Work opposite kingsbry straffan road

Orion

I thought the cycle lanes all the way down were supposed to be on road. Now it looks like at least half of it is on the path. Another waste of time and resources. I will never use an on-path cycle lane. So I'll be sticking to the road as before.

Redsoxfan

Orion wrote:

I thought the cycle lanes all the way down were supposed to be on road. Now it looks like at least half of it is on the path. Another waste of time and resources. I will never use an on-path cycle lane. So I'll be sticking to the road as before.

I wondered about this too. It's crazy, unless it's to serve children and parents (who will have to ring a bell to get pedestrians to move) vs commuter/recreational cyclists, who will, I'm sure continue to use the road itself.

I'd like to understand the logic myself.

L1011

Normally I'd assume it was a stretsweeper friendly setup and somewhat cyclable; but the lanes are full of manholes and posts to make them unusable

ixus

A consequence of keeping the turning lanes in place?

Orion

ixus wrote: »

A consequence of keeping the turning lanes in place?

Unlikely. That would make no difference. Dropping the cycle lane to road level with a kerb up to the path would take up no extra space.

L1011

ixus wrote: »

A consequence of keeping the turning lanes in place?

They weren't planned to be removed from the section in question in the first place.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

I will never use an on-path cycle lane. So I'll be sticking to the road as before.

I know its not the transport forum but what's wrong with off-road cycle tracks

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

I know its not the transport forum but what's wrong with off-road cycle tracks

Traditional issues for on-footpath cycle tracks include:

Not street swept, so get covered in debris
More likely to have utility hatches
More chance of drivers failing to see you and cut over at junctions

HonalD

L1011 wrote: »

Traditional issues for on-footpath cycle tracks include:

Not street swept, so get covered in debris
More likely to have utility hatches
More chance of drivers failing to see you and cut over at junctions

Ok but what would you like, if not an off-road cycle Track?

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

I know its not the transport forum but what's wrong with off-road cycle tracks

Lose priority at junctions.
Driveways with cars coming out.
Pedestrians in the cycle lane.
Obstructions such as post boxes, bus stops, etc.
Untended so covered in debris.
The list goes on.

It's safer to cycle on the road than on an offroad cycle path.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

Ok but what would you like, if not an off-road cycle Track?

The cycle lane should be on the road not on the path. That's best practice internationally.

And then enforcement to stop people parking in them but that's a pipe dream I know

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

Lose priority at junctions.
Driveways with cars coming out.
Pedestrians in the cycle lane.
Obstructions such as post boxes, bus stops, etc.
Untended so covered in debris.
The list goes on.

It's safer to cycle on the road than on an offroad cycle path.

What have I done? I was dreading a post like this. These things tend to go off in tangents but I have only one reply.

You are factually incorrect to claim that "It's safer to cycle on the road than on an off-road cycle path". I am surmising that it is your opinion.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

The cycle lane should be on the road not on the path. That's best practice internationally.

And then enforcement to stop people parking in them but that's a pipe dream I know

Ok, I'm sorry but I have to pull you up on this one too.

"Best practice internationally" does not equal "cycle lane should be on the road not on the path".

Comparing a cycle track in Maynooth to one along the Quays is tenuous at best. Comparing our "best" cycle track to one in Amsterdam or Copenhagen would give 2 opposite views as each of these cities do things very different.

I've no problem with anyone having a preference but to making a best practice argument doesn't stack up.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

What have I done? I was dreading a post like this. These things tend to go off in tangents but I have only one reply.

You are factually incorrect to claim that "It's safer to cycle on the road than on an off-road cycle path". I am surmising that it is your opinion.

If the choice is between a cycle lane on the path and cycling on the road then it is safer to cycle on the road for the reasons I already mentioned.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

If the choice is between a cycle lane on the path and cycling on the road then it is safer to cycle on the road for the reasons I already mentioned.

So the above is your personal opinion about the safety of cycling and not rooted in fact.

On a side note, your reasons given are dubious. For example, there are no frontages onto the section of Straffan Road cycle tracks. Also, debris accumulates beside the kerb just where cyclists are cycling on road.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

So the above is your personal opinion about the safety of cycling and not rooted in fact.

On a side note, your reasons given are dubious. For example, there are no frontages onto the section of Straffan Road cycle tracks. Also, debris accumulates beside the kerb just where cyclists are cycling on road.

