Should cycle lanes be demolished?

Roadhawk

Not singling out any one particular area I think cycle lanes in general are a great concept for traffic when they are used. So many cycle lanes both new and old go un-used because it is more convenient for a cyclist to use the general traffic lane. From what I gather from the general chatter on boards about cycle lanes the majority are complaining about poor route layouts, poor infrastructure and poor maintenance... I can’t help but to feel that the expectations for these cycle tracks are beyond reality. Regarding layouts, the vast majority of roads with bicycle traffic have cycle lanes. Some new with bi-directional tracks. Like all other roads for motorists. The road is built and you choose your route according to the road. My understanding is that those complaining about whether the route goes “this way or that way” are just being pedantic because ultimately if you are on a bike you are skipping motorist traffic and are getting to the same destination give or take 5 mins anyway. The infrastructure has evolved quite a bit over time…many lanes are now bi-directional and segregated and some junctions have cycling specific traffic lights. City planners have gone through great lengths to continuously improve the level of safety for the cyclists. As result Dublin is now one of the safest cities in Europe to cycle. Addressing the maintenance I can clearly say that some of the cycle lanes around Dublin are completely unusable to the like of a daily commuter. Being realistic, if the laws were not changed by Leo Varadkar in 2012 to allow cyclists use the general roads even where a cycle lane is present, then the current cycle network would have to be maintained better than it is to sustain the traffic on them. It looks like the government got a good deal financially here.

For the current estimated 11,000 daily bicycle users the existing infrastructure is sufficient in my opinion.

In my view there should be an ultimatum were either no more cycle lanes are built and existing one removed for better road space for all road users or the cycle network is expanded exponentially but cyclists have no choice other than to use the lane where provided.

magicbastarder

because of course, when cycle lanes were compulsory, they were an absolute model of intelligently designed infrastructure.

I can’t help but to feel that the expectations for these cycle tracks are beyond reality.

when your expectations are that cycle tracks should make cycling safer rather than more dangerous, yes, those expectations are beyond reality.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

So many cycle lanes both new and old go un-used because it is more convenient for a cyclist to use the general traffic lane. .

You are so right! :rolleyes:

2RockMountain

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You are so right! :rolleyes:

Lots more where that came from;

https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreetheCycleLanes?src=hash

jive

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You are so right! :rolleyes:

Not trying to be smart but the opinions that cycle lanes should be used at all times are from people who don't cycle in them, or they cycle in some of the very few decent stretches of cycling lanes available.

Anyone who cycles regularly in Dublin knows:
1) How bad the cycling infrastructure is and
2) How dangerous it genuinely is due to point #1

It's not even a matter of upkeep or debris in cycle lanes in the majority of cases, it's just dimwitted planning or lanes painted onto roads as an after-thought.

The poor infrastructure is hampering the uptake of cycling as a commuting option for many. Doing away with cycle lanes altogether will do nothing to assist that no matter how laughable they may be at the minute; the answer is to improve not to do away with it altogether because it is so bad presently.

Fian

Roadhawk wrote: »

So many cycle lanes both new and old go un-used because it is more convenient for a cyclist to use the general traffic lane. ..........

I can’t help but to feel that the expectations for these cycle tracks are beyond reality. .

My own expectation for using a cycle lane is that it be a preferable/safer/more pleasant option for me than using the road. Otherwise I will (and do) use the road. If they provide a cycle lane with a yield sign for every minor road coming on to the road, or even for individual driveways,then yeah I will continue to take the option of using the road and having the right of way. That is entirely predictable and rational.

In the same way I wouldn't use a motorway that took a ridiculous winding or circuitous route to get from A to B such that I would be better off driving on the ordinary roads to make the same journey. Say if the motorway from Dublin to Galway went via Sligo, I would use the old Dublin/Galway road instead. Basically i would use the route that was most convenient for me.

If that were the way motorway infrastructure were provided would you blame the motorists for not using the motorways or the NRA for putting in the infrastructure badly?

Roadhawk

2RockMountain wrote: »

Lots more where that came from;

https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreetheCycleLanes?src=hash

i do think that the Gardai should enforce the law of no parking in a cycle lane. there is no excuse not to but many of the picture in that link are exactly what i mean when i mention the expectations. the first picture is a puddle in a lane...i can understand if there is a flood or if the lane is unassailable but a puddle? come on.

KingBrian2

The good aspect about cycling lanes is that they are far less bumpy than non cycling lanes in parts of the city. Though not all the lanes are in the same level of good condition. It can be a nightmare of some of cycling lanes. Does your front wheel right in.

