New Quays Cycling Lane Dublin

dave_o_brien

mrbike wrote: »

"There are two schools of thought on bicycle infrastructure and the promotion of bicycling. Vehicular Cycling, promoted by the U.S. beginning in the 1970’s, and Segregated Bicycling, promoted by Amsterdam beginning in the 1970’s.
The results quite loudly speak for themselves and that should be the end of the story."

http://streets.mn/2014/05/06/promote-vehicular-cycling-really/

Basically proponents of vehicular cycling are opposed to dedicated cycling infrastructure of any kind. It marginalises slower, less confident cyclists who are uncomfortable mixing with vehicular traffic. Typically these are younger, older and women cyclists. As a result of this the majority of cyclists end up being males on fast bikes.

“So the question isn’t so much how to get people to cycle as how to get people who wouldn’t ordinarily cycle—such as women and old people—onto bikes… In Britain, two thirds of women say that the roads are too unsafe to cycle on.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-12

A neat division which overlooks and/or oversimplifies cultural and legislative measures that surround reasons why infrastructure might ostensibly be very similar in two different contexts and operate extremely differently.

Chips Lovell

I hadn't come across vehicular cycling until today, but there's plenty about it I wouldn't subscribe to, such as the notion that cycling should be the preserve of males on fast bikes or that everyone should be capable of cycling at 30kph, both of which are elitist BS.

magicbastarder

that's the main issue though; even though i don't think the idea of the north quays cycle lane makes a lot of sense, if you look at it from my wife's point of view - who would be very wary of cycling in traffic - it does. she simply would not like to share road space with cars.
that said, the cycle lane would be of no use to her for getting to work.

Doctor Bob

Back from lunch! It was delicious.

dave_o_brien wrote: »

No, but conversations about commute modality miss the point of discussions like this.

Private car use is causing enormous congestion on a small city. We have a vast network of improperly used roads. The North Quays is uniquely located within our city to provide for an urban riverside environment benefiting from an unobstructed southerly aspect with a diverse existing mix of restaurants, historical and cultural establishments, and great potential for commercial use also. Instead we have a dual carriageway. Well done us.

If one were to analyse this purely from the perspective of the benefit to cycling, it likely wouldn't get far. The advantages of this proposal are far more wide reaching. They might also have a modest impact on cycle use in the area, but why anyone would focus on that (other than because the Times did, and Mr. Keegan rides a bike) is beyond me. Of course where such urban interventions occur there will be an impetus to provide cycling infrastructure, but to paint this as a move to improve cycling in the city as opposed to this being a move to improve the city itself is wrong.

While I agree that the enhancement of the quays is a highly desirable outcome of this project, it is clearly and unambiguously a transport project. The urban realm benefits will be the spin-off from the transport investment, not the other way around. So ‘commute modality’ is actually the crux of this discussion, not a tangent, and I’d argue that to paint this as a move (primarily) to improve the city itself as opposed to this being a move (primarily) to improve cycling is wrong.

So I don’t disagree with you on any of this, except regarding motive.

Lumen wrote: »

Not giving a purple shíte about other people is why I'm unqualified to be an urban planner. God help those who have to make the world idiot-proof.

And giving a purple shíte about other people might be part of the reason why I am an urban planner.

monument wrote: »

In the thread about this over in Commuting and Transport most who cycle or are would-be cyclists seem to be generally supportive on the quays idea.

Indeed. I should have clarified that, by 'Boardsies', I meant the Cycling Forum specifically.

Doctor Bob

Oscar gets a separate reply.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Has any country attempted to boost cycling numbers by significant investment in anything other than infrastructure?

Yes. The UK, home of the 'hierarchy of provision'. I'm not sure that's a cycling *ahem* culture we should be aiming to emulate.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

At the moment we have a perception that cycling is dangerous and that deters potential cyclists (or least they say it deters them). Yet the message the public constantly receives from state agencies such as local authorities, the RSA, the Guards, even from cyclists themselves, serves to reinforce and not dispel that perception. We constantly hear about helmets, high viz jackets, and taking cyclists away from other traffic with cycle lanes. This is despite the fact that accident statistics show cycling isn't in any way as hazardous as the public thinks.

Yet two of the most successful public policy initiatives to promote cycling (Dublin Bikes and Bike to Work) had nothing to do with safety. Indeed, there was huge safety hysteria about Dublin Bikes. Yet look at us now. Its the most successful bike scheme in the world and is being built out into the suburbs.

Instead pouring money into something that only reinforces fearfulness (and hardens the attitude among motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road), I'd prefer to see investment in initiatives that highlight the positive aspects of cycling.

I completely agree that 'dangerising' cycling is a major problem in this country. What I don't agree with is lumping cycling infrastructure in with helmets, hi-viz, etc. You mention it as though its inclusion in that list is a given. Difficult as it might be to imagine based on Irish experience to date, there's such a thing as cycling infrastructure that is provided to prioritise cyclists, not penalise them.

