Road layout, use of space, and motoring vs cycling (off-topic from shared use thread)

monument

POSTS MOVED FROM ANOTHER THREAD

These are the off-topic posts from the thread: Cycling & walking: Can anybody stop councils from mixing both?

I'm at pains to split so much from a thread but there's so much off-topic or mostly off topic it would not be right to just cut the discussion off. The next post directly below on road layout and cyclists mounting kerbs to get around heavy congestion was closely linked to the original OP but the discussion quickly moved further and further away so it was a good stating point for this new thread.

There's also other stands of discussion which are septate again (30km/h and the question of motoring paying it way etc), but I think it can all stay here for now and we'll see how thing progress.

Iwannahurl

The level of ignorance and apathy about cycling in official circles is as bad as it ever was, if not worse.

You might think the DMURS would raise standards, but I'd say you'd be wrong.

Galway City Council says footpaths are roads, so it seems they can do what they like regardless of the effect on cyclists or pedestrians.

Here's one of their recent "upgrades", called "traffic calming" in official documentation. They changed the lanes around and redirected the flow of traffic. One significant consequence is that cyclists have been squeezed out of a lane that they had room in previously when it was just a straight-ahead lane and the other was straight on and right. Now the left lane is straight-ahead and left, while the outside lane is right only, with pretty much inevitable "shared use" results.

Carawaystick

I'm not being awkward here, but why wouldn't you overtake the cars on the right to get to the red light?
instead of breaking the law and going on the footpath?



re. shared use paths, I'd ask your local council if they are aware of the greater risks of collisions due to the design and that there might be liability on the council as a result of the sub-standard engineering done by the council.

You could be a real crank and write to the council outlining the danger, and a while later make an AIE request for the copy of the letter and then publicly claim that the council had documentation outlining that there were safety risks....

Iwannahurl

Galway City Council is happy to see cyclists on footpaths: it's saves them the hassle of having to cater for them properly, and places all the onus on individual cyclists.

Mickey Mouse "shared use facilities" often serve the same function.

In the situation shown in the photos, I would tend to overtake on the right, but is that not illegal also, it being a right-turn-only lane? Furthermore, it could mean having to re-enter fast-moving traffic to continue straight ahead, or else let vehicles overtake on the inside.

Why not just provide proper space for cyclists at the junction?

Seweryn

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the situation shown in the photos, I would tend to overtake on the right, but is that not illegal also, it being a right-turn-only lane? Furthermore, it could mean having to re-enter fast-moving traffic to continue straight ahead, or else let vehicles overtake on the inside.

I would also pass on the right. If the cars are stationary, you are passing them only, rather than overtaking. And cycling on footpath is not legal.

Personally, I avoid using any cyclepaths that are part of footpaths. If I was a pedestrian, I wouldn't like to share that space with vehicles.

hfallada

I regularly cycle into Dublin city from the suburbs and at times you have no choice but to cycle on the footpath. Drivers seem to think they are the people who use the road. Even if the road is 4 metres wide, they will drive in the 2 feet that is the cycle lane. Also the fact that a lost of cars park on cycle lanes.

Im not the type of person who cycles on the footpath because I don't like cycling on the road. But at times I have no choice. Even pedestrians has a issue with respecting cycle lanes with the half footpath, half cycle lane that can be found in clontarf

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The level of ignorance and apathy about cycling in official circles is as bad as it ever was, if not worse.

You might think the DMURS would raise standards, but I'd say you'd be wrong.

Galway City Council says footpaths are roads, so it seems they can do what they like regardless of the effect on cyclists or pedestrians.

Here's one of their recent "upgrades", called "traffic calming" in official documentation. They changed the lanes around and redirected the flow of traffic. One significant consequence is that cyclists have been squeezed out of a lane that they had room in previously when it was just a straight-ahead lane and the other was straight on and right. Now the left lane is straight-ahead and left, while the outside lane is right only, with pretty much inevitable "shared use" results.

I cant see anything wrong in them pics apart from a chap on a bike thats inpatient. Why the need to go on the path? why not wait his turn if he was taking a left at the junction?

