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

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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?

You dont seem to be listening.

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

Have you tried driving at 30km/h? dont confuse it to 30mph which is slow enough otherwise known as 50km/h.

Iwannahurl

Hilly Bill wrote: »

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?

Cycling on footpaths is illegal. It is also inappropriate, imo, which is why I generally avoid "cycle facilities" such as the shared use paths identified as problematic by the OP.

The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths. The reality, however, is that some cyclists will not feel able to overtake on the right, since using a right-turn-only lane presents its own problems. The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Have you tried driving at 30km/h?

I have. Have you?

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths.

What IS the solution in these cases then because as you rightly point out further on, using filter lanes is also problematic (and illegal - just as it is for cars). Sounds to me like you've just admitted the only REAL solution in such a case IS for them to wait like everyone else.

The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".

Again I agree that in an ideal world we would have Dutch-style separated cycle tracks and infrastructure.. but this isn't Holland!

Regardless of what cyclists wants to believe the facts are that car ownership is not only desirable for most people, but essential if they want to get around - particularly outside the cities where public transport (or the lack thereof) + distance + road standards make any other option impractical. A quick flick through some of the threads on this forum will show you how bad the options are even in Dublin.

A lot of the problems cyclists experience would also be addressed if they were required to take a competency test before being allowed on the road (just as motorists must do). It's ridiculous that I could go buy a bike right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

I have. Have you?

Well I have and as I mentioned above, it's in fact more dangerous and stressful than driving at 50 km/h given the experiences I mentioned earlier - again mostly due to the idea that every other road user (cyclists/pedestrians) are absolved of responsibility for their own behaviour or safety.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

<snipped>.

The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths.<snipped>

The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

Hilly Bill

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cycling on footpaths is illegal. It is also inappropriate, imo, which is why I generally avoid "cycle facilities" such as the shared use paths identified as problematic by the OP.

The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths. The reality, however, is that some cyclists will not feel able to overtake on the right, since using a right-turn-only lane presents its own problems. The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".


Its your choice to cycle on the roads so deal with whatever obstacles come yous way and have patientce. . Ive been overtaken by a mobility scooter when trying to keep to 30 kph.

ArmaniJeanss

Spook_ie wrote: »

The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

I'm not sure of your point as clearly cyclists are a 'special case' and certain Road Traffic Laws don't apply to them (stuff like having indicator lights, brake lights and always carrying a spare type spring to mind).
Similarly cars are also a 'special case' as they are exempt from some rules which apply to cyclists (examples not needing a working bell, allowed to travel on motorways).

The road traffic laws aren't a one-sized-fits-all build in which all of the rules apply exactly the same to all modes of transport.

NuMarvel

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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

I've often driven down the quays, at 30 kph, when it's not bumper to bumper, and I can't say that I notice any increase in pedestrians or cyclists behaving dangerously. I can't say the same for other motorists though. I see more motorists disregarding the speed limits there than on any other stretch of road I travel.

Carawaystick

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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

I thought it wrong that the rsa would spend our money on tv ads to get children who may not be able to read, to look at a website, to find out the safe cross code, instead of the ad being the safe cross code
Like when I grew up and Judge and the rest of the wanderley wagon crew did

Carawaystick

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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.

A 30 kmh limit (if enforced)would slow me down and make me less likely to cycle.
Anyway I'd have to gets speedo, and even then I'd be unable to see it in the dark
!

Seweryn

Carawaystick wrote: »

A 30 kmh limit (if enforced)would slow me down and make me less likely to cycle.

The speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles, not to bicycles.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Anyway I'd have to gets speedo, and even then I'd be unable to see it in the dark!

Eh, no. As above, you can carry on .

Iwannahurl

NuMarvel wrote: »

I've often driven down the quays, at 30 kph, when it's not bumper to bumper, and I can't say that I notice any increase in pedestrians or cyclists behaving dangerously. I can't say the same for other motorists though. I see more motorists disregarding the speed limits there than on any other stretch of road I travel.

Yes indeed, there's an awful lot of guff about a 30 km/h speed limit, such as that it's difficult or even painful to drive at that speed, and that it's more dangerous.

The fact that believing it's more dangerous would require rewriting the laws of physics and disregarding a substantial body of scientific evidence is of little consequence to some people.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

Cycling should be treated with respect and actively promoted, for the simple reason that it's part of the solution to urban traffic and transportation challenges not part of the problem. The same cannot be said of car use and car dependence, which is why different policies are needed to curb excesses in that area.

