Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

Spook_ie

Did we not have this already?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057122132

monument wrote: »

I'm seeing an increasing amount of "shared use" in street and road redesign projects across Ireland -- it now seems to be the default for new designs and redesigns to mix people on foot and those on bicycles. This is regardless of the fact that many people dislike mixing the two modes of transport.

There has also been a national move in places to copy Dublin's mistake of just reclassing footpaths as shared use path.

There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.

It's really seems like a compromise too far -- the two don't mix well, and many cyclists (legally) keep to the road. Why can't we follow the examples in Denmark or the Netherlands, rather than following the failed design of shared use?

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

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Did we not have this already?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057122132

This time it's staying on topic.

To be clear: This is not a general discussion thread, this is a thread about stopping shared use being used.

-- moderator

Spook_ie

Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?

Subpopulus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

Because it's dangerous, obviously. It encourages relatively fast moving bikes into areas with slow moving pedestrians, placing them into conflict. It endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists can't travel as fast on shared surfaces so they have to slow down and be constantly alert, reducing the efficacy of cycling as a mode of transport and making it less appealing. It also blurs the line between pavement cycling being illegal and it being legal.

There is little parallel with cyclists sharing road space with motorised vehicles. This, like sharing road space with pedestrians, puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles, endangering the lives of the cyclists. Most cyclists, if asked whether they would rather travel in a segregated lane, or amongst moving traffic, would opt for the former. This isn't a case of cyclists picking and choosing - in an ideal world all, cycling infrastructure would be separated from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.

monument

monument wrote: »

This time it's staying on topic.

To be clear: This is not a general discussion thread, this is a thread about stopping shared use being used.

-- moderator

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?

Posts moved. The thread you posted them on is a thread about stopping shared use being used, it's not about why -- that discussion which already happened when the previous thread you linked to above was brought widely off-topic.

Don't bother posting on the other thread -- this is not a request. You're being excessively disruptive. Keep this up and you will be asked to not post on any cycling thread.

Reporting this post will get you an infraction -- using the PM system is your first step if you are unhappy with moderation.

-- moderator

Spook_ie

Subpopulus wrote: »

Because it's dangerous, obviously. It encourages relatively fast moving bikes into areas with slow moving pedestrians, placing them into conflict. It endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists can't travel as fast on shared surfaces so they have to slow down and be constantly alert, reducing the efficacy of cycling as a mode of transport and making it less appealing. It also blurs the line between pavement cycling being illegal and it being legal.

There is little parallel with cyclists sharing road space with motorised vehicles. This, like sharing road space with pedestrians, puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles, endangering the lives of the cyclists. Most cyclists, if asked whether they would rather travel in a segregated lane, or amongst moving traffic, would opt for the former. This isn't a case of cyclists picking and choosing - in an ideal world all, cycling infrastructure would be separated from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.

It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds.

It is interesting though that you immediately jump on the "dangerous" bandwagon when in many other threads some cyclists view themselves as not dangerous to pedestrians because of their lower mass especially any that involve RLJing or cycling through pedestrian crossings?

Subpopulus

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds.

It is interesting though that you immediately jump on the "dangerous" bandwagon when in many other threads some cyclists view themselves as not dangerous to pedestrians because of their lower mass especially any that involve RLJing or cycling through pedestrian crossings?

I'm not condoning breaking red lights, nor does the fact that others do affect the argument that shared use is dangerous.

The argument that shared use is dangerous is only part of it though. The main irritation in it for me is that it forces you to cycle very slowly in places, weaving around pedestrians, slowing to walking pace a lot of the time. There's no suggestion of which side you pass someone on, so as you approach a pedestrian you have to 'bargain' with them as to who moves to which side. I was coming up behind a pedestrian on the Lee Fields walk recently - I rang my bell to warn him as going around him to the right - he immediately jumped to the right (into my path) to let me through on the left. No accident came from it but it gives an idea of the conflict that shared use entails, even if you travel slowly and considerately.

TheQuietFella

I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre
but they are & controls should be in place to prevent them from using lanes without ANY consideration for fellow
road users & they are none. I'm irritated when cyclists cycle narrow roads in packs which prevent motorists from
moving past them safely!