I should probably add that I'm not against measures other than infrastructure and don't think that infrastructure alone can promote cycling. I just don't think that 'initiatives that highlight the positive aspects of cycling' can be effective in isolation. It is government policy to grow cycling to 10% by 2021 (meaning c.20% in Dublin). Do you believe that 'soft' measures can achieve this on their own?

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Ah hear. You're building a straw man.

A straw man? How so?

Re the four terms you've highlighted:

• The 'strong and fearless' is the 1% of people who will cycle in virtually all circumstances. What's your cut-off point beyond which you'd have to stop cycling? A good bit further along the scale than most average cyclists, I'd wager.
• Cycle infrastructure is routinely scorned on Boards, as I see it (unless we're reading different forums). Often the scorn is deserved, but for a number of regular posters the scorn is a knee-jerk reaction at anything that threatens to separate them from their VC entitlement. Just look at the number of times people say that they won't use a cycle track because it won't allow them to go at 30 km/h or whatever.
• The - again - knee-jerk reaction to a lot of investment in cycling is to shout loudly that 'I have a right to be on the road', and to claim that cycle infrastructure 'pedestrianises' cyclists. This is most assuredly a belief that cyclists are being treated as second class citizens (or, if I'm being melodramatic, 'emasculates' them- sure, nobody has used that precise word for it before, but that's what the belief is).
• Lastly, regarding adrenalin, regular cyclists might have internalised it to the extent that it goes unnoticed any more, but vehicular cycling requires, yes, adrenalin. There have been enough threads about close passes by taxis, cars turning without indicating, etc. to support this view.

So, bearing in mind that this thread is about the development of a two-way cycle track on the north quays in order to provide more space for 'normal' cycling, which has resulted in quite a few commenters airing their opposition to the principle of segregated cycle infrastructure, how's is anything I said a straw man?

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Also, can someone explain to me what vehicular cycling is?

Vehicular cycling, as explained by Budawanny, dreamerb and mrbike, is the type of cycling you are advocating for the masses- no infrastructure, behaving as though you are a motorised vehicle by taking the lane, etc. (What seamus describes is, to me, utility cycling.)

Dermot Illogical

CramCycle wrote: »

He clearly and fairly pointed out that is why he is not and should not be a city planner

I think he should be.
Whaddawewant? Lumen for city planner! Whendowewannit? Now!

dave_o_brien

Doctor Bob wrote: »

While I agree that the enhancement of the quays is a highly desirable outcome of this project, it is clearly and unambiguously a transport project. The urban realm benefits will be the spin-off from the transport investment, not the other way around. So ‘commute modality’ is actually the crux of this discussion, not a tangent, and I’d argue that to paint this as a move (primarily) to improve the city itself as opposed to this being a move (primarily) to improve cycling is wrong.

So I don’t disagree with you on any of this, except regarding motive.

My belief is that this is an initiative borne out of a desire to improve the Quays, and they are using a redesign of the transport infrastructure as the mechanism to apply it, i.e., from a planning and budgetary perspective, that's where it has been allocated. The ultimate goal is a more holistic one. The "cycling" thread of it is but a strand, I think.

In terms of PR, they've handled it badly by pitching it as a boon to cyclists. It's a boon to everybody; making it about cyclists is just going to ruffle feathers non-bike riders.

Doctor Bob

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I hadn't come across vehicular cycling until today, but there's plenty about it I wouldn't subscribe to, such as the notion that cycling should be the preserve of males on fast bikes or that everyone should be capable of cycling at 30kph, both of which are elitist BS.

Interesting. Based on the content of many of your posts regarding cycle infrastructure, I'd have put you squarely in the VC camp.

For what it's worth, I don't think VC proponents suggest that it should be the preserve of speedy young males. It's just that they're the only ones willing to accept the risks inherent in VC.

Jawgap

Doctor Bob wrote: »

• ......
  
• Cycle infrastructure is routinely scorned on Boards, as I see it (unless we're reading different forums). Often the scorn is deserved, but for a number of regular posters the scorn is a knee-jerk reaction at anything that threatens to separate them from their VC entitlement. Just look at the number of times people say that they won't use a cycle track because it won't allow them to go at 30 km/h or whatever.
  
  .....

Just on this point, I'm probably someone who routinely pours scorn on the painted bits of road nominally allocated to people on bikes (if you want to call that, 'infrastructure' then that's fine) - but the reason I'm scornful of 'most' of these bits of pavement is because in using them you relegate yourself - I'm not interested in going fast (mostly because I can't) but if the choice is.......

(a) use a cycle track / path and give up the right to proceed to every gate, side road etc

or

(b) stay on the road (in the carriageway) and maintain the right to proceed in the interests of reasonable and convenient progress,

Then I know which one I'll choose - and that's before I decide to avoid tracks / paths that are poorly maintained to the point of being dangerous.

In short, decent infrastructure gets used, rubbish infrastructure gets ignored for reasons that have little to do with sustained speeds.