Promotion of cycling involves, for example, giving cyclists ample room at junctions in order to easily bypass congestion caused by motorised traffic, and not lazily resorting to cheap and nasty measures such as badly thought out "shared use" paths.

UCDVet

I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

I found it interesting to say the least.
Pot, kettle and all that.

Spook_ie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm not sure of your point as clearly cyclists are a 'special case' and certain Road Traffic Laws don't apply to them (stuff like having indicator lights, brake lights and always carrying a spare type spring to mind).
Similarly cars are also a 'special case' as they are exempt from some rules which apply to cyclists (examples not needing a working bell, allowed to travel on motorways).

The road traffic laws aren't a one-sized-fits-all build in which all of the rules apply exactly the same to all modes of transport.

The laws regarding construction and use are by necessity going to be different, the laws of the road are the same except in cirmunstances such as SI 332/2012, AFAIK there are no laws allowing you to overtake on either side when such a manouvre is likely to hinder, endanger or otherwise impede other road users

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Yes indeed, there's an awful lot of guff about a 30 km/h speed limit, such as that it's difficult or even painful to drive at that speed, and that it's more dangerous.

The fact that believing it's more dangerous would require rewriting the laws of physics and disregarding a substantial body of scientific evidence is of little consequence to some people.

Yeah rather like rewriting the laws of physics on energy where a lot of cyclists believe wearing a helmet won't decrease the energy trsnfered to their brain in an impact :pac:

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Cycling should be treated with respect and actively promoted, for the simple reason that it's part of the solution to urban traffic and transportation challenges not part of the problem. The same cannot be said of car use and car dependence, which is why different policies are needed to curb excesses in that area.

Promotion of cycling involves, for example, giving cyclists ample room at junctions in order to easily bypass congestion caused by motorised traffic, and not lazily resorting to cheap and nasty measures such as badly thought out "shared use" paths.

If their is only enough room for a certain volume of traffic then extra space has to be taken from somewhere, if as in the example theire is a need to allow traffic flow through a lights system, (perhaps to permit pedestrian traffic on another arm of the lights) then giving more room to cyclists would actually be counter productive.

You cannot take one aspect of transport and ignore all others just because you use one mode, similarly you cannot take one junction in isolation of the traffic flow of another nearby traffic junction.

Of course if people decide to " do there own thing " as some cyclists do then we need not worry about them at all, their own greed will find them an alternative to sharing the highway at the detriment to any other road user be that a pedestrian, motorist or even another cyclist

Cookie_Monster

P48 of ROTR

Your position on the road
Make sure you drive your vehicle far enough to the left to allow traffic to safely
pass or overtake on the right but not so far to the left that you are driving on a
cycle lane or blocking or endangering cyclists or pedestrians

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

P48 of ROTR


http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.

Guess it depends on the junction (which you can't fully see above) - you could argue that as a result of the layout change plus the parked cars on the other side, there's barely enough room for 2 lines of cars as painted and as such the cars are as far left as they are to allow for this

This would seem to be supported from the pictures, the fact that the line of cars is right over the double yellows, and the Skoda at the end of the queue has obviously pushed over to allow oncoming traffic pass.

Iwannahurl

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

I found it interesting to say the least.
Pot, kettle and all that.

The self-same cyclists? Identifiable by what means exactly? Barcodes? RFID?

So you're one of those cycle lane joggers?

I've often wondered why some people do that. I saw one just this morning, running hard in a cycle lane (empty) alongside a footpath (also empty). I'm inclined to think the colour of the cycle lane makes them imagine they're on one of these.

I'm not sure what you mean by cyclists "forcing motorists to share the road". I cycle wherever it is legal, appropriate, convenient and practical. I avoid (a) paths requiring "shared use" with pedestrians, (b) substandard cycle lanes/paths, and (c) footpaths.

Much of this, of necessity, requires cycling on the road. It is not always satisfactory, but whatever disadvantages there are cannot be said to be intrinsically due to my mode of travel or choice of route.

patrickbrophy18

From reading the back and forth responses between posters, it would appear that segregation is badly needed. The problem with mixing incompatible modes of transport is exactly that they are incompatible. Shared used pedestrian and cycle facilities creates confusion whereby there is always a chance of conflict. The same goes for shared use motorist and car facilities. The Dutch seem to have this concept down to a tee. The following videos seem to demonstrate this perfectly (i.e. nice, smooth and easy roads):

1. Bigger Dutch Roads with bike paths; Marnixlaan Utrecht

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HwW9qzC7I

The designs seen throughout this video could be adopted into streets such as O'Connell Street, College Green and Dame Street with relative ease.