Hilly Bill

hfallada wrote: »

I regularly cycle into Dublin city from the suburbs and at times you have no choice but to cycle on the footpath. Drivers seem to think they are the people who use the road. Even if the road is 4 metres wide, they will drive in the 2 feet that is the cycle lane. Also the fact that a lost of cars park on cycle lanes.

Im not the type of person who cycles on the footpath because I don't like cycling on the road. But at times I have no choice. Even pedestrians has a issue with respecting cycle lanes with the half footpath, half cycle lane that can be found in clontarf

Drivers have the right to use the cycle lane on the road providing its not being used by a cyclists at the time. My pet hate is when some cyclists ride against the flow of traffic thinking its ok because its a cycle lane.
There is a cycle lane that runs along the main road near me and at the junction, cars will hug the pavement if they are turning left and the other cars will overhang the right lane if they are turning right making 2 lanes of traffic in one lane. If im turning left, i stay in the middle and leave the cycle lane clear.
We have also have the off road cycle lanes running next to the footpath which is being mainly used as an extended footpath by those in the know so to speak but i use the same care crossing it as i would a road especially if i have the headphones on. Personally i find them dangerous to pedestrians especially when some cyclists just use the footpath anyway so its becomes a free for all with cyclists on the footpath and pedestrians on the cycle path.

No Pants

In the example shown in the pics above, why overtake/pass at all? It's a queue and the cyclist isn't at the top of it. I would just slot into Line, and not at the kerb either. Take the lane.

I tend to avoid most cycle lanes.

n97 mini

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would tend to overtake on the right, but is that not illegal also, it being a right-turn-only lane?

There would not be an issue changing lanes at any times as long as there is no solid white line between them.

Not directed at you specifically, but one major deficiency is that cyclists are allowed use the roads without even having to open the Rules of the Road. If they were required to know the rules then I think the roads would be a lot safer.

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I cant see anything wrong in them pics apart from a chap on a bike thats inpatient. Why the need to go on the path? why not wait his turn if he was taking a left at the junction?

Presumably neither can the engineers who "designed" the new layout, and provided no space for cyclists (in fact they took away space that was previously there, by default).

Traffic is frequently backed up as far back as the GTI (you'll know where that is, I assume). Are you suggesting that bikes should be made to wait at the end of a long line of cars? If so, why?

What exactly is a cyclist's "turn" in Galway's car-clogged streets?

Iwannahurl

n97 mini wrote: »

but one major deficiency is that cyclists are allowed use the roads without even having to open the Rules of the Road. If they were required to know the rules then I think the roads would be a lot safer.

How many road users have been killed by cyclists, in the last five years or so?

How many motorists, with or without a full driving licence, have killed themselves or others on Irish roads?

Not rhetorical questions, by the way -- actual numbers would be good.

I am an experienced driver and cyclist, and learned to cycle according to the RoTR. The biggest danger I face every day is from motorised traffic, not bikes.

n97 mini

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The biggest danger I face every day is from motorised traffic, not bikes.

Of course: There are a huge number of motorised vehicles on the road compared to bikes, and they carry a lot more mass.

Having said that as a pedestrian I've never been hit by a car but I have been hit by a bicycle, cyclist broke a red light.

I don't want to go OT, but ironically I agree with the OP.

Dravokivich

n97 mini wrote: »

There would not be an issue changing lanes at any times as long as there is no solid white line between them.

Not directed at you specifically, but one major deficiency is that cyclists are allowed use the roads without even having to open the Rules of the Road. If they were required to know the rules then I think the roads would be a lot safer.

Knowing the rules of the road doesnt sort out the problem with a lot of road users being arrogant. This goes for drivers/cyclists/bikers and even pedestrians.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I am an experienced driver and cyclist, and learned to cycle according to the RoTR.

Fair dues yo you if so, a cyclist that obeys road law is indeed a rare commodity.

The biggest danger I face every day is from motorised traffic, not bikes.

As a person who walks most days in Dublin City Centre, the biggest threats I face, by far, are from menacing, RLJing on the footpath, cyclists. It was the same when I was in Cork a while back.

gallag

That's what annoys me about cyclists, they will cycle two abreast and give out about waiting to overtake them safely (fair enough) as there is no rush but disaster if they have to wait in a line of traffic until it is safe to proceed! !