It is rooted in the opinion and evidence of many cyclists. And i don't cycle beside the kerb. I cycle a metre away from away from that debris. While there may be no frontages on tha section on every other path cycle track i've seen there are - and that's apart from pedestrians, bus stops, lamposts etc. Say what you like but I will always cycle on the road rather than a path based track.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

It is rooted in the opinion and evidence of many cyclists. Say what you like but I will always cycle on the road rather than a path based track.

I've no problem with your view about off road versus on road cycle tracks. My point, as confirmed by you above, is that the safety claim it is your opinion but not factually correct.

lordgoat

HonalD wrote: »

I've no problem with your view about off road versus on road cycle tracks. My point, as confirmed by you above, is that the safety claim it is your opinion but not factually correct.

Well done, you're right.


http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

Orion

Maybe you should read the article - or even look at the photo. A dedicated bike lane - not one shared with pedestrians. If you look at the photo on that article there's a kerb between the path and the bike lane. What I was talking about above is cycle lanes shared with pedestrians. That is not what the article is talking about.

Some poor wording in that article too: "And protected bike lanes – with actual barriers separating cyclists from traffic" - bikes are traffic. I assume they mean "motor traffic"

This graph says it all. Multiuse path paved is one of the least safe.

HonalD

lordgoat wrote: »

Well done, you're right.


http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/10/dedicated-bike-lanes-can-cut-cycling-injuries-half/3654/

Thanks but I wouldn't pin my colours to the mast of one article. You can find anything on the Internet to support a certain view.

Just a thought, look at the circumstances of fatalities for on road cyclists - HGVs are a high risk factor. They do not drive on off road cycle tracks.

Orion

All road traffic is a high risk factor which is why such things as obeying the rules of the road, being aware of your surroundings (as in not wearing headphones for example), and basic common sense is important (e.g don't go up the inside of a bus or HGV - ever!). That said not one fatality last year had an HGV involved - another common misconception.

Cycling is a hell of a lot safer than people think. Some say despite the explosion in the numbers of people cycling, deaths have been dropping. I say because of the explosion in people cycling - there's a lot more awareness and there is safety in numbers. Facilities have not really improved - isolated instances only such as the greenways or, I believe, the new cycle facilities in Blackrock, Dublin - but awareness and respect has improved. Respect not helped by the minority of cyclists that ignore red lights but certainly improved.

http://irishcycle.com/2016/01/04/cycling-deaths-on-irish-roads-return-to-single-digits-in-2015/

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

Cycling is a hell of a lot safer than people think. Some say despite the explosion in the numbers of people cycling, deaths have been dropping. I say because of the explosion in people cycling - there's a lot more awareness and there is safety in numbers. Facilities have not really improved - isolated instances only such as the greenways or, I believe, the new cycle facilities in Blackrock, Dublin - but awareness and respect has improved. Respect not helped by the minority of cyclists that ignore red lights but certainly improved.

I'm not taking issue with anything you've said on safety except that it is not factually accurate to say it is safer to cycle on road.

Orion

HonalD wrote: »

I'm not taking issue with anything you've said on safety except that it is not factually accurate to say it is safer to cycle on road.

Look at that graph again. It is safer than a shared path. That's all I'm comparing in this thread as that's relevant to the straffan road.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

Look at that graph again. It is safer than a shared path. That's all I'm comparing in this thread as that's relevant to the straffan road.

Let me once and for all kill this discussion.

1. There is no such thing as a "cycle path" in Irish legislation.

2. It is not factually accurate to state that it is safer to cycle on road than on an off-road facility. As you have agreed this is an opinion.

3. Can we move on now please?

Orion

I wish you would move on. You're wrong - get over it.

HonalD

Orion wrote: »

I wish you would move on. You're wrong - get over it.

Look, I'm not going to be bullied off this thread.

My only reason for posting was you not separating fact from your personal opinion.

BuffyBot

Orion wrote: »

I wish you would move on. You're wrong - get over it.

You might think so, but its not your place to tell people where to go on this forum, or what to do.

I'd advise all posters to be mindful that respect, even for those you disagree with, is not optional on this forum

Orion

Apologies Buffybot.

HonalD - I wasn't trying to bully you off the thread although it may have come across that way. Let's just agree to disagree and both move on amicably if that's ok.