Should cycle lanes be demolished?

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

Friend of mine broke his nose doing same.

ted1

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

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

Even at that it's crap, 8 set of lights. Going out if town towards dun Laoighre it's much better to use the park , they should have spent the money in a cpo to widen the path along side the DART track

magicbastarder

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.

are you saying that they shouldn't share the same space?

cython

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

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.

So that's the one part of my post you take issue with? I should probably have been clearer that I was referring to your claim that "cyclists are a menace" as the specific hyperbolae. As has been pointed out, if cyclists are a menace, then what classification do all the other classes of vehicles on the road, all of which capable of doing much more damage, and all of which have a subset of drivers who are just as wont to carry out idiotic and erratic manoeuvres as the worst of cyclists? When you look at the bigger picture, I think you'll find that some cyclists are a nuisance at worst.

All that being said, I also regard your first sentence in the above post as being something of an exaggeration - there are plenty such lanes/roads in Dublin. Now that is not to say that there are not plenty where it's not possible too, but as always, we are not bound to select descriptions from extremes! Personally I commute over 100km each week in and around Dublin, and while I usually follow the same route, I change it up sometimes too. Granted I don't make a point of going down narrow side streets, but I've the number of roads I've commuted on falling into what you describe would be in the minority.

As for slowing down to let drivers pass, if traffic is free-flowing enough, then I'll generally be able to do 25 km/h or better, depending on conditions, like weather, road gradient, etc. Average speeds for cars in the city centre are actually significantly less than that, and while they travel faster than that at times, the rest of the time is made up at traffic lights, when I as a cyclist will frequently catch them again anyway. For example I have frequently noted a car (specifically a taxi, so permitted to use bus lanes, etc.) being level with me at Heuston station, and 3km further into the city, they are still level with me, despite me not interacting with them directly - so why exactly should I as a cyclist pull in or slow down to let traffic past when if I continued as normal I would in all likelihood make the same or better progress compared to them?!

Carawaystick

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I Are you suggesting that cyclists are as fast as cars,

Cyclists are as fast as cars, if not faster.
I regularly cycle past cars in Drumcondra and they don't pass me again until Swords. and depending on traffic on the Swords bypass, I often pass them again.

magicbastarder

well, he was suggesting that skateboards and mobility scooters were as fast as bicycles, and then when asked for evidence provided evidence which contradicted his claim, so i wouldn't spend too much time examining those claims anymore.

ThisRegard

2RockMountain wrote: »

Lots more where that came from;

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

FFS
https://twitter.com/condrof/status/741582888873938944

mrcheez

beauf wrote: »

Depends where you are talking about.

In some locations, in the city, where they are on the road, drivers stay out of them, giving you a much clear path to cycle on. In other places drivers ignore them. In some places they are designed so badly as to be worse than cycling on the road. So its a mixed bad. Also depends what you are doing. If I'm commuting, I want a different type of path than say cycling with the kids at the weekend, or cycling to school.

In general I prefer to keep the lanes than get rid of them. I find them useful at times. I also think they raise the profile of cycling, especially for those not used to cycling.

Perhaps you are talking about another type of lanes. Perhaps out of the city.

Agree with all of this.

When the traffic is heavy (read: at a stand-still) in Dublin at least, *most* cars stay out of the cycle lanes allowing a clear-way for cyclists to get through.

If there were no cycle lanes, there would be more cars up against the kerb mixed with cars up against the centre lane (my preference when I drive) so no free way either kerbside or centre-side.

Of course there are some motorists that ignore these, but they would be the exception rather than the rule.

So no, I think keep them, if only to raise the awareness that cyclists use the route, as beauf suggested... not forgetting the expense of removing them. Money that is better spent on improving road surfaces or projects like the Sutton-to-Sandycove cycleway.

ThisRegard

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.

It's probably a toss up which you are worse at if you believe any of this?

devnull

Personally as a recent convert to cyclists, I find pedestrians the biggest hazard I encounter and on cycle lanes.

In the last week I've nearly had two accidents when a pedestrian came from nowhere running fast, wearing headphones, whilst having head almost 360 degrees in opposite direction and then blaming ME for coming too close.

LeinsterDub

Sligo1 wrote: »

Goatstown Road/Mt Anville Road in Dublin. Absolute twats of cyclists constantly using footpath. Nearly been mowed down two or three times coming around a corner with a buggy. I wish cyclists would stay off the footpath (unless they are young children).

I nearly won the lotto two or three times . I'm nearly not in work now and nearly living the high live nearly drinking a cocktail in the Bahamas

droidus

Ive noticed a preponderance of non-cyclists in cycle/bus lanes over the last while, its becoming a bit of a trend. A guy on a skateboard in Ranelagh, another guy on a skateboard along the South Quays at 9AM, people on rollerblades on three occasions, someone on a push-scooter in Phibsbrough.

All of them travelling FAR slower than the cyclists who have to overtake them.

devnull

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I nearly won the lotto two or three times . I'm nearly not in work not and nearly living the high live nearly drinking a cocktail in the Bahamas

Most of the time I found the nearly incidents are when cyclists have to take evasive action because of some stupid person who walked out in front of the bike not looking where they are oging, some driver doesn't give you room to turn despite signalling and some bus tries to squeeze you into the kerb.

Tenzor07

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

This is speaking both as someone who cycles and drives.

Ah the good old "I'm not a racist..but you see Johnny Foreigner over there!"

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Cars/Vans/Trucks are a menace to cyclists: difficult to overtake and have to be carefully watched, and are nowhere near as fast to keep up with the flow of traffic on city streets.

FYP!

Roadhawk

ted1 wrote: »

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.

I now cycle to and from work. I definitely see more as a cyclist and my opinion is only reinforced through my experience cycling.