BenShermin

gallag wrote: »

That's what annoys me about cyclists, they will cycle two abreast and give out about waiting to overtake them safely (fair enough) as there is no rush but disaster if they have to wait in a line of traffic until it is safe to proceed! !

There's a big difference between a motorist slowing down for a minute or two to safely overtake a cyclist on a quiet country road and a cyclist having to wait behind a line of cars at a busy junction for several traffic light cycles.

In the first scenario the motorist should allow extra time for his journey regardless, if he's not going to have to slow down for a cyclist, there's a good chance he'll have to slow down for a tractor, a livestock movement, horses, pedestrians etc.

In the second scenario, what does it matter if the cyclist (legally) skips the queue of traffic turning left? Once the cyclist has cleared the junction he is no longer an obstruction to the the traffic he has just skipped as they can just overtake him.

Personally speaking, I don't get up on my bike on these freezing cold, wet and windy mornings to sit in queues of traffic that my mode of transport played absolutely no part in creating.

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Presumably neither can the engineers who "designed" the new layout, and provided no space for cyclists (in fact they took away space that was previously there, by default).

Traffic is frequently backed up as far back as the GTI (you'll know where that is, I assume). Are you suggesting that bikes should be made to wait at the end of a long line of cars? If so, why?

What exactly is a cyclist's "turn" in Galway's car-clogged streets?

They have a space for cyclists its called the road. Why cant they wait? they are road users like the cars. Why cant they pass on the right if its safe to do so? The cyclists turn is when the vehicle in front has moved . Its simple rules of the road stuff.

patrickbrophy18

The problem with the general cyclists, motorists and pedestrians debate is that there are arrogant members in each category. The level of ambiguity and lack of segregation on many of Ireland's roads only adds to the confusion. To a certain extent, the onus should be on each type of road user to anticipate and avoid potential dangers. Neither motorist nor cyclist should break red lights or travel against the flow of traffic. An additional one for motorists would be to obey the designated speed limits. In other words, a universal set of rules should apply to all of those who share the tarmac and enforced accordingly. Pedestrians need to look both ways before crossing. I've said it many times in the past, observation is key.

Incidentally, the photos provided by Iwannahurl demonstrate overly generous carriageway widths where much of the surplus space could be used for a raised cycle lane. The following photo comes to mind:



In the above photo, the center line is at least a meter (perhaps a meter and a half) to the right of the metallic green Renault as well as the cars ahead of it. If I were to guess, I would say that the carriageway width is in and around 4.5 meters. This appears to be only for one lane of traffic which is overkill. Taking a meter and a half from this road width to provide a cycle lane could easily be done. This would leave roughly 3 quarters of a meter to spare at either side of a car and a third to half a meter on both sides of a bus which is still plenty.

ardmacha

hfallada wrote: »

I regularly cycle into Dublin city from the suburbs and at times you have no choice but to cycle on the footpath. Drivers seem to think they are the people who use the road. Even if the road is 4 metres wide, they will drive in the 2 feet that is the cycle lane. Also the fact that a lost of cars park on cycle lanes.

Im not the type of person who cycles on the footpath because I don't like cycling on the road. But at times I have no choice. Even pedestrians has a issue with respecting cycle lanes with the half footpath, half cycle lane that can be found in clontarf

You do have a choice not to behave in a delinquent manner and cycle on the footpath. You can cycle in the flow of traffic or get off the cycle and walk along the footpath. This attitude among road users that they can break the law to make better progress is the cause of the mess we are in.

Iwannahurl

BenShermin wrote: »

sit in queues of traffic that my mode of transport played absolutely no part in creating.

And in fact helps to solve. In other words, bikes are part of the solution (to traffic congestion, the challenges of providing efficient urban transportation and a range of other issues) not part of the problem. However, tokenistic, one-size-fits-all, let-them-have-the-leftovers infrastructure provision, such as the cheap and lazy reclassifying of footpaths as shared use described by the OP, gives a strong impression that Irish policy-makers and urban "planners" regard cyclists as a nuisance to be grudgingly dealt with, if they can't quite manage to ignore them completely.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why cant they wait? The cyclists turn is when the vehicle in front has moved . Its simple rules of the road stuff.