Gator88

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

In my opinion yes they should, most are not fit for purpose. A cyclist does not have to use it if one is present. We have a situation where 2-3 feet of lane is disused or more in some cases so doze it all and make the road wider.

We have them so we can report to Brussels how many thousands of kilometres of cycle lanes we have. Unfortunately Brussels doesn't seem interested in the quality

ted1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Not singling out any one particular area I think cycle lanes in general are a great concept for traffic when they are used. So many cycle lanes both new and old go un-used because it is more convenient for a cyclist to use the general traffic lane. From what I gather from the general chatter on boards about cycle lanes the majority are complaining about poor route layouts, poor infrastructure and poor maintenance... I can’t help but to feel that the expectations for these cycle tracks are beyond reality. Regarding layouts, the vast majority of roads with bicycle traffic have cycle lanes. Some new with bi-directional tracks. Like all other roads for motorists. The road is built and you choose your route according to the road. My understanding is that those complaining about whether the route goes “this way or that way” are just being pedantic because ultimately if you are on a bike you are skipping motorist traffic and are getting to the same destination give or take 5 mins anyway. The infrastructure has evolved quite a bit over time…many lanes are now bi-directional and segregated and some junctions have cycling specific traffic lights. City planners have gone through great lengths to continuously improve the level of safety for the cyclists. As result Dublin is now one of the safest cities in Europe to cycle. Addressing the maintenance I can clearly say that some of the cycle lanes around Dublin are completely unusable to the like of a daily commuter. Being realistic, if the laws were not changed by Leo Varadkar in 2012 to allow cyclists use the general roads even where a cycle lane is present, then the current cycle network would have to be maintained better than it is to sustain the traffic on them. It looks like the government got a good deal financially here.

For the current estimated 11,000 daily bicycle users the existing infrastructure is sufficient in my opinion.

In my view there should be an ultimatum were either no more cycle lanes are built and existing one removed for better road space for all road users or the cycle network is expanded exponentially but cyclists have no choice other than to use the lane where provided.

You have it all wrong and clearly don't cycle, they are not used because they are dangerous and or in poor condition.
Try cycling and you'll change your opinion.

Tenzor07

jive wrote: »

Not trying to be smart but the opinions that cycle lanes should be used at all times are from people who don't cycle in them,.

Sarcasm detector not working?

2RockMountain

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The good aspect about cycling lanes is that they are far less bumpy than non cycling lanes in parts of the city. Though not all the lanes are in the same level of good condition. It can be a nightmare of some of cycling lanes. Does your front wheel right in.

Yes, the red tarmac seems to peel off more easily than standard tarmac. A lot of the lanes around Grange Road and Stonemasons Way are in poor surface condition, so I stay well out in the road.

Roadhawk wrote: »

i do think that the Gardai should enforce the law of no parking in a cycle lane. there is no excuse not to but many of the picture in that link are exactly what i mean when i mention the expectations. the first picture is a puddle in a lane...i can understand if there is a flood or if the lane is unassailable but a puddle? come on.

Expectations? The only expectation is of the lane being fit for purpose, so cyclists can cycle. If the picture of the flood/puddle offends you, have a look at the Twitter search link again now and you'll see it's been moved down the page, replaced with this evening's collection of blocked cycle lanes.

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

Not singling out any one particular area I think cycle lanes in general are a great concept for traffic when they are used. So many cycle lanes both new and old go un-used because it is more convenient for a cyclist to use the general traffic lane. From what I gather from the general chatter on boards

From what I gather you're obsessed with cycling and it's not general chatter, you're reading a lot... but it's funny you get selective things so wrong...

Roadhawk wrote: »

For the current estimated 11,000 daily bicycle users the existing infrastructure is sufficient in my opinion.

There's far more than 11k cyclists on Dublin city centre streets and roads, before we talk about the rest of Dublin. The 11k figure is just those crossing the canal cordon between a few hours, it does not count many trips which do not cross that line or the many DublinBikes and other cycling trips inside it.

And the trend is more and more cyclists despite the not very attractive conditions -- imagine if Dublin followed London, where there has been a ~60% increase in cycling in a very short time on routes where high-quality segregation was added.

But, at the end of the day, the current figure do not matter as much as you're trying to claim, because the policy is to increase cycling, not just to look after those currently cycling.

Roadhawk wrote: »

In my view there should be an ultimatum were either no more cycle lanes are built and existing one removed for better road space for all road users or the cycle network is expanded exponentially but cyclists have no choice other than to use the lane where provided.

