finding them tooling around a pedestrian zone. You think its fine, I think its poor. I'll agree to disagree.

wile1000

seamus wrote: »

And then the problem is that cyclists get confused and you get people cycling the wrong way down the contra-flow. This is the main reason why I stopped using the contra-flow lane at Busaras/Custom House Quay.

Late to the thread, but there's a contra-flow on Sir John Rogerson's Quay between Lime St and the new bridge (passes infront of the O2 offices). I use it daily and it works quite well. Difference here is that *both* cycle lanes are clearly marked beside each other. I find peds are also more aware that the cycle lane exists here and I see they check more often than usual.

Perhaps that is the solution required for Busaras/Customs House Quay et al.

petethedrummer

BostonB wrote: »

I've seen this kinda stuff enough times to know its must be a habit with them.

I haven't and I cycle through the city centre twice a day. You may be there more than I.

BostonB wrote: »

This is entirely different than finding them tooling around a pedestrian zone.You think its fine, I think its poor.

I don't think endangering people is fine. If there are Gardai endangering lives then they should be re-trained. I don't think it warrants revoking their exemption to traffic laws.

BostonB wrote: »

I'll agree to disagree.

Grand.

BostonB

petethedrummer wrote: »

I haven't and I cycle through the city centre twice a day. You may be there more than I...

Probably a different route.

Rew

At least the Gardai are trained to ride the bikes unlike most people going around the city center

p

seamus wrote: »

While I do like the idea, the first thing that springs to mind is that a contra-flow for cyclists needs to be a separated lane to prevent conflicts.

In Munich, I cycle down some contra-flow lanes every day for a short part of my commute. While it is confusing, the road isn't too busy (or fast) so it's mostly just down to everyone acting responsibly and making sure everyone's ok. It's fine to have a certain amount of 'negotiation' between cars, cyclists and pedestrians to work it out between themselves.

tomasrojo

p wrote: »

In Munich, I cycle down some contra-flow lanes every day for a short part of my commute. While it is confusing, the road isn't too busy (or fast) so it's mostly just down to everyone acting responsibly and making sure everyone's ok. It's fine to have a certain amount of 'negotiation' between cars, cyclists and pedestrians to work it out between themselves.

Not in Denmark anymore?

tomasrojo

In-depth look at the legal status of cycling the wrong way down one-way streets in the UK. I don't know how closely our rules and practices correspond.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/08/09/cycling-one-way-streets

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

In-depth look at the legal status of cycling the wrong way down one-way streets in the UK. I don't know how closely our rules and practices correspond.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/08/09/cycling-one-way-streets

Our legal situation is that it is possible for our roads authorities to put a plate on upright no-entry signs giving cyclists an exemption to pass the sign.

Where there are marked no-entry lines on the mouth of the junction, the legislation only allows cyclists to cross them to enter a cycle track. (the cycle track marking presumably interrupt the no-entry markings).

That said it is possible to achieve the same effect with a so called "false one way street" where you have a small traffic island that creates a bicycle sized gap in the no-entry markings.