Can you point to the relevant section/s in the RoTR or road traffic legislation whereby cyclists are required to sit at the end of long traffic queues (as if they were taking up as much space and causing as much congestion as motorised vehicles)? Page numbers in the RoTR book or links to the relevant sections in the statutes please.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Incidentally, the photos provided by Iwannahurl demonstrate overly generous carriageway widths where much of the surplus space could be used for a raised cycle lane. The following photo comes to mind:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/397835/288263.jpg

In the above photo, the center line is at least a meter (perhaps a meter and a half) to the right of the metallic green Renault as well as the cars ahead of it. If I were to guess, I would say that the carriageway width is in and around 4.5 meters. This appears to be only for one lane of traffic which is overkill. Taking a meter and a half from this road width to provide a cycle lane could easily be done. This would leave roughly 3 quarters of a meter to spare at either side of a car and a third to half a meter on both sides of a bus which is still plenty.

Unfortunately the photo I posted does not show clearly what has been done to cyclists in the Galway City "traffic calming" scheme I mentioned.

It is perhaps not clear in the photo that there is a new left-turn/straight-on lane, and on the other side of the line of cars a new right-turn-only lane. This is what it used to look like. There was no specific provision for cyclists, but the reality was that road space was usually available for cyclists by default. The City Council saw the existing traffic flow patterns and revised the junction layout and flow directions with the apparent intention of increasing capacity and easing motorised traffic movements in the area. All this under the title of "traffic calming".

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And in fact helps to solve. In other words, bikes are part of the solution (to traffic congestion, the challenges of providing efficient urban transportation and a range of other issues) not part of the problem. However, tokenistic, one-size-fits-all, let-them-have-the-leftovers infrastructure provision, such as the cheap and lazy reclassifying of footpaths as shared use described by the OP, gives a strong impression that Irish policy-makers and urban "planners" regard cyclists as a nuisance to be grudgingly dealt with, if they can't quite manage to ignore them completely.





Can you point to the relevant section/s in the RoTR or road traffic legislation whereby cyclists are required to sit at the end of long traffic queues (as if they were taking up as much space and causing as much congestion as motorised vehicles)? Page numbers in the RoTR book or links to the relevant sections in the statutes please.






Unfortunately the photo I posted does not show clearly what has been done to cyclists in the Galway City "traffic calming" scheme I mentioned.

It is perhaps not clear in the photo that there is a new left-turn/straight-on lane, and on the other side of the line of cars a new right-turn-only lane. This is what it used to look like. There was no specific provision for cyclists, but the reality was that road space was usually available for cyclists by default. The City Council saw the existing traffic flow patterns and revised the junction layout and flow directions with the apparent intention of increasing capacity and easing motorised traffic movements in the area. All this under the title of "traffic calming".

Its simple. Pass on the right if its safe to do so or wait. What is so special about cyclists that they need the road, footpath and money spent on a special path just for them?.

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its simple rules of the road stuff.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its simple. Pass on the right if its safe to do so or wait.

To repeat, can you point to the sections in road traffic legislation where cyclists are required to wait at the end of a line of motorised vehicles when approaching a junction?

I pass on the right when necessary and appropriate, I do not use footpaths, and I do not wait behind motorised vehicles because that would be utterly pointless.

In the situation described above the other lane is right-turn only. Would it be legal for cyclists to use that? What about less confident cyclists, younger cyclists or cyclists with children on board? What do they do when the get to the junction and then the motorised vehicles get the green light and start to accelerate?

ardmacha wrote: »

You do have a choice not to behave in a delinquent manner and cycle on the footpath. You can cycle in the flow of traffic or get off the cycle and walk along the footpath. This attitude among road users that they can break the law to make better progress is the cause of the mess we are in.

What law exactly? And what mess are we in, in the context of the OP?

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To repeat, can you point to the sections in road traffic legislation where cyclists are required to wait at the end of a line of motorised vehicles when approaching a junction?

I pass on the right when necessary and appropriate, I do not use footpaths, and I do not wait behind motorised vehicles because that would be utterly pointless.