I'm not anti-cyclist as I'm a cyclist myself but some form of common sense has to come in to play here!

Spook_ie

Subpopulus wrote: »

I'm not condoning breaking red lights, nor does the fact that others do affect the argument that shared use is dangerous.

The argument that shared use is dangerous is only part of it though. The main irritation in it for me is that it forces you to cycle very slowly in places, weaving around pedestrians, slowing to walking pace a lot of the time. There's no suggestion of which side you pass someone on, so as you approach a pedestrian you have to 'bargain' with them as to who moves to which side. I was coming up behind a pedestrian on the Lee Fields walk recently - I rang my bell to warn him as going around him to the right - he immediately jumped to the right (into my path) to let me through on the left. No accident came from it but it gives an idea of the conflict that shared use entails, even if you travel slowly and considerately.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having to proceed slowly and with caution, as a motorist I'm often driving at sub 20 kph on roads, roads where if I wished I could probably do the speed limit but experience has taught me better

monument

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre

Bicycles are already not allowed to be used on motorways...

But exactly which dual carriageways and city centre streets do you think they should be banned from?

Tenzor07

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre
but they are & controls should be in place to prevent them from using lanes without ANY consideration for fellow
road users & they are none. I'm irritated when cyclists cycle narrow roads in packs which prevent motorists from
moving past them safely!

As mentioned, no pedal powered cycle is allowed on Motorways.

By "some streets" do you mean pedestrianized streets like Grafton street, Henry street etc?

"Cycle narrow roads in Packs" So on a narrow road would 2-abreast mean "a pack?"

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?

No parallels at all, roads have sides and general rules for movement, indication, behaviour. Sidewalks do not, there is no way to know what way a pedestrian will move no matter how slow you are travelling.

Spook_ie wrote: »

There's nothing inherently wrong with having to proceed slowly and with caution, as a motorist I'm often driving at sub 20 kph on roads, roads where if I wished I could probably do the speed limit but experience has taught me better

Nothing at all.

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre
but they are & controls should be in place to prevent them from using lanes without ANY consideration for fellow
road users & they are none. I'm irritated when cyclists cycle narrow roads in packs which prevent motorists from
moving past them safely!

If you can't overtake a line of cyclists two abreast safely, then you can't overtake a single line of cyclists with the same number of cyclists safely either. Unfortunately some road users do not realise this and see a single line of cyclists as an invitation to overtake regardless of road conditions.

Orion

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre

I find Dual carriageways some of the best roads to cycle on. The extra lane means that drivers have extra space to overtake you safely.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

If you can't overtake a line of cyclists two abreast safely, then you can't overtake a single line of cyclists with the same number of cyclists safely either. Unfortunately some road users do not realise this and see a single line of cyclists as an invitation to overtake regardless of road conditions.

This, plus it's actually easier to overtake, for example, 20 cyclists riding two abreast than it is to overtake 20 cyclists in a long line. The group effectively halves the time you have to be the wrong side of the road.

Tenzor07

Macy0161 wrote: »

This, plus it's actually easier to overtake, for example, 20 cyclists riding two abreast than it is to overtake 20 cyclists in a long line. The group effectively halves the time you have to be the wrong side of the road.

True, though I have personally witnessed some atrocious bordering on dangerous/lethal over taking maneuvers by motor vehicles when out in a large training group on the roads...

RainyDay

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'm irritated when cyclists cycle narrow roads in packs which prevent motorists from
moving past them safely!

I'm irritated when long lines of cars prevent me from cycling safely, as about 1 in every 10 cars takes up a position that blocks cyclists filtering safely on the inside.

Aard

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm irritated when long lines of cars prevent me from cycling safely, as about 1 in every 10 cars takes up a position that blocks cyclists filtering safely on the inside.

Especially when that car is blocking a solid-white-line cycle lane. Happens all the time during rush hour.

beauf

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm irritated when long lines of cars prevent me from cycling safely, as about 1 in every 10 cars takes up a position that blocks cyclists filtering safely on the inside.

This would seem appropriate. Apologies if its old news.

http://www.boredpanda.com/bicycle-automobile-protest-lets-bike-it/

Carawaystick

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds.