2. Mono-functional roads in the Netherlands

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuOiKCBO1hU

The roads in the video are topologically similar to bigger roads like the N11 (from Cherrywood to Dublin City), parts of the N81 and large portions of the N7 and N3 inside the M50. These could be adopted accordingly.

Woodround

Macy0161 wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question!

Ah right, for dramatic effect, I see!

Iwannahurl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

P48 of ROTR

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.

They could actually make room for cyclists simply by keeping a bit to the right.

However, Galway City Council deliberately guided them into that position for reasons that have, rather mysteriously, to do with "traffic calming".

So the motorists are not actually being awkward, they're just following the Council's orders.

Further back the road it still looks like this. Cyclists very often have room to pass there, simply because space is left for them by default.

It is my view that Galway City Council spotted the 'wasted' space further up and decided to fill it with cars. Then they called it "traffic calming" in order to justify funding it. Cynical? Moi?

EDIT: I think I posted this link earlier, but here again is what the newly-revised junction used to look like. Space available for cyclists -- by default, but available nonetheless. On-road parking on the opposite side, but of course that's sacrosanct.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

If their is only enough room for a certain volume of traffic then extra space has to be taken from somewhere, if as in the example theire is a need to allow traffic flow through a lights system, (perhaps to permit pedestrian traffic on another arm of the lights) then giving more room to cyclists would actually be counter productive.

Are you suggesting that giving more room to private motorised transport is a more productive use of finite road space in urban areas?

As a matter of interest, can you point to any authoritative (and preferably evidence-based) source that supports such an assertion?

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

They could actually make room for cyclists simply by keeping a bit to the right.

However, Galway City Council deliberately guided them into that position for reasons that have, rather mysteriously, to do with "traffic calming".

So the motorists are not actually being awkward, they're just following the Council's orders.

Soooo... you've been complaining about motorists "blocking" cyclists, about how cyclists shouldn't have to queue in traffic .. and then you admit that in fact the motorists are only doing what they're supposed to in this instance.

You don't see the problem with your argument no?

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Soooo... you've been complaining about motorists "blocking" cyclists, about how cyclists shouldn't have to queue in traffic .. and then you admit that in fact the motorists are only doing what they're supposed to in this instance.

You don't see the problem with your argument no?

Nope. Quote please.

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Nope. Quote please.

Now you're just being pedantic - you've been going on and on about how cyclists shouldn't be required to queue because of cars in their way and demanding evidence of legislation requiring them to do so (but conveniently ignoring the point that while there IS no such legislation, neither is there an entitlement for cyclists to skip the queue either unless they can do so safely and legally)

Just admit it.. you've been caught out Incidentally from looking at your links of the junction it seems to me that the idea was in fact to IMPROVE traffic flow through it by adding a dedicated filter lane for right turning traffic rather than having cars (and other road users!) that are going straight on having to change lanes at the top because of a car waiting to turn.

It seems the real issue here is a perception that cyclists just shouldn't have to obey the rules of the road that they don't want to.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Now you're just being pedantic - you've been going on and on about how cyclists shouldn't be required to queue because of cars in their way and demanding evidence of legislation requiring them to do so (but conveniently ignoring the point that while there IS no such legislation, neither is there an entitlement for cyclists to skip the queue either unless they can do so safely and legally)

Just admit it.. you've been caught out Incidentally from looking at your links of the junction it seems to me that the idea was in fact to IMPROVE traffic flow through it by adding a dedicated filter lane for right turning traffic rather than having cars (and other road users!) that are going straight on having to change lanes at the top because of a car waiting to turn.

It seems the real issue here is a perception that cyclists just shouldn't have to obey the rules of the road that they don't want to.

A whole shoal of red herrings and total fabrications there. Not worth responding to. My posts are there on the record -- if I've said what you claim I said then it would be a simple matter to quote the relevant posts.

Your reference to "improving traffic flow" is yet another example of the complete lack of comprehension I have referred to previously.

How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A whole shoal of red herrings and total fabrications there. Not worth responding to. My posts are there on the record -- if I've said what you claim I said then it would be a simple matter to quote the relevant posts.

Your reference to "improving traffic flow" is yet another example of the complete lack of comprehension I have referred to previously.

How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

By simply allowing public transport to function. If traffic is holding up buses as they queue to take a right turn then you move the queue to allow the buses to go straight on. Of course if money and space were no object then you could throw money at it but we don't have either.
Sometimes you have to look at life from the other side of the fence

_Kaiser_

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

Ahh I see the problem.. you think that everyone in those cars should cycle or get the bus instead.