CramCycle

Doctor Bob wrote: »

While I agree that the enhancement of the quays is a highly desirable outcome of this project, it is clearly and unambiguously a transport project. The urban realm benefits will be the spin-off from the transport investment, not the other way around. So ‘commute modality’ is actually the crux of this discussion, not a tangent, and I’d argue that to paint this as a move (primarily) to improve the city itself as opposed to this being a move (primarily) to improve cycling is wrong.

The guy on Newstalk representing the council made it quite clear its aim was to reduce car traffic volumes, not enhance cycling, it was just a way of achieving it. Personally I much preferred dave.o.briens suggestion of widening the footpaths and removing an entire lane where it is 3 lanes wide.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Cycle infrastructure is routinely scorned on Boards, as I see it (unless we're reading different forums). Often the scorn is deserved, but for a number of regular posters the scorn is a knee-jerk reaction at anything that threatens to separate them from their VC entitlement. Just look at the number of times people say that they won't use a cycle track because it won't allow them to go at 30 km/h or whatever.

It is scorned because most examples of it in this country are not just sub par but in many cases dangerous, I don't use many because if the loss of priority at junctions, but other than that often unclear signage, the general belief by a few motorists that they have the right to turn left across them, too close to driveways (for that irish fascination of reversing out of them which is illegal and dangerous by the way), quickly deteriorating surface quality, manhole covers on corners, debris build up, joggers using it for training, dogsowners using it for walkways, parking spot for cars, buses, vans etc. and so on, these are just a few.

The - again - knee-jerk reaction to a lot of investment in cycling is to shout loudly that 'I have a right to be on the road', and to claim that cycle infrastructure 'pedestrianises' cyclists. This is most assuredly a belief that cyclists are being treated as second class citizens (or, if I'm being melodramatic, 'emasculates' them- sure, nobody has used that precise word for it before, but that's what the belief is).

A right to the road because it is often the safest place to be, if the infrastructure had been designed in consultation with cyclists with experience this may never have happened but it wasn't.

Lastly, regarding adrenalin, regular cyclists might have internalised it to the extent that it goes unnoticed any more, but vehicular cycling requires, yes, adrenalin. There have been enough threads about close passes by taxis, cars turning without indicating, etc. to support this view.
So, bearing in mind that this thread is about the development of a two-way cycle track on the north quays in order to provide more space for 'normal' cycling, which has resulted in quite a few commenters airing their opposition to the principle of segregated cycle infrastructure, how's is anything I said a straw man?

I'd prefer not to get that rush of Adrenaline, it feels like I am having a heart attack, its rare that I get it, and has decreased with experience, following the rules and generally avoiding areas of danger (eg slipping on one of three large manhole covers on the cycle lane near the bray end of the N11 that are only avoidable by either going on the foot path or the bus lane).

Chips Lovell

Doctor Bob wrote: »

how's is anything I said a straw man?

To be clear. I'm against cycling infrastructure not because I want to cycle at 30kph, but because I think its counterproductive in promoting cycling.

And the people who seem to have weekly run-ins with buses, taxis etc. are as much part of the problem as the those who say they're too afraid to take a bike on to a main road. How can some people commute daily and only have one or two incidents a year and others have so many encounters they feel the need to invest in helmet cameras?

What I want to see is, I suspect, much the same as what you want to see: ordinary people being unafraid to take to the road on ordinary bikes at ordinary speeds. I just don't think that trying to cordon them off is best way to encourage them.

dave_o_brien

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

To be clear. I'm against cycling infrastructure not because I want to cycle at 30kph, but because I think its counterproductive in promoting cycling.

And the people who seem to have weekly run-ins with buses, taxis etc. are as much part of the problem as the those who say they're too afraid to take a bike on to a main road. How can some people commute daily and only have one or two incidents a year and others have so many encounters they feel the need to invest in helmet cameras?

What I want to see is, I suspect, much the same as what you want to see: ordinary people being unafraid to take to the road on ordinary bikes at ordinary speeds. I just don't think that trying to cordon them off is best way to encourage them.

In Bob's defence, the idea that the provision of infrastructure is "cordoning" them off is a consequence of the culture that we have here. Cycle infrastructure is brilliant when the majority of people want to use it. It's awful if the majority of people want cyclists to use it so that they are not in "the way".

CramCycle

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

What I want to see is, I suspect, much the same as what you want to see: ordinary people being unafraid to take to the road on ordinary bikes at ordinary speeds. I just don't think that trying to cordon them off is best way to encourage them.

