Cycle Lanes Finally!!!

overshoot

Was up in letterkenny today and got a look at some of them... Awful job, wouldn't touch them. Seen one cyclist attempting to use them abandon it half way up the road.
There are yield signs at both sides and they are not wide enough to be 2 way.
Seen yield markings within 3m of each other!
There are still steps up onto the curb and not a smooth ramp.
And then where they are on the road, its not wide enough for both.
They would have been better doing nothing from what iv seen as they are fit for nothing!

galwaycyclist

overshoot wrote: »

Was up in letterkenny today and got a look at some of them... Awful job, wouldn't touch them. Seen one cyclist attempting to use them abandon it half way up the road.
There are yield signs at both sides and they are not wide enough to be 2 way.
Seen yield markings within 3m of each other!
There are still steps up onto the curb and not a smooth ramp.
And then where they are on the road, its not wide enough for both.
They would have been better doing nothing from what iv seen as they are fit for nothing!

If they are removimg priority at the side roads then this is best interpreted as a crude attempt to manage and control cyclists for the benefit of motor traffic - at the expense of the cyclists' safety and convenience.

FanadMan

overshoot wrote: »

its pointless providing them, if they are not going to be done right, 2 lanes not wide enough for either is no better than one lane. This was regular in dublin and both forms of transport got on with it.
plus as a motorist which would you rather, a cyclist going in a straight line or one which has to constantly swerve to avoid debris (ok theres worst than this but so many are so badly installed and have to be avoided) most of this a car wouldnt have to avoid but a bike would.

how do they compare to this?

Was that pic taken in Doughiska? Looks kinda familiar for some reason.

Never mind - found it on its original site and it was taken in Doughiska

kiddums

As a non cyclist, I won't be bothering obeying the lanes much, especially when I've already been given the fingers by cyclist's who refused to use the lane and were in the middle of the road, and on a Saturday morning too.

But I do think that this is another example of DCC thinking they know what people want, and implementing it in the worst possible way, without public consultation.

danniemcq

kiddums wrote: »

As a non cyclist, I won't be bothering obeying the lanes much, especially when I've already been given the fingers by cyclist's who refused to use the lane and were in the middle of the road, and on a Saturday morning too.

But I do think that this is another example of DCC thinking they know what people want, and implementing it in the worst possible way, without public consultation.

outta curiousity which "lane" was this on? Pearse, back of the IT, Blaney or somewhere else?

kiddums

danniemcq wrote: »

outta curiousity which "lane" was this on? Pearse, back of the IT, Blaney or somewhere else?

Once on the road beside the lane on Blaney, and a few times on pearse road.

The road on Blaney has the cycle lane on the footpath, which doesn't really go up and down much, so no excuse.

overshoot

kiddums wrote: »

Once on the road beside the lane on Blaney, and a few times on pearse road.

The road on Blaney has the cycle lane on the footpath, which doesn't really go up and down much, so no excuse.

haha the blaney road was one of the main ones i was looking at when i gave out about it (and where the cyclist gave up), was only on that and the pearse/port road area so if it gets worse.....
its a disaster, especially when you are coming up to the roundabout at dunnes. there are plenty of dips in the footpath there for future exits too, dealing with them is about the same as speed bumps for cars. and the aldi junction, just ????

anyway why would anyone in their sane mind use a lane which will force them to yield or have a speed bump every 50m-100m when there is a perfectly good flat free flowing one a metre away? they also just end and dont merge properly with the road, at least in dublin they made the footpath kick out so nobody had to stop. they brought the cyclist back onto the road at junctions and everything moved with no need for yield signs.
Theres more to making cycle lanes than a bit of paint. which unfortunately DCC dont realise and have implemented a system that will just piss everyone off as the motorist will give out for the cyclist not using the cycle lane who in turn is pissed off that its not fit for purpose.

danniemcq

kiddums wrote: »

Once on the road beside the lane on Blaney, and a few times on pearse road.

The road on Blaney has the cycle lane on the footpath, which doesn't really go up and down much, so no excuse.

the blaney road has been mentioned a few times here regarding the whole entrance/up and down bits

Pearse road shouldn't be as bad. I know the road in at the side can be very rough (Drains and gullys) around there are a lot of times there are 2 cars vying for position. Couple this with the sudden end at the end that leaves you unable to go anywhere doesn't help anyone.