Problem with that though is it's not realistic... buses outside Dublin (and even in it) are notoriously unreliable, infrequent or just not there at all. Also, cycling doesn't really work if you have a fair distance to go, maybe have a lot of shopping with you, or a few kids.

You don't really think motorists like spending an extortionate amount of money on running a car or sitting in traffic do you? They do it because in most cases they have no (practical) choice!

But again, there would be no problem at this (now infamous ) junction if cyclists just accepted they have no automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue unless they can do so legally and safely and exercised the same patience and consideration for other road users they so often accuse car owners of lacking!

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ahh I see the problem.. you think that everyone in those cars should cycle or get the bus instead.

Problem with that though is it's not realistic... buses outside Dublin (and even in it) are notoriously unreliable, infrequent or just not there at all. Also, cycling doesn't really work if you have a fair distance to go, maybe have a lot of shopping with you, or a few kids.

You don't really think motorists like spending an extortionate amount of money on running a car or sitting in traffic do you? They do it because in most cases they have no (practical) choice!

But again, there would be no problem at this (now infamous ) junction if cyclists just accepted they have no automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue unless they can do so legally and safely and exercised the same patience and consideration for other road users they so often accuse car owners of lacking!

You don't see the problem, you are the problem. Or to put it another way, you aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

What's a "fair distance"? In Galway City 47% of people live within 4 km or less of work or education. A very large proportion of them drive, lamenting as they do so about there being too many cars on the road.

Kids? Mine cycles 3 km to Senior Infants. Every morning we make our way past or through long lines of cars clogging the roads and junctions.

There are neighbours driving their children 800 metres to primary school and 400 metres to creche. When they get to their destination they drive up and park on the cycle lanes, footpaths, pedestrian crossings, dished kerbs, wherever is handy. And some of them no doubt complain about the traffic, and how cyclists have an alleged sense of "automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue"...

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

By simply allowing public transport to function. If traffic is holding up buses as they queue to take a right turn then you move the queue to allow the buses to go straight on. Of course if money and space were no object then you could throw money at it but we don't have either.
Sometimes you have to look at life from the other side of the fence

What side of what fence? I'm a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and bus user.

If urban road space is in short supply, and if cars are holding up buses (and bikes, and pedestrians) then the more sustainable solution is to reallocate space from the less efficient modes to the more efficient ones.

Shared use paths, to refer back to the OP's specific example, are an attempt to force cyclists and pedestrians into the same space. Too often this is done, imo, as a means of getting cyclists out of the way of 'real traffic'. Either that or it's a tokenistic and simplistic measure implemented in order to avoid more effective but politically unpopular solutions.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What side of what fence? I'm a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and bus user.

If urban road space is in short supply, and if cars are holding up buses (and bikes, and pedestrians) then the more sustainable solution is to reallocate space from the less efficient modes to the more efficient ones.

Shared use paths, to refer back to the OP's specific example, are an attempt to force cyclists and pedestrians into the same space. Too often this is done, imo, as a means of getting cyclists out of the way of 'real traffic'. Either that or it's a tokenistic and simplistic measure implemented in order to avoid more effective but politically unpopular solutions.

You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.

News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

Donaldio

Spook_ie wrote: »

You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.

News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

What are saying then a person traveling on a road sitting in a truck a car or a van is somehow more improtant than someone traveling on a bicycle ?

Spook_ie

Donaldio wrote: »

What are saying then a person traveling on a road sitting in a truck a car or a van is somehow more improtant than someone traveling on a bicycle ?

Hmmm if that's what your reading then you need to re-read it again

Donaldio

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmm if that's what your reading then you need to re-read it again

Cyclists still travel on the road even if most or nearly all consideration seems to be given to the motorist in the designing and construction of roads regardless whatever kind of vehicle they travel on. IN my opinion cyclists should must still be factored in on some level even if they will typically make the smaller percentage of road users.

Spook_ie

Donaldio wrote: »

Cyclists still travel on the road even if most or nearly all consideration seems to be given to the motorist in the designing and construction of roads regardless whatever kind of vehicle they travel on. IN my opinion cyclists should must still be factored in on some level even if they will typically make the smaller percentage of road users.

You're still not reading what's actually typed...

limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.

Neither cost nor effectiveness have been forgotten by me.