Which is a shame but I have heard a work colleague saying she wouldn't consider cycling in as there were no bike paths in her area and it was too dangerous. The issue here is that she believes cycling is too dangerous as opposed to the fact that the treatment or lack of empathy towards cyclists makes it appear dangerous to those without experience and who due to the fact that the RSA push hi vis and helmets, and for the complete segregation of cyclists by paths. I can understand why they would think this rather than a small number of motorists are a danger to everyone and greater enforcement of current road laws would be far more beneficial to EVERYONEs safety, rather than a cycle lane.

eeeee

Doctor Bob wrote: »

[*]Cycle infrastructure is routinely scorned on Boards, as I see it (unless we're reading different forums). Often the scorn is deserved, but for a number of regular posters the scorn is a knee-jerk reaction at anything that threatens to separate them from their VC entitlement. Just look at the number of times people say that they won't use a cycle track because it won't allow them to go at 30 km/h or whatever.
[*]The - again - knee-jerk reaction to a lot of investment in cycling is to shout loudly that 'I have a right to be on the road', and to claim that cycle infrastructure 'pedestrianises' cyclists. This is most assuredly a belief that cyclists are being treated as second class citizens (or, if I'm being melodramatic, 'emasculates' them- sure, nobody has used that precise word for it before, but that's what the belief is).
[*]Lastly, regarding adrenalin, regular cyclists might have internalised it to the extent that it goes unnoticed any more, but vehicular cycling requires, yes, adrenalin. There have been enough threads about close passes by taxis, cars turning without indicating, etc. to support this view.
[/LIST]

Doctor Bob wrote: »

For what it's worth, I don't think VC proponents suggest that it should be the preserve of speedy young males. It's just that they're the only ones willing to accept the risks inherent in VC.

I don't get what is wrong with a cyclist who wants to train/go at 30kph+ riding on the road not the cycle lane? Personal preference, and often safer. I don't fancy weaving in and out between other cyclists, and salmoning cyclists doing a steady 15kph. There should not, and indeed there is not and rightly so no obligation to do so. Almost all of the current off road cycle lanes in DUblin currently spit you out into left turning traffic, at roundabouts and are so utterly and completely badly designed that using them is dangerous, it's not a righteous 'spurning' of them.

Your comments on vehicular cycling being the preserve of young men are way wide of the mark by the way, that is absolutely not the case. There are women and older people doing it too, mainly because if you want to go at a decent clip in Ireland or want to stay safe you have to, it is necessityUsing language like 'emasculation' is exclusive and genderising and derailing the argument where there is no need. You do not need adrenaline to cycle off the cycle lanes, you need to be aware of your surroundings, look, look, and look again, and keep your wits about you above anything else. It's not an extreme sport, it doesn't require vast amounts of adrenaline. You seem to be painting those who chose to cycle on the road and not in designated areas as adrenaline fueled young male daredevils. This is not the case in the overwhelming majority of the time.

The cycle lane will undoubtably lead to the quays being more of an amenity/public space rather than a dual carriageway into and out of the city. It is the first step in a larger process of regeneration of this space hopefully.

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

For what it's worth, I don't think VC proponents suggest that it should be the preserve of speedy young males. It's just that they're the only ones willing to accept the risks inherent in VC.

Young is the age range during which time alone makes you stronger. I'm well past that.

VC proponents (if I may speak on their behalf) don't care what provision there is for the weak and needy, as long as it doesn't impact their average speed.

The perceived problem is that as you pander to the weak and needy, cycling for "the 1%"* becomes inevitable shíttier.

Is there anywhere that has "high quality cycling infrastructure" where it is possible to cycle fast on the roads without getting stick from the authorities or drivers? I don't know the answer.

* interestingly political choice of number. Those damn one-percenters get everywhere.

mrbike

gadetra wrote: »

Your comments on vehicular cycling being the preserve of young men are way wide of the mark by the way, that is absolutely not the case.

I'm afraid it is the case and it's got tragic consequences.

"The study claims that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry... Women cyclists tend to ride more slowly and are less comfortable doing things that feel risky. So, instead of positioning themselves out wide in the road where they can more easily see and be seen, they are more inclined to hug the kerb, a way of cycling that may feel safer but is in fact more risky."

https://www.rudi.net/node/16395

Here are some figures from a survey done by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council:

"The average age for cyclist was 29.9 years old while the male / female split of cyclists was 60%-34%, which is broadly in line with the split generally for cyclists"

http://irishcycle.com/2013/08/11/nearly-15-cyclist-commuters-using-n11-were-in-collisions/

eeeee

mrbike wrote: »

I'm afraid it is the case and it's got tragic consequences.