In the situation described above the other lane is right-turn only. Would it be legal for cyclists to use that? What about less confident cyclists, younger cyclists or cyclists with children on board? What do they do when the get to the junction and then the motorised vehicles get the green light and start to accelerate?





What law exactly? And what mess are we in, in the context of the OP?

The rules apply to all road users and nobody should be on the road if they dont know what they are doing. You have just proved that cyclists are an inpatient bunch.

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Presumably neither can the engineers who "designed" the new layout, and provided no space for cyclists (in fact they took away space that was previously there, by default).

Traffic is frequently backed up as far back as the GTI (you'll know where that is, I assume). Are you suggesting that bikes should be made to wait at the end of a long line of cars? If so, why?

Hang on.. you can't have it both ways

Cyclists bang on about their "rights" to the road and that current recommended practise is now to sit in the middle of a lane rather than on the left so cars can get past. The justification being that cyclists have just as much right to be there and that motorists shouldn't be so impatient

Well.......

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The rules apply to all road users and nobody should be on the road if they dont know what they are doing.

I guess you're claiming that you know what you're doing. In which case, I'm going to ask yet again: please cite the relevant sections of road traffic legislation requiring cyclists to wait at the end of a line of motor vehicles, eg when junctions are congested and no cycle-specific space is provided.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Hang on.. you can't have it both ways

Cyclists bang on about their "rights" to the road and that current recommended practise is now to sit in the middle of a lane rather than on the left so cars can get past. The justification being that cyclists have just as much right to be there and that motorists shouldn't be so impatient

Well.......

In cycle training parlance it's called called the Primary Position:

Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the primary position. If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic then they should do so in the primary position. Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the stream of traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow. If unsure, the default position is the primary position. (Quoting the UK National Standard for Cycle Training)

Some cyclists, lacking in training, experience or official guidelines, may prefer the secondary position. Unfortunately, in situations where road space or taken away from them, cyclists who believe they must stay left end up being squeezed out or taking to the footpaths.

Many cyclists would prefer to be segregated altogether on an integrated network of high quality dedicated cyclepaths, but in Ireland that is a pipedream and will remain so for many years if not decades more.

Referring back to the OP, local authorities' response is too often to reclassify footpaths as shared use. That is not a valid or sustainable solution, for a number of reasons.

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In cycle training parlance it's called called the Primary Position:

Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would make it dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the primary position. If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic then they should do so in the primary position. Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary position as this will put them in the stream of traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep away from it. However, where appropriate, it will actually offer them more protection as they will be able to see more, be seen more easily by other road users and most importantly it will prevent drivers from attempting to overtake them where the road is too narrow. If unsure, the default position is the primary position. (Quoting the UK National Standard for Cycle Training)

Some cyclists, lacking in training, experience or official guidelines, may prefer the secondary position. Unfortunately, in situations where road space or taken away from them, cyclists who believe they must stay left end up being squeezed out or taking to the footpaths.

Many cyclists would prefer to be segregated altogether on an integrated network of high quality dedicated cyclepaths, but in Ireland that is a pipedream and will remain so for many years if not decades more.

Referring back to the OP, local authorities' response is too often to reclassify footpaths as shared use. That is not a valid or sustainable solution, for a number of reasons.

That doesn't actually answer the point I raised at all except confirm what I said.

I agree with you that the proper approach should be to segregate cyclists entirely as in the norm in places like Holland, but in the absence of that, a cyclist has no more "right" to get to the top of the queue than I would say by driving to the top of the right-turn only lane and forcing my way over.

Or to put it in simpler terms.. if there's not enough room to safely (and legally) get past then they just have to wait like other road users.

SilverLiningOK

One thing in the Galway example photos above, is allocation of road space around the junction from what we can see. On the opposite side of the road space is taken up with on street parking. If this parking was relocated, there may be more than enough space to put a cycle lane on both sides of the road. Driving a car in an urban environment doesn't automatically give you rights to parking. Also, is the right turning lane necessary ? Reducing the number of right hand turns, would do wonders in improving taffic flow for everyone.