Or, you know, we could just build half decent cycling infrastructure and the vast bulk of people would just use it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWrd9rrmaI

ted1

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yes, the red tarmac seems to peel off more easily than standard tarmac. A lot of the lanes around Grange Road and Stonemasons Way are in poor surface condition, so I stay well out in the road.



Expectations? The only expectation is of the lane being fit for purpose, so cyclists can cycle. If the picture of the flood/puddle offends you, have a look at the Twitter search link again now and you'll see it's been moved down the page, replaced with this evening's collection of blocked cycle lanes.

I suspect that the red Tarmac is not laid as per manufacturers guideline and is put done by a tool that is to light as opposed to a heavy roller

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

i do think that the Gardai should enforce the law of no parking in a cycle lane. there is no excuse not to but many of the picture in that link are exactly what i mean when i mention the expectations. the first picture is a puddle in a lane...i can understand if there is a flood or if the lane is unassailable but a puddle? come on.

How do you know what's under the puddle? On cycle lanes near me the drain was never raised after new layers of surfacing were put down and when there's "puddles" you can't see that cycling into it would damage your wheel and/or knock you off your bike and possibly into a truck or car passing by.

galwaycyclist

ted1 wrote: »

I suspect that the red Tarmac is not laid as per manufacturers guideline and is put done by a tool that is to light as opposed to a heavy roller

In other countries the red tarmac is red tarmac. So the final surface layer or "wearing course" has a different colour to the other layer but it is all the same material.

In Ireland they tend to apply a red coloured slurry on top of the "final" surface layer afterwards rather than constructing the road properly.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

How do you know what's under the puddle? On cycle lanes near me the drain was never raised after new layers of surfacing were put down and when there's "puddles" you can't see that cycling into it would damage your wheel and/or knock you off your bike and possibly into a truck or car passing by.

I seem to recall breaking a front axle once while cycling through a "puddle".

sdanseo

Cycle lanes are provided sporadically, and that's the problem. You need a continuous stretch of a few km on major arteries for people to use them and we simply don't have many stretches like that which are of acceptable quality without interruption by stupid obstacles or badly junctions.

Add roundabouts into this equation and you have a recipe for under-use.

Our streets - certainly the major routes in and out of cities - need a root and branch redesign to adequately provide for everyone. One good investment of a billion euro and six months of disruption and you could re-surface and re-layout almost all of them. Unfortunately that would be a bold, progressive move. We don't do that here.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Do away with them.
Cyclists belong on the road.
Take the road space. You are moving slower and should be overtaken if it is appropriate.

You actually show the reason why it's a bad idea immediately after suggesting you do away with them. Skateboarders, rollerbladers, and motorised shopping carts are typically as fast as bicycles in urban environments, and just as vulnerable. Unlike those other modes of transport, bicycles are actually practical for commuting, and so we go with the unideal situation of bicycles being on the road.

I mean bicycles are the only mode of transport allowed on the roads that aren't allowed on motorways - and it is for a good reason!

This is speaking both as someone who cycles and drives. Cyclists are a menace to drivers: difficult to overtake and have to be carefully watched, and are nowhere near as fast to keep up with the flow of traffic in normal situations.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Montpelier Hill wrote: »

Some of the more recent cycle lanes have been built to a good standard - Churchtown road, Dublin and Blackrock bypass cycle paths for example, but unfortunately these are the exeption. I'd still use some of the badly designed paths depending on how safe it is to cycle on the road. For example, I'd cycle on the n11 cycle path and put up with the poor layouts, bad surface and the conflicts with pedestrians, only because I don't want buses whizzing by me where there's no space.

Unfortunately the one in Blackrock was only introduced after a cyclist was crushed to death by a truck at an intersection along the bypass.

2RockMountain

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

YCyclists are a menace to drivers: difficult to overtake and have to be carefully watched, and are nowhere near as fast to keep up with the flow of traffic in normal situations.

Yes indeed, look at all those cases of drivers killed and injured by cyclists each year. Oh wait...

In most urban traffic, it's the cars holding up the cyclists, not the other way round.

cython

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

You actually show the reason why it's a bad idea immediately after suggesting you do away with them. Skateboarders, rollerbladers, and motorised shopping carts are typically as fast as bicycles in urban environments, and just as vulnerable. Unlike those other modes of transport, bicycles are actually practical for commuting, and so we go with the unideal situation of bicycles being on the road.

Personally speaking, the only way any of the modes of transport you quoted would be the same speed as cycling for me is if I'm stuck in slow moving traffic while cycling, in which case the speed of larger vehicles is of little concern.