"The study claims that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry... Women cyclists tend to ride more slowly and are less comfortable doing things that feel risky. So, instead of positioning themselves out wide in the road where they can more easily see and be seen, they are more inclined to hug the kerb, a way of cycling that may feel safer but is in fact more risky."

https://www.rudi.net/node/16395

Here are some figures from a survey done by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council:

"The average age for cyclist was 29.9 years old while the male / female split of cyclists was 60%-34%, which is broadly in line with the split generally for cyclists"

http://irishcycle.com/2013/08/11/nearly-15-cyclist-commuters-using-n11-were-in-collisions/

Most cycling fatalities are bike v HGV. That is is the cause of most female cyclists deaths is not statistically surprising.
I am a female cyclist, I do not hug the curb or cycle very slowly. Yes there are more men on bikes on the road, but in my own anecdotal experience women tend to ride slowly out from the footpath/kerb, I know this because I have to go out by them!
There are more men on the road, certainly more going at speed on the road, but that is another argument-ie sport has been designed by men for men so it is hardly surprising that there are less women in the sport cyclist ranks, this is the case in all sports not just cycling. My sister for example cycles by necessity, it is quicker getting to work than by car for her and she feel son need to do it outside of that (Although I have managed to persuade her to get accredited on track )
Of all of my friends, the women cyclists outnumber the men by a large majority. In fact when I started track, I had no male friends to introduce to it, where as I have 3 female friends waiting to give it a go. Admittedly 'my friends' is not representative, but it does buck the trend of cycling as a male dominated activity (which it is, I am not disputing that, but I am stating that there are women doing it, and not just for utility either).

ETA that is quite off topic sorry

mrbike

gadetra wrote: »

Most cycling fatalities are bike v HGV. That is is the cause of most female cyclists deaths is not statistically surprising.

While that is true, the problem is that HGV's are responsible for a hugely disproportionate of female cycling deaths.

The study claims that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists.

https://www.rudi.net/node/16395

One of the best things to happen for cycling in Dublin was the city centre HGV ban. Mind you, in the past year, i've had to stop two cyclists from cycling up the inside of left turning HGV's near Smithfield fruit market. I had to pull one guy off the road on to the footpath to stop him from being physically crushed. In another case on the quays, I was waiting on my bike behind a HGV stopped at a red light. Another cyclist undertook me to travel up the inside of the HGV. I shouted after him to stop, that's how cyclists get killed. He just laughed an continued on his merry way.

We need safe, dedicated cycling infrastructure to protect people like this. I personally have no problem cycling on the road, but sometimes I like to amble along on my old junker, and I'd happily do it on safe cycling lanes.

a148pro

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Yet two of the most successful public policy initiatives to promote cycling (Dublin Bikes and Bike to Work) had nothing to do with safety. Indeed, there was huge safety hysteria about Dublin Bikes. Yet look at us now. Its the most successful bike scheme in the world and is being built out into the suburbs.

Instead pouring money into something that only reinforces fearfulness (and hardens the attitude among motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road), I'd prefer to see investment in initiatives that highlight the positive aspects of cycling.

Its an interesting point you make, but the reality is that the two schemes you mention did so much for cycling because they work. That is the best promotion of something that you can have. A publicity campaign to the effect that "cycling is safe" implicitly re-inforces the perception that it isn't ("an egg a day is ok").

You are critical of cycling infrastructure, but if it was done well it would be good for cycling. It hasn't been done well so far but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. The best example and promotion of cycling would be a proper functioning safe cycling route into and around the city centre.

tomasrojo

mrbike wrote: »

"There are two schools of thought on bicycle infrastructure and the promotion of bicycling. Vehicular Cycling, promoted by the U.S. beginning in the 1970’s, and Segregated Bicycling, promoted by Amsterdam beginning in the 1970’s.
The results quite loudly speak for themselves and that should be the end of the story."

http://streets.mn/2014/05/06/promote-vehicular-cycling-really/

I'm in two minds on the whole issue, so I can't really comment. However, it's misleading to contrast the Netherlands and the USA and say that favouring segregation leads to massive cycling participation. The Dutch had very high but rapidly falling levels of cycling participation when they introduced segregation strategies (and they did much more than just segregation). Their current levels are higher than then, but not as spectacularly as you might think. They arrested a steep fall (then endemic in virtually all industrialised countries), stabilised it and then grew it. That in itself is of great merit.



(That graph may not be 100% accurate, but I think the trends are pretty much right.)

The USA, by contrast, never had high levels of cycling participation.

There are examples of raising cycling particpation markedly from low levels by building pleasant cycling facilities that at the very least aren't much slower than the main road, so it isn't the argument for segregation per se that I have a problem with. It's just some people (and I don't mean mrbike) are being either simplistic or dishonest when they imply that the Netherlands and the USA chose different paths but essentially took off from the same point.

(It's also misleading to say, as the quote above does, that VC was promoted by the US. It was promoted most famously and certainly most indefatigably by John Forester in the US, but he isn't a politician or a federal or state employee in the field of transport; he's a very influential but private campaigner. VC certainly isn't a philosophy that the USA has any official interest in promoting abroad.)

tomasrojo

When I say I'm in two minds, I just mean that VC has very good advice in it. In one of its two manifestations, it's essentially a shortcut to techniques and knowledge that would be acquired more painfully and over a much longer period on your own. In its other manifestation, it can look like and in fact be an inflexible opposition to anything that smacks of segregation.

It is possible to be a fan of VC from the first perspective without subscribing to the second. I definitely have benefited more from reading Cyclecraft than from all the efforts of Dublin road engineers so far. On the other hand, I would like more pleasant routes for cyclists, and I don't mind my journey being a little longer if I take the more pleasant route, and for vulnerable or nervous road users these more pleasant routes would be much more important.