_Kaiser_

SilverLiningOK wrote: »

One thing in the Galway example photos above, is allocation of road space around the junction from what we can see. On the opposite side of the road space is taken up with on street parking. If this parking was relocated, there may be more than enough space to put a cycle lane on both sides of the road. Driving a car in an urban environment doesn't automatically give you rights to parking. Also, is the right turning lane necessary ? Reducing the number of right hand turns, would do wonders in improving taffic flow for everyone.

From the look of it (last picture), the parking is residential and serves both sides of the street.

Just because cyclists are impatient doesn't mean they should get priority. If they want to be seen as equals on the road then the same Rules should (and in fact DO) apply to them as well.

SilverLiningOK

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

From the look of it (last picture), the parking is residential and serves both sides of the street.

Just because cyclists are impatient doesn't mean they should get priority. If they want to be seen as equals on the road then the same Rules should (and in fact DO) apply to them as well.

Do you cycle at all ? It's not all about being impatient, it's about road space. In built up urban environments, vehicle speed need to be at a minimum 30kph, pedestrians, people cycling and public transport needs to given a much higher priority and share of space than the private car. Why ? Because these modes need to be encouraged for their convenience, impact and ability to transport much greater numbers in relation to the space that they take up.

Re parking, it may be residential but does it need to be where it is ? Parking on through roads is a very poor use of space that could be otherwise used. Urban street design needs to stop being so car centric or we will never be able to even look at solve space allocation and congestion issues.

The Danish approach to cycle infrastructure design described in the following link, is a model that we could learn a lot from in it's shear simplicity - the copenhagenize bicycle planning guide

_Kaiser_

SilverLiningOK wrote: »

Do you cycle at all ? It's not all about being impatient, it's about road space. In built up urban environments, vehicle speed need to be at a minimum 30kph, pedestrians, people cycling and public transport needs to given a much higher priority and share of space than the private car. Why ? Because these modes need to be encouraged for their convenience, impact and ability to transport much greater numbers in relation to the space that they take up.

Public transport already gets a higher share of road space by way of bus lanes - many of which sit idle for most of the day, and deserted after midnight (yet on many of the latter the rules are still in effect)

Public transport is also far from convenient for many people unless they are doing a simple A-B where one of those two points involves "An Lar". It's also practically non-existent outside Dublin, nevermind convenient.

It's also FAR from cheap, pleasant or efficient.

Re parking, it may be residential but does it need to be where it is ? Parking on through roads is a very poor use of space that could be otherwise used. Urban street design needs to stop being so car centric or we will never be able to even look at solve space allocation and congestion issues.

As someone else noted above, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that road except that the cyclist at the back thinks the rules of the road don't apply to him (no lights/reflectors on his bike either I note).

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I agree with you that the proper approach should be to segregate cyclists entirely as in the norm in places like Holland, but in the absence of that, a cyclist has no more "right" to get to the top of the queue than I would say by driving to the top of the right-turn only lane and forcing my way over.

Or to put it in simpler terms.. if there's not enough room to safely (and legally) get past then they just have to wait like other road users.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Just because cyclists are impatient doesn't mean they should get priority.

I posted the officially-endorsed (UK) cycle training guidelines to make the point that nobody is "banging on" about anything. Taking the lane, aka the primary position, is good cycling and road safety practice.

The issue of "rights" is a red herring in the present context, although if you want to go down that ramified route you'll find that cyclists, and especially pedestrians, were on the road long before cars were even invented. Motorists are relatively recent latecomers on the traffic and transport scene, especially in the numbers we see jamming themselves into city streets these days.

The main focus might be better placed on efficiency of the road network. Cars, the majority of which are single-occupant in typical city traffic, are hugely inefficient when it comes to making best use of finite road space. If there isn't enough room for cars, ie congestion is a problem, then the smarter approach is to promote more efficient transport modes.

Squeezing out cyclists, such as by shunting them onto sub-standard shared use "facilities" as per the OP, is an example of inefficient traffic and transport policy, imo.

Likewise, engineering congestion-busting cyclists out of the equation and forcing them to wait behind congestion-causing motorists is not smart. It's downright stupid, in fact, but it's not just Irish local authorities that are failing to grasp that basic reality.