Roadhawk

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

I hope the council footed the bill?

genericguy

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.

Yes because cyclists go where they like anyway.

2RockMountain

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.

You forgot option 6 - wait for a safe opportunity to overtake, just like you do with any other road user.

Pity that I need to spell that out for you.

T-Maxx

Generally I'd agree with the OP and be in favour of a single mixed use pedestrian/cyclist path.

magicbastarder

you mean a path where the difference in speed between the two types of user are probably a factor of 4 to 5 different?
i.e. a pedestrian walking at maybe 4-6km/h and a cyclist doing 25-30km/h?

T-Maxx

No, of course not.

You should always adapt your speed to the circumstances. And of course you as a cyclist you don't have to use this shared path, but it'll create a better (better must be safer no?) environment for pedestrians and (slower) cyclists alike.

And it'll be much cheaper to build as well.

buffalo

T-Maxx wrote: »

No, of course not.

You should always adapt your speed to the circumstances. And of course you as a cyclist you don't have to use this shared path, but it'll create a better (better must be safer no?) environment for pedestrians and (slower) cyclists alike.

And it'll be much cheaper to build as well.

Why not leave the cyclists on the road, and get all motorised traffic to adapt their speed to say, under 30kph? That will create a better environment for cyclists and (slower) motorists alike. And pedestrians too! And it would actually be demonstrably safer in terms of reduced fatalities and less severe injuries.


edit for links: I say actually because "when a pedestrian is struck, the likelihood of death increases faster than the percentage increase in vehicle speed, in a nonlinear fashion", so slowing motor traffic will reduce deaths and injury.
Whereas I'm not aware of any studies showing that mixing cyclists and pedestrians benefits anyone. Blind people certainly don't enjoy it.

mrcheez

buffalo wrote: »

Why not leave the cyclists on the road, and get all motorised traffic to adapt their speed to say, under 30kph? That will create a better environment for cyclists and (slower) motorists alike. And pedestrians too! And it would actually be demonstrably safer in terms of reduced fatalities and less severe injuries.

I think every driver should try cycling around the city at least once to see things from the other side. For one it makes you a far calmer driver and less impatient to get to the next red light faster.

I have no problems driving behind a set of cyclists at 30kph or less, patiently waiting until I have 1.5m distance to overtake safely, as I can imagine what it would be like for me if roles were reversed and a car scraped by me with a few cm to spare.

Doctor Bob

ted1 wrote: »

Even at that it's crap, 8 set of lights. Going out if town towards dun Laoighre it's much better to use the park , they should have spent the money in a cpo to widen the path along side the DART track

Harold's Cross to the 40 Foot via the park is 40 minutes for me; via the Blackrock Bypass it's 35 minutes. YMMV.

The issue of path widening and CPO at Deepwell came up before. See here.

beauf

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

....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.

....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.

At peak time there are always traffic jams. Lots of lights which you have to get through. Also a bike can take a different route, use bus lanes, so might indeed be quicker even without jams.

So in many cases there is no point in overtaking the bike as you'll be blocked by other traffic, lights, or just going a different route. You'll only be behind the bike a couple minutes at most.

But people overtake bike mainly out of impatience rather than it actually making any significant difference to their journey time.

galwaycyclist

beauf wrote: »

At peak time there are always traffic jams. Lots of lights which you have to get through. Also a bike can take a different route, use bus lanes, so might indeed be quicker even without jams.

So in many cases there is no point in overtaking the bike as you'll be blocked by other traffic, lights, or just going a different route. You'll only be behind the bike a couple minutes at most.

But people overtake bike mainly out of impatience rather than it actually making any significant difference to their journey time.

I seem to recall that some post grad in Trinity did a project on likely journey times bike vs car at peak hours. If I recall correctly the finding was that for most journeys starting inside the M50, and ending in the city centre, the bike would be as fast or faster than driving.

magicbastarder

i used to cycle from blanchardstown to leopardstown, about 15 years ago. at the time, there were the toll booths on the M50. the only way to go faster than a bicycle on my commute was to go via the M50, on motorbike; a colleague who lived nearby could rarely beat my commute times (typically under one hour).
even now, i suspect it probably wouldn't be madly faster to drive at rush hour, but that comes with a caveat that i'm not including time to change and shower, but i suppose you'd be doing that anyway...

ted1

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Harold's Cross to the 40 Foot via the park is 40 minutes for me; via the Blackrock Bypass it's 35 minutes. YMMV.

The issue of path widening and CPO at Deepwell came up before. See here.

The house was sold last year so things have changed. How does it take you an extra 5 minutes to go through the park? Honestly I really need to know because I can post starva recordings shown its faster and it's also safer. You come out at the DART station and use the infra flow cycle lane to get to the seapoint.

Pompous

In some cases cycle lanes make cycling more dangerous for those of us who prefer not to use them (there are many reasons to avoid certain bike lanes).

For example, angry motorists perform punishment passes on cyclists who use the road when there is a nearby footpath (that has a cycle lane painted on it).

This, coupled with the fact that most cycle 'lanes' are unfit for use, has me in favour of doing what OP proposes.

magicbastarder

this is one of the funnier examples of bad road design.
you want to go downhill on mobhi road? sure, you've a cycle lane, a bus lane and a car lane to choose from.
want to go uphill? just the one lane which is (probably) narrower than the downhill bus lane. funny thing is (based on what i've seen), the bus lane is required more uphill than it is downhill, but that may just be when i'm on the bus.
i regularly see cyclists using the footpath uphill, and they're dead right to do so.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3745473,-6.2654055,3a,75y,359.12h,71.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-4q7OyBKxWvZ6PGb9VI1Lg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en