But the insulting crap served up to cyclists by road engineers in Ireland for the last few decades really doesn't help the case for segregation, and probably has driven more than a few cyclists into inflexible opposition.

tomasrojo

Incidentally, I assume that there will be a sharp rise in cyclists using the quays once the DB stands at Heuston go live, so fresh thoughts on how to apportion space on the quays are probably much needed.

monument

gadetra wrote: »

Your comments on vehicular cycling being the preserve of young men are way wide of the mark by the way, that is absolutely not the case.

It's not that far off the mark at all. The vast bulk of people following the vehicular cycling are men aged 20-40.

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

To be clear. I'm against cycling infrastructure not because I want to cycle at 30kph, but because I think its counterproductive in promoting cycling.

And the people who seem to have weekly run-ins with buses, taxis etc. are as much part of the problem as the those who say they're too afraid to take a bike on to a main road. How can some people commute daily and only have one or two incidents a year and others have so many encounters they feel the need to invest in helmet cameras?

What I want to see is, I suspect, much the same as what you want to see: ordinary people being unafraid to take to the road on ordinary bikes at ordinary speeds. I just don't think that trying to cordon them off is best way to encourage them.

It's often called segregation and the most visible product of segregation is a segregated cycle path, the US has a trend of calling them "protected bike lanes", and you call it "cordoning them off".

But regardless of what segregation is called. Where networks are developed, the level of cycling appears to increase. There's all sorts of excuses why the Dutch and Danish networks cannot be compared to here, so thankfully we now have a growing body of evidence from elsewhere...

The US:
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/protected-bike-lanes-arent-just-safer-they-can-also-increase-cycling/371958/

Spain:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/11/sevilla-velo-city-2011.html

But the Netherlands remains a good example as, if you dig deeper, you'll find that cycling rates are still increasing in cities and regions which keep investing in infrastructure.

tomasrojo wrote: »

When I say I'm in two minds, I just mean that VC has very good advice in it. In one of its two manifestations, it's essentially a shortcut to techniques and knowledge that would be acquired more painfully and over a much longer period on your own. In its other manifestation, it can look like and in fact be an inflexible opposition to anything that smacks of segregation.

It is possible to be a fan of VC from the first perspective without subscribing to the second. I definitely have benefited more from reading Cyclecraft than from all the efforts of Dublin road engineers so far. On the other hand, I would like more pleasant routes for cyclists, and I don't mind my journey being a little longer if I take the more pleasant route, and for vulnerable or nervous road users these more pleasant routes would be much more important.

But the insulting crap served up to cyclists by road engineers in Ireland for the last few decades really doesn't help the case for segregation, and probably has driven more than a few cyclists into inflexible opposition.

The best way I've heard it put is that Cyclecraft etc are survival guides which can be used until conditions are improved.

Others see it as a way of life and there's no need to improve streets, besides maybe removing any cycling infra.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Incidentally, I assume that there will be a sharp rise in cyclists using the quays once the DB stands at Heuston go live, so fresh thoughts on how to apportion space on the quays are probably much needed.

...and a sharp rise in the numbers using their own segregation -- ie the Luas line.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

...and a sharp rise in the numbers using their own segregation -- ie the Luas line.

Very good point.

dreamerb

tomasrojo wrote: »

When I say I'm in two minds, I just mean that VC has very good advice in it. In one of its two manifestations, it's essentially a shortcut to techniques and knowledge that would be acquired more painfully and over a much longer period on your own. In its other manifestation, it can look like and in fact be an inflexible opposition to anything that smacks of segregation.

It is possible to be a fan of VC from the first perspective without subscribing to the second. [...]

I agree completely with this. I had a somewhat unpleasant accident as a result of which I didn't cycle for nearly five years. I had several factors feeding into cycling again: general reduction in traffic volumes (Dublin 2005-2010), increase in cyclist numbers, and finding advice here and on bikeradar on road positioning and how to avoid problems.

I learned from it but I was also put off cycling for a long time. My accident happened when I was in an on road "cycle lane" on the north quays. If I'd been using full vehicular cycling techniques, it might not have happened (though there's no doubt, it was the driver's fault, as the conviction and penalty points illustrate).

My personal view and experience is that many on-road cycle lanes place cyclists on left-turn conflicts where the cyclist may have an unjustified sense of safety by complying with the "infrastructure". I no longer trust lines on the road - accompanied by that fast-degrading red sand stuff or otherwise - as anything more than maybe, at best, a helpful suggestion. And sometimes, road lines purporting to mark "cycle lanes" are actively inimical to cyclist safety.

So, I'm currently agnostic about any further DCC cycle lane initiatives.

If they do it well, it could be a big improvement - fail and they'll annoy absolutely everyone.

buffalo

Reading the Sindo today*, they ran a head-to-head piece on the proposed traffic plan - one from a motorist's perspective, the other from a cyclist's.