Iwannahurl

SilverLiningOK wrote: »

Do you cycle at all ? It's not all about being impatient, it's about road space. In built up urban environments, vehicle speed need to be at a minimum maximum 30kph, pedestrians, people cycling and public transport needs to given a much higher priority and share of space than the private car.

Why ? Because these modes need to be encouraged for their convenience, impact and ability to transport much greater numbers in relation to the space that they take up.

Re parking, it may be residential but does it need to be where it is ? Parking on through roads is a very poor use of space that could be otherwise used. Urban street design needs to stop being so car centric or we will never be able to even look at solve space allocation and congestion issues.

The Danish approach to cycle infrastructure design described in the following link, is a model that we could learn a lot from in it's shear simplicity - the copenhagenize bicycle planning guide

FYP & QFT.

Carawaystick

n97 mini wrote: »

cyclists are allowed use the roads without even having to open the Rules of the Road. If they were required to know the rules then I think the roads would be a lot safer.

So are pedestrians!




Saw an ad for children to log onto the rsa's website to find out the safe cross code yesterday...
Which is grand if they have a computer and can read....

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I guess you're claiming that you know what you're doing. In which case, I'm going to ask yet again: please cite the relevant sections of road traffic legislation requiring cyclists to wait at the end of a line of motor vehicles, eg when junctions are congested and no cycle-specific space is provided.

Are you being serious???????

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

To repeat, can you point to the sections in road traffic legislation where cyclists are required to wait at the end of a line of motorised vehicles when approaching a junction?

<snipped>

One would assume it's the same law that applies to all traffic when overtaking, don't do it unless the way is clear and it can be done safely without inconveniencing other road users

_Kaiser_

Carawaystick wrote: »

Saw an ad for children to log onto the rsa's website to find out the safe cross code yesterday...
Which is grand if they have a computer and can read....

Ah come on.. every 4 year old has access to an iPad or laptop these days!
Those who don't or can't read yet.. well that's why they have parents.

One thing I really cannot stand is this complete rejection of personal responsibility for one's actions/safety (or in this case, children they decided to have) and trying to shift it to "someone else" - whether that's motorists, other people, councils/government etc.

It's like we're socially regressing in the last 30 years and people want to act like children themselves

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Are you being serious???????

Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

Getting back to the OP:

monument wrote: »

Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?

My contention is that the above authorities have little interest and less knowledge when it comes to providing for cyclists, whether on or off road. Even very recent schemes, which you'd think might be based on more up-to-date thinking, seem to be based on leaving cyclists with the leftovers after cars have been accommodated first. Poorly thought out "shared use" paths are one example, and I know of cases where the Council expects pedestrian footpaths to be used. The official attitude seems to be that cyclists can be left to work it out for themselves, and when challenged they will claim that footpaths are technically part of the roadway (as claimed by Galway City Council, for example).

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

The problem (methinks) is that pedestrians are intimidated by the sportive section of cyclists where they often exhibit the same MGIF exhibted by a lot of motorists, if cyclists were subjected to speed limits on shared facilities I would wager that the intimidation factor would be drasticly cut, much the same as when motorists are subjected to 20 - 30 Kph limits the intimidation from them is reduced in school and built up areas

Why not just reduce the speed limit (and traffic volume) on the road, which would reduce the intimidation factor for all road users?

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

Or, how about you show where it states that cyclists are entitled to jump to the head of queue regardless of how they get there (from a safety and legality standpoint).

I run a 3L diesel A6 with 225 BHP and an automatic/tiptronic gearbox that accelerates in a flash - that doesn't mean I can just barge my way past slower traffic, mount kerbs or filter lanes to get past a queue. If an opportunity presents for me to safely or legally overtake then I may certainly do so, but if not I just have to wait like everyone else.

It's the usual sense of entitlement so prevalent in this country. Cyclists want to be seen as equal road users but not subjected to the same rules and requirements as those other road users.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Or, how about you show where it states that cyclists are entitled to jump to the head of queue regardless of how they get there (from a safety and legality standpoint).


...

Cyclists want to be seen as equal road users but not subjected to the same rules and requirements as those other road users.

I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why not just reduce the speed limit (and traffic volume) on the road, which would reduce the intimidation factor for all road users?