As overshoot says its not as easy as painting a line and as you said yourself i doubt DCC asked to many drivers/cyclists their opinions. But when you say that you don't think you'll obey them just remember that someone on a bike is a lot more fragile than you are in your car. You give out about cyclists on the road but aren't you as bad yourself for using the lane?

kiddums

danniemcq wrote: »

the blaney road has been mentioned a few times here regarding the whole entrance/up and down bits

Pearse road shouldn't be as bad. I know the road in at the side can be very rough (Drains and gullys) around there are a lot of times there are 2 cars vying for position. Couple this with the sudden end at the end that leaves you unable to go anywhere doesn't help anyone.

As overshoot says its not as easy as painting a line and as you said yourself i doubt DCC asked to many drivers/cyclists their opinions. But when you say that you don't think you'll obey them just remember that someone on a bike is a lot more fragile than you are in your car. You give out about cyclists on the road but aren't you as bad yourself for using the lane?

I understand that its not good for cyclists, but they need to obey the rules of the road regardless.

Where I saw them on Blaney was opposite the council offices, where the footpath is as smooth as you could ask for.

I'm not having a go about cyclists (provided they obey the rules), more the councils implementation of these lanes and how terrible they are.
And yes, I'll give off about motorists dissobeying the rules when its appropiate.

Yes, I might be as bad, but what choice have the council left me? Will they replace a mirror on my car that gets taken off by a truck beside me as the road lanes are too small now, or by a cyclist because the cycle lanes are so narrow and rough?

danniemcq

kiddums wrote: »

I understand that its not good for cyclists, but they need to obey the rules of the road regardless.

Where I saw them on Blaney was opposite the council offices, where the footpath is as smooth as you could ask for.

I'm not having a go about cyclists (provided they obey the rules), more the councils implementation of these lanes and how terrible they are.
And yes, I'll give off about motorists dissobeying the rules when its appropiate.

Yes, I might be as bad, but what choice have the council left me? Will they replace a mirror on my car that gets taken off by a truck beside me as the road lanes are too small now, or by a cyclist because the cycle lanes are so narrow and rough?

Don't worry i think everyone is on the same page on the thread saying that the council never thought this through and its causing hassle for all parties. I said it early in the thread that it would and its being proven.

Like you said out at council place on Blaney road it is grand and smooth but it leads to the un and down entrances and depending on what way you are going a bike joining the road here to skip those is taking their life into their hands as its not a slow road.

IMO they should have skipped out by IT and ran the road up and over Gortlee instead. That road is a balls to go up and over yes but its also quiter and wider. Or at least dug up some of the footpath and moved the trees where it is now.

Pearse needs a safe ending and Blaney needs signs informing motorists that cyclists have the right of way or again the footpath dug up widen the road and put the lane on the same level as the road

galwaycyclist

kiddums wrote: »

I understand that its not good for cyclists, but they need to obey the rules of the road regardless.

Where I saw them on Blaney was opposite the council offices, where the footpath is as smooth as you could ask for.

I'm not having a go about cyclists (provided they obey the rules), more the councils implementation of these lanes and how terrible they are.
And yes, I'll give off about motorists dissobeying the rules when its appropiate.

Yes, I might be as bad, but what choice have the council left me? Will they replace a mirror on my car that gets taken off by a truck beside me as the road lanes are too small now, or by a cyclist because the cycle lanes are so narrow and rough?

What rules might they be? There is no longer any legal requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes (or cycle tracks as they are called in the traffic regs) in this type of situation. The previous legal requirement to use cycle lanes was scrapped last year -apart from contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets and cycle tracks through pedestrian zones.

The reason for scrapping these regulations was because many Irish cycle facilities are self-evidently more dangerous and inconvenient than doing nothing with the road. In fact, Cyclist.ie, the National Cycling Lobby group has called for a nationwide ban on marking or constructing cycle facilities along roads until a proper oversight system can be put in place.

In any case, in law, there is a primary duty to avoid injury and damage to property. Arguably cyclists were always entitled to avoid using road markings or other features that increase their risk.

GoldenGreen

I too think these lanes are a joke, a cycle lane is more than a lick of paint and whoever designed them must never rode a bike in town at all.

But just wondering who is responsible for them, as I see above people saying it is Donegal County Council but just thinking here maybe its Letterkenny Town Council that is responsible.

kiddums

danniemcq wrote: »

Don't worry i think everyone is on the same page on the thread saying that the council never thought this through and its causing hassle for all parties. I said it early in the thread that it would and its being proven.

Like you said out at council place on Blaney road it is grand and smooth but it leads to the un and down entrances and depending on what way you are going a bike joining the road here to skip those is taking their life into their hands as its not a slow road.

IMO they should have skipped out by IT and ran the road up and over Gortlee instead. That road is a balls to go up and over yes but its also quiter and wider. Or at least dug up some of the footpath and moved the trees where it is now.