Both argued against the cycle lane. Exasperating way of doing a set of point and counterpoint articles.



*I was in a waiting room, it wasn't really by choice

Idleater

buffalo wrote: »

Both argued against the cycle lane. Exasperating way of doing a set of point and counterpoint articles.

It's okay, there were a couple of fantastic snippets worth taking apart cycling related spread across each part of the Irish Times.

I was tempted to send in a letter simply telling the mph man that not only do we not demarcate speeds in miles any more, but even when we did 35 wasn't one.

Plenty of useful insights for the new bike Lane target audience in the etiquette column.

CramCycle

Idleater wrote: »

It's okay, there were a couple of fantastic snippets worth taking apart cycling related spread across each part of the Irish Times.

Sorry, thought it was the off topic thread, this was way off topic.

bambergbike

There is more on that Portland categorization here:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497

Describing the four general categories of transportation cyclists in Portland and their differing needs best precedes a discussion of bikeway treatments. For lack of better terminology, Portlanders can be placed into one of the four following groups based on their relationship to bicycle transportation[2]: “The Strong and the Fearless,” “The Enthused and the Confident,” “The Interested but Concerned.” The fourth group are non-riders, called the “No Way No How” group.

I think this typology is useful in that it has put one question firmly out there: what do change if we want people who are tempted by cycling for some journeys but currently too fearful to cycle to get started? It is valid to suggest that the presence of nervous cyclists, footpath cyclists or current non-cyclists represent latent demand for proper conditions for cycling.

I think the typolology is unhelpful in that it implies that there is no need to worry about the strong and fearless - they are strong and fearless and will cycle anyway, the priority is to broaden the cycling base.

The problems with that approach are two-fold:
1) Assertive vehicular cyclists are often not really fearless at all - they just have different fears. Where some cyclists might worry about cycling on the road, sharing with cars, an assertive vehicular cyclist might be more worried by the prospect of using a narrow segregated two-way cycle path adjacent to the road where they could suddenly be knocked into the road (straight into the path of an oncoming car) if they touched handlebars with a rider coming the other way, or a pedestrian waiting at a bus stop suddenly stepped out, or a dog ran in front of them.

2) Assertive vehicular cyclists are often mile eaters. If we want to increase the proportion of jouneys made by bike and the absolute mileage covered by bike, we need to facilitate the people who cycle day-in, day out in hail, rain, sunshine and snow and take their needs seriously. As somebody who sometimes cycles simply because I haven't got a practical alternative, I have come across a lot of segregated infrastructure which might be a boon to cyclists on summer Sundays but is not much good to them on a foggy night in December and I resent the suggestion that it's selfish of me to highlight my own needs as a vehicular cyclist to policy-makers.

The whole "vehicular" versus "segregated" debate is getting a bit tired and outmoded anyway. People seem to feel compelled to join one camp or the other when nearly everybody is somewhere in the middle and has different preferences in different environments. I used a pedestrian crossing the other day rather than navigate my way across six lanes of traffic moving at 60 km/h in a city I don't know, so I'm not a pure vehicular cyclist. But I only support segregation in cases where it solves a particular problem or confers a particular benefit.

Take Cemetry Road in Sligo. The narrow cycle lanes on both sides of the road were put in purely for the sake of putting in cycle infrastructure (because segregation is good, right?) without answering the question: "what problem does segregation solve here?" If the designers had thought for five seconds about the difficulties cyclists actually face on this route, or gone out and cycled it, they would have realized that wobbly cyclists struggling up the hill might appreciate a wide cycle lane (a climbing lane for bikes) that would give them a decent buffer against overtaking cars going at up to three times their speed, and allow 20 km/h cyclists to get past 10 km/h cyclists without frightening them and making them wobble even more. And the designers would then have realized that they could "steal" that extra space needed from the other side of the road, where cyclists don't need it: downhill cyclists are going at exactly the same speed as traffic, or at least fast enough for it to be reasonable to expect other traffic to remain behind them, and it's not helpful to squeeze cyclists into the edge of the road and encourage cars to overtake them needlessly (only for the cyclists to pass the cars again seconds later in the queue at the T-junction at the bottom of the hill.)

A pure vehicular cycling "share the road" admonishment with a 30 km/h speed limit and maybe a few sharrows is clearly not enough provision for children and teenagers wobbling uphill with heavy schoolbags. But there isn't space for a perfect pure segregated solution with wide cycle lanes on both sides of the road on this road originally built for horses and carts. So the best possible solution would be vehicular on one side of the road, the downhill side (sharrows, "expect cyclists" sign), and segregated on the other, the uphill side (cycle lane). We are currently not getting solutions like that that mix the best of vehicular cycling with the best of segregated cycling to create the best conditions for cycling. We will only get them when we take off the vehicular vs. segregated blinkers and think more in terms of problems and possible solutions.