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I mean bicycles are the only mode of transport allowed on the roads that aren't allowed on motorways - and it is for a good reason!

This is not quite true though, is it? Vehicles not capable of exceeding 50km/h, or vehicles with <50cc engines are not allowed on motorways either, while they are allowed on other roads.

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

This is speaking both as someone who cycles and drives. Cyclists are a menace to drivers: difficult to overtake and have to be carefully watched, and are nowhere near as fast to keep up with the flow of traffic in normal situations.

Now you're just exaggerating to suit your agenda, and I'm not going to get into hyperbolae.

magicbastarder

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Skateboarders, rollerbladers, and motorised shopping carts are typically as fast as bicycles in urban environments

you're gonna need to provide evidence of this for me to take the claim in any way seriously.

OneOfThem Stumbled

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're gonna need to provide evidence of this for me to take the claim in any way seriously.

It depends largely on environment. Uphill, bikes are generally a few km p/h , while modes of transport predominantly dependent on gravity will have no speed at all. Mobility scooters are on average around 6 km p/h. Bikes are probably on average over urban journeys around 12-20 km p/h but can obviously get to very high speeds on open flat stretches (top bike speed ever recorded is 133 km p/h). Cars are obviously many magnitudes faster than a bike in urban environments in anything other than traffic jams. This shouldn't have to be pointed out.

cython wrote: »

Now you're just exaggerating to suit your agenda, and I'm not going to get into hyperbolae.

There are virtually no lanes in Dublin that can fit a bike and car at the same time (without a car either going somewhat into a neighbouring lane or driving dangerously). There is virtually no time where being in a car driving behind a bike would constitute reasonable progress. The only option is to overtake, which is a hassle and may not be always suitable. As a cyclist I generally slow down to aid drivers doing this.

magicbastarder

i repeat my previous post.
'typically as fast' - and then you cite one ludicrous example, and another example where the mode of transport is between one half and one third of the speed of the bike.

OneOfThem Stumbled

magicbastarder wrote: »

i repeat my previous post.
'typically as fast' - and then you cite one ludicrous example, and another example where the mode of transport is between one half and one third of the speed of the bike.

I don't know where you're going with this argument. Are you suggesting that cyclists are as fast as cars, or aren't vulnerable road users? I should have said "can be" instead of "typically". My main point was that someone on rollerblades or a skatebaord has the same base level of protection as someone on a bike (which is basically zero).

2RockMountain

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

There are virtually no lanes in Dublin that can fit a bike and car at the same time (without a car either going somewhat into a neighbouring lane or driving dangerously). There is virtually no time where being in a car driving behind a bike would constitute reasonable progress. The only option is to overtake, which is a hassle and may not be always suitable. As a cyclist I generally slow down to aid drivers doing this.

There are virtually no lanes where a car can safely overtake a bike leaving the RSA recommended 1.5m passing space without going into a neighbouring lane.

It is completely untrue to say the 'only option is to overtake'. Do I need to spell out the options for you?

magicbastarder

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I don't know where you're going with this argument.

As I was taking what you were saying at face value, I think it's truer to say that you didn't know where you were going with your own argument.

OneOfThem Stumbled

2RockMountain wrote: »

It is completely untrue to say the 'only option is to overtake'. Do I need to spell out the options for you?

The other options are 1. To stay behind the cyclist. 2. Run over the cyclist. 3. Stop the car. 4. Reverse. 5. Do a U-turn

I think that's all of them.

What a tiresome question.

magicbastarder wrote: »

I think it's truer to say that you didn't know where you were going with your own argument.

My own argument is essentially that treating motorists and cyclists as essentially the same thing is flawed, they are two very different beasts.

HivemindXX

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

The other options are 1. To stay behind the cyclist. 2. Run over the cyclist. 3. Stop the car. 4. Reverse. 5. Do a U-turn

I think that's all of them.

What a tiresome question.

Tiresome why? Option one seems reasonable to me. The real question is why so many people can't wait behind a cyclist until it is safe to over take. Really I think people with that sort of problem shouldn't be driving at all.

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

My own argument is essentially that treating motorists and cyclists as essentially the same thing is flawed, they are two very different beasts.

Nobody is doing that. Some people are saying they should both use the road. That's hardly the same. This is a straw man.

I guess your posting of the world speed record on a skateboard is you admitting that your assertion that skateboarders, rollerbladers and motorised shopping carts (whatever one of those is) are just as fast as bicycles is nonsense. However in case it wasn't the world speed record for downhill cycling is around 220kph, so 90kph faster than a skateboard.