Pearse needs a safe ending and Blaney needs signs informing motorists that cyclists have the right of way or again the footpath dug up widen the road and put the lane on the same level as the road

I'll take your word for the suggestions, as I'm not a cyclist, but I completely agree that something needs to be done about it.
That or we need an award for the worst implementation of cycle lanes in the country.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What rules might they be? There is no longer any legal requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes (or cycle tracks as they are called in the traffic regs) in this type of situation. The previous legal requirement to use cycle lanes was scrapped last year -apart from contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets and cycle tracks through pedestrian zones.

The reason for scrapping these regulations was because many Irish cycle facilities are self-evidently more dangerous and inconvenient than doing nothing with the road. In fact, Cyclist.ie, the National Cycling Lobby group has called for a nationwide ban on marking or constructing cycle facilities along roads until a proper oversight system can be put in place.

In any case, in law, there is a primary duty to avoid injury and damage to property. Arguably cyclists were always entitled to avoid using road markings or other features that increase their risk.

Sorry, I was refering to the rules of the road that cyclists must obey too. Not specific rules that say they must use cycle lanes. Tho I didn't realise that was no longer a thing, like I say, not a cyclist.

danniemcq

GoldenGreen wrote: »

But just wondering who is responsible for them, as I see above people saying it is Donegal County Council but just thinking here maybe its Letterkenny Town Council that is responsible.

I am open to correction but as they mention a county wide plan for Donegal in the donegalnow article (http://www.donegalnow.com/sp/article_manager/detail/minister_launches_donegal_cycling_route) I would assume its a County Issue.

Perhaps each local council is in charge of actually placing the lanes but again i don't know

Cee-Jay-Cee

As far as I know it's the Co.Co. that implemented this as its county wide. They basically paid €500,000 to paint lines on the roads and footpaths with no consultation with any organisation, group, Gardai or individual.

I will not be using any of the cycle lanes on footpaths, they're uneven and totally unsuitable for road bikes with narrow tyres as there are no smooth ramps and in places there are lips which are over an inch in height.

Noreen1

danniemcq wrote: »

I am open to correction but as they mention a county wide plan for Donegal in the donegalnow article (http://www.donegalnow.com/sp/article_manager/detail/minister_launches_donegal_cycling_route) I would assume its a County Issue.

Perhaps each local council is in charge of actually placing the lanes but again i don't know

Hmm. I'm not sure whether to welcome cycle lanes, or not!

On some of the narrower main routes, I foresee major problems, tbh.

On the other hand, if it stops some cyclists cycling two abreast, at about 5mph, and taking up the whole road, especially on blind corners - that has to be a good thing!

As to the cycle lanes in LK. I agree with other posters on this thread. They're a joke, and a danger to cyclist and motorist alike, imho.

muffler

Had a look today at the "lanes" along the Port Road (past the IT) and whoever give the go-ahead for that needs their head examined. A complete and utter joke.

Just for the record Im not a cyclist.

Flibbles

The cycle lanes are complete and utter bollocks, like most things the LK/County Council does these days. It makes me glad I don't cycle in Letterkenny, it was dangerous enough before but now I think they've made things more dangerous for everyone on the road. A complete joke.

overshoot

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If they are removimg priority at the side roads then this is best interpreted as a crude attempt to manage and control cyclists for the benefit of motor traffic - at the expense of the cyclists' safety and convenience.

i actually thought this was beyond the thought capacity of the council but having another look today i realised the markings on the pearse road (not footpath) are also painted to yield to the entrances! (eg the petrol station)

iv suddenly switched from just believing this to be another hash job to being frankly concerned someone/people in a position to design/authorise are in a job at all! why the **** would you put a yield sign on the major road?... how the **** did nobody even ask that question! they are either complete and utter morons or extremily anti cyclist (edit - even for anti cyclist there must be quite a bit of moron there too)

galwaycyclist

overshoot wrote: »

i actually thought this was beyond the thought capacity of the council but having another look today i realised the markings on the pearse road (not footpath) are also painted to yield to the entrances! (eg the petrol station)

iv suddenly switched from just believing this to be another hash job to being frankly concerned someone/people in a position to design/authorise are in a job at all! why the **** would you put a yield sign on the major road?... how the **** did nobody even ask that question! they are either complete and utter morons or extremily anti cyclist

This is the problem with the whole concept of cycle facilities running along roads. While it is possible to use them as a means of promoting cycling - such as in Denmark and the Netherlands - in the hands of others it is possible to use them as a "weapon" against cyclists in pursuit of other goals.