Obviously hills and climbing lanes are a special case, but I think the principle holds more generally that we have often done segregation badly because we have seen segregation (aka "building stuff for cyclists") as an end in itself rather than as a means to create better conditions for cycling.

Living in a town with 25% modal share for cycling, I see a lot of disabled or elderly cyclists, and I regularly see loads of them using vehicular cycling techniques quite competently. Vehicular techniques ARE accessible to very large swathes of the population once traffic has been tamed to some degree, and in urban areas, that has to happen anyway, not just for cyclists, but for general liveability. So I think vehicular cycling is plausible as a default setting in 30 km/environments (which could easily cover 70% of urban streets) and I think it's a shame that it is so often dismissed out of hand as only for the speedy and fearless and not even considered as an option by designers in places where it would work better than some of the alternatives considered.

Cemetry road is an examle of what goes wrong when the default is segregation for the sake of segregation wherever possible. Vehicular by default and segregated only where the benefits are clear would have yielded a much better solution.

So I'm a vehicularist, but not such a dyed-in-the-wool vehicularist that I don't see value in overriding my vehicular defaults when something better is possible and it's clear why it represents an improvement.

The main argument against vehicular cycling seems to be that it has been tried and failed (in various English-speaking countries, in most of the world), and that segregated cycling has been tried and has worked (in The Netherlands and Denmark, sometimes Germany is also mentioned in that context.) I don't think that argument stands up to closer scrutiny.

Old-style vehicular cycling ("keeping up with traffic" in a motor-centric environment) is clearly not accessible to everybody in Ireland. But new-style vehicular cycling ("traffic goes at cyclist pace except where it is really, really safe to overtake cyclists") is something that could work in lots of places in Ireland - I regularly experience it working very well in Germany.

Decades before Ireland started building a lot of crap for cyclists and trying to compel them to use it (that didn't fly, did it?), Germany had already done the same. Irish engineers could learn a lot from the story of how the German design manuals have been repeatedly revised and become more "vehicular" from one revision to the next, but it's a very messy saga and still an ongoing one.

The Netherlands are different because they didn't build such awful crap (although their designs have also been revised very extensively over the years). Segregation hasn't encountered the same resistance there because it has been done much better. That's an option, and a valid one, if you can muster the necessary money and political will. If you copy their stuff on the cheap, it doesn't work.

Paradoxically, I think the best way to get proper funding for good schemes involving segregation - proper Dutch levels of funding -is to embrace vehicular cycling where it is more or less acceptable and concentrate the funding applications for segregation on a relatively small number of very high-quality schemes at locations where vehicular cycling is clearly sub-optimal. If people see high-quality segregation working well, demand for it wil increase, the levels of expertise needed to construct it will gradually increase, and the wilingness to fund it properly on a wider scale will increase. The current funding structures don't have enough quality control built in.

bambergbike

monument wrote: »

But regardless of what segregation is called. Where networks are developed, the level of cycling appears to increase. There's all sorts of excuses why the Dutch and Danish networks cannot be compared to here, so thankfully we now have a growing body of evidence from elsewhere...

The US:
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/protected-bike-lanes-arent-just-safer-they-can-also-increase-cycling/371958/

Spain:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/11/sevilla-velo-city-2011.html

The trouble with evidence from places where mass cycling is only beginning to take off is that it doesn't demonstatrate that protected bike lanes - or whatever you want to call them - are safe in places where mass cycling is already a reality.

Living in a place with a mix of segregated and non-segregated network elements, I have seen segregated infrastructure (of sub-Dutch standard) perform quite badly in a context where 25% of all journeys are made by bike. If the same infrastructure was tested in New York, it would perform better simply because it wouldn't be under nearly the same pressure.

a148pro wrote: »

A publicity campaign to the effect that "cycling is safe" implicitly re-inforces the perception that it isn't ("an egg a day is ok").

Very true. Marketing is not what we need. But there are plenty of effective measures between the two poles of "soft" marketing and "hard" engineering. (More drivers getting penalty points for dangerous overtaking would make me feel safer, for example.) Even within the engineering category, it is possible to engineer roads for successful sharing as well as to give different users designated space. So marketing/training versus segregation is a false choice.

a148pro wrote: »

You are critical of cycling infrastructure, but if it was done well it would be good for cycling. It hasn't been done well so far but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Yes, but:

dreamerb wrote: »

If they do it well, it could be a big improvement - fail and they'll annoy absolutely everyone.

Sounds like we should try, but cautiously. Quality control will be key.

tomasrojo wrote: »

In one of its two manifestations [VC is] essentially a shortcut to techniques and knowledge that would be acquired more painfully and over a much longer period on your own.

Or possibly never - VC is often very counter-intuitive. It's natural for cyclists to worry most about following drivers - they get the most aggro from following drivers. It took John Franklin to make me realize that following drivers can see me and know what I'm doing and that danger on the roads doesn't usually come from the same sources as the bulk of the aggression and general argy-bargy I encounter.