Or cycling too slow, when you fall off.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

No parallels at all, roads have sides and general rules for movement, indication, behaviour. Sidewalks do not, there is no way to know what way a pedestrian will move no matter how slow you are travelling.

<snipped>

Beg to differ, and if you actually observe cyclists, so many of them behave like pedestrians and exhibit random movements. I'm sure if a Traffic Engineer studied them that the movements make some kind of sense,but in the context of following traffic signs and routes many cyclists exhibit a random nature on the road

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Or cycling too slow, when you fall off.

You can't cycle slowly ( walking pace ), put the stabilisers back on then

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Beg to differ, and if you actually observe cyclists, so many of them behave like pedestrians and exhibit random movements. I'm sure if a Traffic Engineer studied them that the movements make some kind of sense,but in the context of following traffic signs and routes many cyclists exhibit a random nature on the road

Have to hand it to you. You could replace the word 'cyclist' with 'taxi driver' above and it would nearly make perfect sense.

Hats off to the driver who turned in front of me sudden and without warning off Westmorland St yesterday evening to avoid the lights at O'connell bridge. A 400 lumen light wasn't going to put him off. Gas thing was he emerged - behind me - on the south quays.

Or what about the fellas at St Stephens green. They've got an ingenious system - if the rank is full, a taxi pulls in, double parks (with the hazards on - but that's ok) then reverses against ongoing traffic and into his spot when it becomes available.

And also fair play to the lads outside merrion row - never one to fail to spot and opportunity to set up an impromptu rank, holding up busy traffic not going to put these fellas off.

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

This would seem appropriate. Apologies if its old news.

http://www.boredpanda.com/bicycle-automobile-protest-lets-bike-it/

Not really, if you took into consideration that cyclists tend to leave door room on the inside and would like 1.5 meters as a passing distance, takes up as much road width as a car. The only thing you might save at is lights etc. where those cyclists that actually stop take up less space

Typical car widths. Latest version of Mondeo 1.852 meters, Punto 1,660 meters

As a point of interest, drivers, how much distance would you leave between yourself and an adjacent ( by the side ) car? I'd reckon 0.5 to 0.75 meters in traffic.

Which would mean in traffic allowing 1 meter for doors, 0.4 meters for yourself and the 1.5 meters you'd like, you'd actually take up just as much lateral room as a car

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Have to hand it to you. You could replace the word 'cyclist' with 'taxi driver' above and it would nearly make perfect sense.

Hats off to the driver who turned in front of me sudden and without warning off Westmorland St yesterday evening to avoid the lights at O'connell bridge. A 400 lumen light wasn't going to put him off. Gas thing was he emerged - behind me - on the south quays.

Or what about the fellas at St Stephens green. They've got an ingenious system - if the rank is full, a taxi pulls in, double parks (with the hazards on - but that's ok) then reverses against ongoing traffic and into his spot when it becomes available.

And also fair play to the lads outside merrion row - never one to fail to spot and opportunity to set up an impromptu rank, holding up busy traffic not going to put these fellas off.

Driver turning in front of you, ignore the roof sign and it could be any car, it's not always a taxi

Reversing into a space , do they not teach reverse parking to drivers now, I always thought it was a standard part of driving

Merrion Row, dunno never work there, so sounds like a lack of enforcement

As to making "nearly" perfect sense that's where we differ in that mine does make sense

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Driver turning in front of you, ignore the roof sign and it could be any car, it's not always a taxi

Ah but in this case it was. And more often than not it is.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Reversing into a space , do they not teach reverse parking to drivers now, I always thought it was a standard part of driving

Probably do. But stopping 30 or 40 yards in front of the space, which may take some time to become free, then reversing against the flow of traffic, is both illegal and inconsiderate. Forces other road users to go around.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Merrion Row, dunno never work there, so sounds like a lack of enforcementse

Seem to be popping up every where around the city these days. Westland row (in a cycle lane) is another favourite.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to making "nearly" perfect sense that's where we differ in that mine does make sense

What makes perfect sense is that there's plenty of plums out there on 2 wheels, 4 wheels and 2 legs. To continually single one group out doesn't make sense.