It is one of the reasons why the national cycling lobby have been arguing that the last thing the government should be doing is giving county council engineers money for cycle facilities.

overshoot

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This is the problem with the whole concept of cycle facilities running along roads. While it is possible to use them as a means of promoting cycling - such as in Denmark and the Netherlands - in the hands of others it is possible to use them as a "weapon" against cyclists in pursuit of other goals.

It is one of the reasons why the national cycling lobby have been arguing that the last thing the government should be doing is giving county council engineers money for cycle facilities.

its not even using them as a weapon tho, it defies logic of having primary and secondary roads... you cannot give priority to an entrance over some of the traffic on the primary. its just going to force the cyclist from the narrow cycle lane, into the now far too narrow car lane so he can have right of way.
not that it will matter because another retard will believe all cyclist must yield to him as the cycle lane does (even if they arent using it)

rafa05

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not sure whether to welcome cycle lanes, or not!

On some of the narrower main routes, I foresee major problems, tbh.

On the other hand, if it stops some cyclists cycling two abreast, at about 5mph, and taking up the whole road, especially on blind corners - that has to be a good thing!

As to the cycle lanes in LK. I agree with other posters on this thread. They're a joke, and a danger to cyclist and motorist alike, imho.

They cycle 2 a breast to avoid getting clipped by cars, drivers take more chances on corners etc when in single file. It's safer

Noreen1

Eh?

How so?

It's a lot easier to avoid one cyclist, single file, than to avoid two - especially on, say, s-bends, or when coming over a height.

I'm surprised there hasn't been an instance of road rage over the two abreast cyclists, tbh. Personally speaking, it drives me nuts, whereas a cyclist or group of cyclists in single file doesn't bother me - not even the old black bicycles toddling along at 5 m.p.h.:D

overshoot

Noreen1 wrote: »

Eh?

How so?

It's a lot easier to avoid one cyclist, single file, than to avoid two - especially on, say, s-bends, or when coming over a height.

because you shouldn't be overtaking at these places! Simple. If a car/truck comes its suddenly impossible to maintain a safe distance between 3 moving objects. you wait until you have better visability before passing 2

Altho personally 2 abreast does annoy me. I take a one lane one vehicle approach unless overtaking

Noreen1

overshoot wrote: »

because you shouldn't be overtaking at these places! Simple. If a car/truck comes its suddenly impossible to maintain a safe distance between 3 moving objects. you wait until you have better visability before passing 2

Altho personally 2 abreast does annoy me. I take a one lane one vehicle approach unless overtaking

Who said anything about overtaking?

I've had to go into an emergency stop on more than one occasion - and nearly had some of these guys/gals on the bonnet of the car - precisely because it wasn't safe to overtake (oncoming traffic, etc.).

I don't like getting the living bejaysus scared out of me, when I'm driving inside the speed limit.
What some cyclists don't take into account, is that a car travelling at 40mph, can come up on cyclists travelling at 20mph (or less) - very quickly.
Where there are a series of bends, or hills, obstructing visibility, it's perfectly possible for even the most vigilant driver to not to see these cyclists until you're virtually on top of them.

In short - if they want to cycle two abreast on a straight, level road - no problem - providing of course, that they're not obstructing traffic.

On some roads, though, cycling two abreast is a recipe for disaster!

galwaycyclist

Noreen1 wrote: »

Who said anything about overtaking?

I've had to go into an emergency stop on more than one occasion - and nearly had some of these guys/gals on the bonnet of the car - precisely because it wasn't safe to overtake (oncoming traffic, etc.).

I don't like getting the living bejaysus scared out of me, when I'm driving inside the speed limit.
What some cyclists don't take into account, is that a car travelling at 40mph, can come up on cyclists travelling at 20mph (or less) - very quickly.
Where there are a series of bends, or hills, obstructing visibility, it's perfectly possible for even the most vigilant driver to not to see these cyclists until you're virtually on top of them.

In short - if they want to cycle two abreast on a straight, level road - no problem - providing of course, that they're not obstructing traffic.

On some roads, though, cycling two abreast is a recipe for disaster!

Just because you are at or under the speed limit doesnt automatically mean you are not speeding or driving dangerously. The law on vehicle speed is that a driver must always drive at a speed that will allow the vehicle to be brought to a halt in the space that can be seen to clear.

If you are driving so fast that you cant slow down safely on meeting a cyclist or any other vehicle moving at 30kmh then- arguably - you are breaking the law.

muffler

Can we stick with the issue of the cycle lanes in Letterkenny please. For everything else there is the cycle forum.

Cheers

galwaycyclist

So anyway if we could get a few pics of these up on the internet it might make it easier to discuss and, if there are problems, get it fixed.