I challenge you to drive down the quays in Dublin at 30 km/h when it's possible to do more (ie: not bumper-bumper traffic). I think you'll find it's in fact more dangerous as pedestrians are even more likely (than they already are) to walk out in front of you, other drivers, motorbikes AND cyclists cut you up etc

50 km/h in a built-up area is perfect acceptable IF everyone (cyclists and pedestrians included) keeps to the rules, doesn't take stupid chances and takes some responsibility for their own safety and actions. And yes, obviously if traffic is heavy, it's raining or road conditions are poor, then everyone should adjust accordingly but this nonsense of impacting everyone to accommodate the stupidity of a few is getting ridiculous IMO

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...

You're deliberately missing the point I'm making. While there may be no law to say they have to wait in line, equally there's no entitlement for them to get to the head of the queue either.

Like every other road user they should drive/cycle appropriate to the conditions (traffic, road width/markings etc) and within the law.. and if that means they have to queue like everyone else, then that's what they do.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're deliberately missing the point I'm making. While there may be no law to say they have to wait in line, equally there's no entitlement for them to get to the head of the queue either.

Like every other road user they should drive/cycle appropriate to the conditions (traffic, road width/markings etc) and within the law.. and if that means they have to queue like everyone else, then that's what they do.

Is there such a law or is there not?

I've already addressed the "entitlement" red herring.

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is there such a law or is there not?

I've already addressed the "entitlement" red herring.

Again you're trying to deflect the point. The laws applicable to the scenario you're talking about are those that refer to lane usage, overtaking, traffic signals etc. As such cyclists mounting kerbs to bypass a queue of traffic or weaving dangerously through it, or using a filter lane to get to the top of the lane they want to be in would all be in violation of those laws.

One last time.. Just because a bicycle is physically smaller and lighter than a car does not mean a cyclist should be permitted to break the traffic laws and potentially risk their own safety and that of others so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

wait in line like everyone else.

Cycling on the footpath is illegal, which is why the "shared use" issues identified by the OP are problematic.

I'll simplify it for you and Hilly Bill: there is no law or set of laws obliging cyclists to sit at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. If there is some specific law that I don't know about, please post the details here.

Expecting cyclists to queue like motorised vehicles, whether because of begrudgery or legalistic notions, is pure nonsense, for good reasons already outlined in this thread and elsewhere. In the context of finite road space in urban areas cyclists are not "like everyone else", ie motorists. Only one mode of transport is causing traffic congestion: can you guess which one?

Macy0161

A cyclist is perfectly entitled to overtake on the right looking at that photo. The filter lane must start a good bit up, and even if it did, once it's not a solid line you'd be entitled to cross it to go past the stationary traffic and/or merge back in to go straight ahead or turn left.

Would a car going up the right turn lane, and then pushing back in (either doing so to skip the queue or from being lost) before the actual junction be committing an offence? Once you were back in the correct lane before the junction, or at least at the start of the road markings, I'm not sure you would.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

50 km/h in a built-up area is perfect acceptable

Perfectly acceptable for whom?

A max 30 km/h speed saves lives, reduces injuries and make urban environments more conducive for walking, cycling and public transport.

It also removes one excuse for imposing substandard "shared use" solutions.

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

Getting back to the OP:



My contention is that the above authorities have little interest and less knowledge when it comes to providing for cyclists, whether on or off road. Even very recent schemes, which you'd think might be based on more up-to-date thinking, seem to be based on leaving cyclists with the leftovers after cars have been accommodated first. Poorly thought out "shared use" paths are one example, and I know of cases where the Council expects pedestrian footpaths to be used. The official attitude seems to be that cyclists can be left to work it out for themselves, and when challenged they will claim that footpaths are technically part of the roadway (as claimed by Galway City Council, for example).

Ok, i'll post it a third time since you missed it. PASS ON THE RIGHT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO OTHERWISE STAY WHERE YOU ARE .

What right has a cyclist to mount the footpath just to avoid waiting in traffic?
Can a motorbike do the same?

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...

You took it up wrong . Show me the law where it says cyclists can mount kerbs and ride anywhere they want in any direction if they are inpatient?