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

Beg to differ, and if you actually observe cyclists, so many of them behave like pedestrians and exhibit random movements. I'm sure if a Traffic Engineer studied them that the movements make some kind of sense,but in the context of following traffic signs and routes many cyclists exhibit a random nature on the road

I observe them every day, some are law breaking idiots, some are not. The same way I observe motorised traffic, some are law breaking idiots, some are not. The fact that you think there is some huge gulf between the behaviour of different road users shows a clear lack of awareness if you are on the roads regularly.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Driver turning in front of you, ignore the roof sign and it could be any car, it's not always a taxi

I think its more a sign of the recession than anything else, in the hunt for a fare, some taxi drivers put no thought or planning into maneuvers, and only concern themselves with getting to the most likely fare regardless of who they pull across, on top of or block off. But again, it's not all, it is just some. The same way not all bus drivers skim cyclists, not all cyclists cycle on the pavement, not all MB users swerve in and out of lanes, not all car drivers text and drive. Some do but not all and this insistence on trying to paint someone as a stereotype based solely on their mode of transport is quite frankly ridiculous.

Reversing into a space , do they not teach reverse parking to drivers now, I always thought it was a standard part of driving

It is, but as said before, reversing 25 metres on a road with traffic and alongside other vehicles which have occupants even if parked is ridiculously dangerous. If you want to reverse into a space. Stop Immediately after it and reverse in as your meant to. If there is no space present, do not stop, wait, block traffic or reverse a distance against the flow of traffic.

Merrion Row, dunno never work there, so sounds like a lack of enforcement

Lack of driving skills, etiquette and general respect for other road users. I don't obey the law out of fear of enforcement, it is an unfortunate side effect of low Garda numbers and an attitude of not dobbing anyone in, that law breaking seems to be accepted by some instead of vilified as it would be in many other western countries.

As to making "nearly" perfect sense that's where we differ in that mine does make sense

There both rational if not grossly exaggerated examples, congratulations.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Beg to differ, and if you actually observe cyclists, so many of them behave like pedestrians and exhibit random movements. I'm sure if a Traffic Engineer studied them that the movements make some kind of sense,but in the context of following traffic signs and routes many cyclists exhibit a random nature on the road

CramCycle wrote: »

<snipped> Some do but not all and this insistence on trying to paint someone as a stereotype based solely on their mode of transport is quite frankly ridiculous.

<snipped>

I don't actually see where you read that I'm suggesting all cyclists at all, just as I doubt that you meant ALL pedestrians move randomly, however, given that I'm using cycles in traffic as the example, it is obvious that any random/erratic movements that don't follow the normal traffic flow are a point of conflict.

Now we have established that, we need to establish how many cyclists ( as a % ) exhibit some kind of travel against the normal rules of the road, keeping left, stopping at stop lines, stopping at red lights, following one way sytems in the right direction etc.

Now as an interested but casual observer I would put that at some 25-30% of cyclists, that's ( to bring it back to topic and context ) 25-30% that would fit the parallel analogy

CramCycle wrote: »

No parallels at all, roads have sides and general rules for movement, indication, behaviour. Sidewalks do not, there is no way to know what way a pedestrian will move no matter how slow you are travelling.

Therefore given that, I see no reason why people are so insistant on their no sharing bicycle facilities with pedestrian rants.

Dear God I would love if the bus lanes and roadways weren't shared with cyclists but as a realist I accept that sharing has to happen

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

<snipped>

It is, but as said before, reversing 25 metres on a road with traffic and alongside other vehicles which have occupants even if parked is ridiculously dangerous. If you want to reverse into a space. Stop Immediately after it and reverse in as your meant to. If there is no space present, do not stop, wait, block traffic or reverse a distance against the flow of traffic.

<snipped>

However, AFAIK there is no actual law that puts a limit on how far you can reverse except on motorways etc or if reversing across a junction ( not even sure if the second one is actually illegal )

Put it another way though, cycling home past a newsagent in a one way street, and some one remembers "must do the syndicate lotto and next agent will be too late" what percentage of cyclists do you think would

A Get off the cycle and walk/wheel it back to the shop
B Pull a sneaky U Turn and cycle the wrong way
C Not do the lottery at all

Note I'm not asking what YOU would do but what percentage of cyclists do you think would do A or B or C

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

<snippedd>

Seem to be popping up every where around the city these days. Westland row (in a cycle lane) is another favourite.