Allocating the lion's share of road space to cars is not cost effective, because it's promoting the most inefficient use of that space. Realigning lanes to accommodate cars is a short-term fix that is neither sustainable nor effective in the medium to long term. Shared use paths, as identified by the OP, are cheap but they are not effective imo.

Road space is a finite resource, and a common good, and therefore it makes no sense to waste it. What car-dependents don't seem to realise is that facilitating and promoting car use is a lose-lose strategy that is doomed to fail. You lose and I lose, because we all end up in gridlock sooner or later. Cyclists, bus users and pedestrians are adversely affected, one way or another, but only one mode of travel is creating the real problems of traffic, traffic congestion and related externalities.

Anyone who's familiar with Galway City traffic will see the end result of such folly, even if they fail to understand or accept the causes of it.

ThisRegard

Spook_ie wrote: »

The laws regarding construction and use are by necessity going to be different, the laws of the road are the same except in cirmunstances such as SI 332/2012, AFAIK there are no laws allowing you to overtake on either side when such a manouvre is likely to hinder, endanger or otherwise impede other road users

Where were you yesterday with your laws when your brethren were blocking the streets of Dublin for all road users ? You have an unhealthy fascination with cyclists.

Spook_ie wrote: »

News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

Nor are self employed taxi drivers who regularly hinder the public of Dublin over some misguided sense of entitlement that they're owed a living.

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

Where were you yesterday with your laws when your brethren were blocking the streets of Dublin for all road users ? You have an unhealthy fascination with cyclists.



Nor are self employed taxi drivers who regularly hinder the public of Dublin over some misguided sense of entitlement that they're owed a living.

Not that it's anything to do with you where I was, but I wasn't in Dublin,

Not being there, as I understand it they were plying for hire over a short loop of road, which they would be legaly allowed to do and with withdrawal of rank spaces means at least 58 cars having no where to rank up, since the removal of spaces to facilitate the Luas X Link then at least 58 cars would be forced to drive around looking for fares in addition to any others working in Dublin during the day. If they all look for fares from Molesworth St, Kildare St etc. what is going to happen?

BTW I only have an unhealthy interest fascination f6r women cyclists wearing Lycra or is that a healthy interest?

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Neither cost nor effectiveness have been forgotten by me.

Allocating the lion's share of road space to cars is not cost effective, because it's promoting the most inefficient use of that space. .

I'm sorry I never realised that there were sections of the roadway that were reserved or allocated exclusively for cars, perhaps you'd like to point me to them!

Motorways and certain other roads may well be signed as no pedestrians, no animals or no cycles but I assume you are refering to "normal" roads rather than motorways, tunnels etc.

patrickbrophy18

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are neighbours driving their children 800 metres to primary school and 400 metres to creche. When they get to their destination they drive up and park on the cycle lanes, footpaths, pedestrian crossings, dished kerbs, wherever is handy. And some of them no doubt complain about the traffic, and how cyclists have an alleged sense of "automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue"...

I have to say I completely agree with you here. Driving anywhere under a kilometer to drop people off to school or creche is the pure height of laziness. To add insult to injury (metaphorically and perhaps, literally), pretty much all of these cars are parked in cycle lanes. To then have the gall to complain about cyclists is the Everest of hypocrisy. It comes as no surprise to me that some of them are SUVs which are major pollutants in their class of vehicle and that are, in many (if not, most) cases unnecessary for the numbers they carry. As the OP pointed out in previous posts, thousands of trips that are made by cars each day are a kilometer or less. Most of them could easily be traveled using bikes, rickshaws (in harsh weather conditions) and other sustainable modes of transport. Then, there is the more obvious method of walking as a kilometer or even a mile can take less than 10 minutes at a moderate to brisk pace.

Seaswimmer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have to say I completely agree with you here. Driving anywhere under a kilometer to drop people off to school or creche is the pure height of laziness. To add insult to injury (metaphorically and perhaps, literally), pretty much all of these cars are parked in cycle lanes. To then have the gall to complain about cyclists is the Everest of hypocrisy. It comes as no surprise to me that some of them are SUVs which are major pollutants in their class of vehicle and that are, in many (if not, most) cases unnecessary for the numbers they carry. As the OP pointed out in previous posts, thousands of trips that are made by cars each day are a kilometer or less. Most of them could easily be traveled using bikes, rickshaws (in harsh weather conditions) and other sustainable modes of transport. Then, there is the more obvious method of walking as a kilometer or even a mile can take less than 10 minutes at a moderate to brisk pace.