<snipped>

You sure that Westland Row is a cycle lane? I'm not, must have a closer look next time I'm in the city
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3465629,-6.2590801,3a,75y,205.42h,72.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHChHqmjvImPEjkdtMDIQFg!2e0

Jawgap

Spook_ie wrote: »

You sure that Westland Row is a cycle lane? I'm not, must have a closer look next time I'm in the city
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3465629,-6.2590801,3a,75y,205.42h,72.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHChHqmjvImPEjkdtMDIQFg!2e0

Looks like it to me

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Westland+Row,+Dublin,+Co.+Dublin+City/@53.3434972,-6.249682,3a,90y,149h,80.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYfbmYNC3vSrLonMHzRz3UA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e910113b6f7:0xa73a79b5037a3583!6m1!1e1

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

You sure that Westland Row is a cycle lane? I'm not, must have a closer look next time I'm in the city
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3465629,-6.2590801,3a,75y,205.42h,72.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHChHqmjvImPEjkdtMDIQFg!2e0

I edited from Westmoreland St to Westland row. Under the railway bridge.

Edit jawgap has the correct location.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Looks like it to me

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Westland+Row,+Dublin,+Co.+Dublin+City/@53.3434972,-6.249682,3a,90y,149h,80.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYfbmYNC3vSrLonMHzRz3UA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e910113b6f7:0xa73a79b5037a3583!6m1!1e1

My bad, read Westland Row and tranposed it to Westmoreland St, especially when taxis mentioned as more taxis are on Westmoreland than Westland at the times I work

EDIT Seeing your admission to the edit, maybe I didn't.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I edited from Westmoreland St to Westland row. Under the railway bridge.

Edit jawgap has the correct location.

Spook_ie

Jawgap wrote: »

Looks like it to me

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Westland+Row,+Dublin,+Co.+Dublin+City/@53.3434972,-6.249682,3a,90y,149h,80.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYfbmYNC3vSrLonMHzRz3UA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e910113b6f7:0xa73a79b5037a3583!6m1!1e1

Note the broken line on the RHS of the cyle lane, RRM023 ( from memory so forgive me if off ) denotes a shared facility.

Now I do think that there could well be a problem with taxis queuing there, however, as it's not a mandatory cycle lane other than breaking a parking restriction/plying for hire restriction they aren't actually breaking a cycle lane restriction.

http://www.dsps.ie/?page_id=27

Cycle Tracks
Cycle tracks operate on a 24 hour basis unless otherwise indicated on a time plate. A mandatory cycle track is indicated by a solid white line. Vehicles other than a cycle or mechanically propelled wheelchair may not use a mandatory cycle track. A non mandatory cycle track is indicated by a broken white line. No parking allowed except while actively loading/unloading a maximum of 30 minutes

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3439204,-6.2494045,3a,37.5y,171.64h,84.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJEXzzgZbgHKn_I55YGxALA!2e0

cython

Jawgap wrote: »

Looks like it to me

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Westland+Row,+Dublin,+Co.+Dublin+City/@53.3434972,-6.249682,3a,90y,149h,80.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sYfbmYNC3vSrLonMHzRz3UA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e910113b6f7:0xa73a79b5037a3583!6m1!1e1

Worth noting that Westland Row southbound has been relined since that picture and the cycle lane is now designated by a solid line, but only seems to be one at certain times (can't recall the specific range offhand), but it makes no odds since plenty of delivery drivers, etc. have no issue in stopping or even parking in it when it should be one (I can recall checking the time several times I have seen them).

Spook_ie

cython wrote: »

Worth noting that Westland Row southbound has been relined since that picture and the cycle lane is now designated by a solid line, but only seems to be one at certain times (can't recall the specific range offhand), but it makes no odds since plenty of delivery drivers, etc. have no issue in stopping or even parking in it when it should be one (I can recall checking the time several times I have seen them).

Maybe they operate on Galway time

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

Note the broken line on the RHS of the cyle lane, RRM023 ( from memory so forgive me if off ) denotes a shared facility.

Now I do think that there could well be a problem with taxis queuing there, however, as it's not a mandatory cycle lane other than breaking a parking restriction/plying for hire restriction they aren't actually breaking a cycle lane restriction.

http://www.dsps.ie/?page_id=27


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3439204,-6.2494045,3a,37.5y,171.64h,84.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJEXzzgZbgHKn_I55YGxALA!2e0

I think that photo is old. It's a actually an unbroken solid line now. So a mandatory lane. Although it is given over to parking at weekends. When people obviously don't cycle (can't do roll eyes on phone)

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think that photo is old. It's a actually an unbroken solid line now. So a mandatory lane. Although it is given over to parking at weekends. When people obviously don't cycle (can't do roll eyes on phone)

So I gather from cythons post. Must have a gander next time I'm in Dublin as I've actually never seen a time plated mandatory lane yet. Given though the street is double yellows I'd be surprised it being given over to parking:- me neither have to settle for a :-P

Edit Jeebus even that doesn't work

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

So I gather from cythons post. Must have a gander next time I'm in Dublin as I've actually never seen a time plated mandatory lane yet. Given though the street is double yellows I'd be surprised it being given over to parking:- me neither have to settle for a :-P

Edit Jeebus even that doesn't work

Yeah times are Mon-Sat 7-10 and 12.30 -19.00

Didn't notice any parking restrictions, yellow lines etc., but I was driving so needs double checking, but at 10.01 someday, maybe I'll do some shopping.

If I do, I'll look forward to somebody posting complaints about a taxi being parked in the cycle lane

On a serious note, I don't like lanes being marked as mandatory at certain times of the day, either make it a cycle lane or not, same as bus lanes should be bus lanes or not

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah times are Mon-Sat 7-10 and 12.30 -19.00

Didn't notice any parking restrictions, yellow lines etc., but I was driving so needs double checking, but at 10.01 someday, maybe I'll do some shopping.

If I do, I'll look forward to somebody posting complaints about a taxi being parked in the cycle lane

On a serious note, I don't like lanes being marked as mandatory at certain times of the day, either make it a cycle lane or not, same as bus lanes should be bus lanes or not

I hope somebody calls the clampers on you -- you're not allowed to park inside a solid white centre line on a street with just one traffic lane (unless there's marked parking spaces).

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

I hope somebody calls the clampers on you -- you're not allowed to park inside a solid white centre line on a street with just one traffic lane (unless there's marked parking spaces).

Y'see this is where people need to read the bit that says " On a serious note" before they get their knickers twisted.

However, now that you mention it..

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a36

(2) A vehicle shall not be parked—


( a ) on that side of a section of roadway along the edge of which traffic sign number RRM 008 [double yellow lines] has been provided;


( b ) on a section of roadway where traffic sign number RUS 019 [No Parking sign] has been provided, during the period indicated on the information plate accompanying such traffic sign;


( c ) within 5 metres of a road junction;


( d ) on a section of roadway with less than 3 traffic lanes and where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided;


( e ) on a section of roadway where traffic sign number RUS 020, in association with RRM 029 [appointed stand], has been placed to indicate that an appointed stand has been provided;


( f ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing, delaying or interfering with the entrance to or exit from a fire brigade station, an ambulance station or a Garda station;


( g ) in any place, position or manner that will result in the vehicle obstructing an entrance or an exit for vehicles to or from a premises, save with the consent of the occupier of such premises;


( h ) within 15 metres (on the approach side) or 5 metres (on the side other than the approach side) of a section of roadway where any of the following traffic signs have been provided—


(i) traffic sign number RPC 001 [Pedestrian Crossing];


(ii) traffic sign number RPC 002 [Pedestrian Crossing Complex]; or


(iii) traffic sign numbers RTS 00I, RTS 002, RTS 003 or RTS 004 [traffic lights];


( i ) on a footway, a grass margin or a median strip;


( j ) on a part of a roadway which is a casual trading area, during hours of trading, unless the vehicle is for the time being in use for the purposes of casual trading;


( k ) in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;


( l ) where traffic sign RUS 031 [bus stop] or RRM 030 [stopping place or stand] has been provided unless the vehicle is an omnibus.