While I largely agree with this, the problem is that the vast majority of school runs are undertaken by working parents so usually the parents are on route to work. Nobody is going to walk a kilometer to school, walk home and then get the car and go to work passing the same school.
It gets back to Iwannhurl's point about the number of short journeys overall. People need to be encouraged to use sustainable transport to their place of work and incorporate the school run into this somehow.

Easier said than done.

Iwannahurl

Seaswimmer wrote: »

the vast majority of school runs are undertaken by working parents

Source?

Seaswimmer

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Source?

Good point.

let me say then " a considerable number of school runs" instead of the vast majority.

I am only going on personal experience when my own kids were small and I dropped them on route to work meeting many other similar parents..

and again I can only speak for the area in which I lived (Dublin)

Iwannahurl

From the Irish Heart Foundation's 2010 report, Building Young Hearts:

Findings from the 2006 Census echo the reduction in active travel modes to school. Between 1991 and 2006 walking and cycling decreased while travel by car increased. 25% travel less than 1km, 36% travel between 2-4km and 60% of parents who drop off by car don’t go to work.

Emphasis added by me.

I presume that is still the case (perhaps even more so in these days of higher unemployment).

Furthermore, since a sizeable proportion of people live 4 km or less from their place of work, there is no reason in terms of commuting distance why they cannot travel to either school or work by means other than the private car. I'm not sure offhand what the national figure is, but in Galway City it's 47%.

Combining the two, there is a substantial cohort of people who drop their kids at school and then either go to work or elsewhere (home perhaps) by car, over distances of 4 km or less.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on bicycles; Cameron on bicycle; Obama on a bicycle; Enda on a bicycle; mayor of London on a bicycle; Francois Hollande on a bicycle (maybe he should have stuck to Vélib'); Nicolas Maduro on a bicycle; etc.......... it seems quite a few of the "most important people in the world" are cyclists! :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Spook_ie wrote: »

The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

Like buses, taxis etc there's many ways how cyclists are treated as "some special case".

At least last time I checked general traffic was not able to use bus lanes, mandatory cycle lanes, cycleways etc; gennral traffic isn't allowed to undertake, and cars are not allowed to be parked on footpaths but bicycle are.

But there are lines which should not be crossed and systematically putting cyclists on footpaths is one of those lines which our councils have crossed.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

It's ridiculous that I could go buy a bike right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

It's ridiculous that I could go put on my shoes right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

BTW, on a serious note: Everybody is required to know the law; ignorance is not an excuse.

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

I found it interesting to say the least.
Pot, kettle and all that.

Running in cycle lane = illegal.
Cycling in roadway = legal.

That's a big difference. On the other hand, cycling on a footpath is comparable to running in a cycle lane -- I think both are wrong.

That last part was on-topic. To the core of the topic at hand. Sadly so much of this thread has not being.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Two things jump out at me from that picture that you appear to have missed - or were hoping the rest of us had missed.

1. There is obviously a need for parking facilities in that immediate area.
2. Look closely at the picture. Beyond the bollards. What you see is fallow, unused grassland. Thus, given 1. above, it would likely be practical to widen this road to provide both a pair of cycle lanes, and legal on-street parking. Defo on the far side, maybe on your nearside as well with some earthworks.
   
   Problem is that if someone actually suggested including legal parking on that road ALONGSIDE the cycle lanes, I expect there would be serious opposition to it from the cyclists, including the quoted poster, even though such a solution would be
   • practical
   • straightforward
   • mutually beneficial
   • solving the problems for all involved.
   In fact I'm nearly certain that the poster of this picture would be absolutely dead set against a mutually beneficial solution.

AltAccount

SeanW wrote: »

Two things jump out at me from that picture that you appear to have missed - or were hoping the rest of us had missed.

1. There is obviously a need for parking facilities in that immediate area.
2. Look closely at the picture. Beyond the bollards. What you see is fallow, unused grassland. Thus, given 1. above, it would likely be practical to widen this road to provide both a pair of cycle lanes, and legal on-street parking. Defo on the far side, maybe on your nearside as well with some earthworks.
   
   Problem is that if someone actually suggested including legal parking on that road ALONGSIDE the cycle lanes, I expect there would be serious opposition to it from the cyclists, including the quoted poster, even though such a solution would be
   • practical
   • straightforward
   • mutually beneficial
   • solving the problems for all involved.
   In fact I'm nearly certain that the poster of this picture would be absolutely dead set against a mutually beneficial solution.

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

SeanW

AltAccount wrote: »

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

I never said that it did. Would you care to respond to what I actually said?