The road consists of 4 lanes, heading North

Bus Lane| Traffic Lane | Traffic Lane | Cycle Lane

As ( I believe ) the bus and cycle lanes are not 24 hour then parking would probably be legal

EDIT

Just add to confusion, if you read Dublin bye laws, then it's called a cycle track so the road configuration looking North could be classed as

Bus Lane|Traffic Lane| Traffic Lane| Cycle track

As there are 3 traffic lanes ( AFAIK the bus lane isn't 24x7 ) available then parking would probably still be allowable

TheQuietFella

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/cycling-licenses-bike-bans--nsw-roads-considered

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-24237390

If they cycle anything like our cyclists on the roads particularly the Dublin Quays, I can see us heading in the same direction.

beauf

If they did it would be a U turn on policy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/new-quays-cycle-lane-to-lead-to-restrictions-for-dublin-motorists-1.1834760

City council chief executive Owen Keegan ....said restricting the road space available to cars was essential as part of a sustainable transport system in the city.

The ultimate goal is to increase the number of commuter journeys by bike from 4 per cent to 10 per cent by 2020.

He maintained that the imperative to reduce car journeys into the city would increase once the cross-city Luas linking the red and green lines opens. “We can’t give that road space to Luas and leave everything else as it is.

CramCycle

TheQuietFella wrote: »

If they cycle anything like our cyclists on the roads particularly the Dublin Quays, I can see us heading in the same direction.

If the behaviour of road users in Ireland is a measuring stick of suitability to using the roads, all that proves is that the current licensing system is a failure. The basics of driving that are abandoned on a daily basis, that people would have had to show their capability at during a test, are abandoned with glee apparently. Licensing cyclists won't solve that. In fact, at best it will just create another Quango with no purpose. If the Government invested their money into Gardai numbers, and cameras, who could then plough those numbers and equipment into basic law enforcement, then there would be significantly less issues.

end of the road

CramCycle wrote: »

If the behaviour of road users in Ireland is a measuring stick of suitability to using the roads, all that proves is that the current licensing system is a failure. The basics of driving that are abandoned on a daily basis, that people would have had to show their capability at during a test, are abandoned with glee apparently. Licensing cyclists won't solve that. In fact, at best it will just create another Quango with no purpose. If the Government invested their money into Gardai numbers, and cameras, who could then plough those numbers and equipment into basic law enforcement, then there would be significantly less issues.

sadly some cyclists miss behave, and sweeping that under the carpet and pretending cyclists don't break rules isn't going to end well. so we will have to make it law for every bike to have a number plate so they can easily be dealt with if they break the rules.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

sadly some cyclists miss behave, and sweeping that under the carpet and pretending cyclists don't break rules isn't going to end well. so we will have to make it law for every bike to have a number plate so they can easily be dealt with if they break the rules.

Nobody is saying cyclists don't misbehave - the point is that a significant proportion do (as do a significant proportion of drivers, pedestrians and motorcyclists).

The question is what is the best to deal with it? Licensing is not - it's not even a good way to address the issue because it will be completely unenforceable, costly and not even tackle the issue.

A proper, resourced, targeted programme of enforcement would be more effective - and if they (the government) ever get around to introducing fixed penalty notices for certain cycling offences (no lights, RLJing, cycling on the path) it will cover some of its costs.

CramCycle

end of the road wrote: »

sadly some cyclists miss behave, and sweeping that under the carpet and pretending cyclists don't break rules isn't going to end well. so we will have to make it law for every bike to have a number plate so they can easily be dealt with if they break the rules.

I think you meant to quote a different post because your response does not seem to be related to the post of mine you quoted

beauf

end of the road wrote: »

...We will have to make it law for every bike to have a number plate so they can easily be dealt with if they break the rules.

Maybe require all drivers and cyclists to carry their PPS on them at all times. If identity is a problem.

Or maybe change the rules like Paris did allowing cyclist to go through a red light where appropriate.

Tenzor07

Yes, ticket cyclists just like these Dutch cops in Utrecht... Having said that, the Dutch have proper cycling infrastructure that's 30 years ahead of Ireland in terms of investment and design

beauf

5 cops in the one spot, stopping cyclists. A lot of resources. They have no number plates though. How do they manage?

Aard

No different than fining somebody on the Luas really is it? Except nobody's gonna bald-faced lie about their name and address to a Garda.