Should cycle lanes be demolished?

tomasrojo

Isn't the cycle lane on the footpath a contraflow? Utterly bizarre stretch of road alright.

magicbastarder

i don't see any markings on it to indicate anything other than a 'normal' cycle lane?

magicbastarder

also, worth pointing out - from a cyclist's point of view, the most limited options are on the uphill stretch. for less confident cyclists, this would mean they're travelling noticeably more slowly, thus more likely to be overtaken, which is not fun when it's buses overtaking you, trying to get back into lane as soon as possible. buses generally don't have the liberty of good wide overtaking manouevres on that stretch - especially since they're also hauling ass uphill while doing so.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see any markings on it to indicate anything other than a 'normal' cycle lane?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3748014,-6.2652889,3a,75y,113.54h,65.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBwL22zEoSsWS0XGLHr1jDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

That's looking over to the right slightly uphill from the original point of view. Suggests that the cycle track on the footpath to the right as you go uphill is an uphill cycle track. That's what I recall of that street myself anyway.

I always use a parallel street heading north. I don't trust a street with such a weird layout.

magicbastarder

you mean past the botanic gardens and turn right at the met office? i'd be in full agreement there.

tomasrojo

Yeah, I think that's the way I go heading north. Something very like it anyway. Use Mobhi going south, never north.

magicbastarder

i live not that far from there - though i usually head north when out on the bike, so have not cycled mobhi road much.

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see any markings on it to indicate anything other than a 'normal' cycle lane?

Unless they changed it, this is how it should work:

Starts on St Mobhi Rd on the north side of the junction with Botanic Ave:



Continues to the junction of St Mobhi Drive, where there is a crossing, where the northbound route is directed to the right hand side footpath:



Note at the other side of the crossing the shared path sign is pointing towards northbound traffic -- ie it's directed at northbound cyclists:



All the bike logos are (or were?) pointed towards northbound cyclists:



And the end sign is also pointed towards northbound cyclist:

monument

I thought my commute to DCU was going to be hell until I spotted this sign after a few times of going straight on:



For context, the sign directs you to the green route, while the red route is shown in my last post:

tomasrojo

I think the green route is the alternative route that magicbastarder mentioned. Looks like the way I go to Ikea anyway. (Never noticed that sign.)

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the green route is the alternative route that magicbastarder mentioned. Looks like the way I go to Ikea anyway. (Never noticed that sign.)

Yep, that's the route I meant. It's the one I use in the car too.

foggy_lad

Most that are in and around Carlow town are not suitable for cyclists and should be removed, teaching children to cycle properly on the roads in schools as an after school compulsory activity would be soo much better than painting lines on hard shoulders and sticking bi-directional lanes less than a few feet wide onto footpaths and busy streets!

Most of the country's cycle lanes are just painted onto any old roadways to add kilometres to the governments list of great things they claim to have done but most are not fit for purpose and many of them are dangerous to use.

Carawaystick

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean past the botanic gardens and turn right at the met office? i'd be in full agreement there.

Ah yeah, Ballymun road, where the corpo built speedramps in a bike lane uphill :rolleyes:

breakingaway80

"Cycle lanes encourage nervous cyclists and anything that gets people out on their bikes is a good thing."

Yes, Exactly...

magicbastarder

Carawaystick wrote: »

Ah yeah, Ballymun road, where the corpo built speedramps in a bike lane uphill :rolleyes:

the main issue with that stretch of ballymun road is the bend, on which parking is allowed, and results in cars coming downhill coming down the middle of the road on what is essentially a blind bend.

check_six

monument wrote: »

Unless they changed it, this is how it should work:

Starts on St Mobhi Rd on the north side of the junction with Botanic Ave:

pic

Continues to the junction of St Mobhi Drive, where there is a crossing, where the northbound route is directed to the right hand side footpath:

pic

Note at the other side of the crossing the shared path sign is pointing towards northbound traffic -- ie it's directed at northbound cyclists:

pic
All the bike logos are (or were?) pointed towards northbound cyclists:


And the end sign is also pointed towards northbound cyclist:

Okay, so that Mobhi Road lane is for cyclist's heading northbound, until the lane just stops on the wrong side of the road at Home Farm Road (with a no right turn sign too!)?

I wonder what you are supposed to do then? Turn around and go back down to the lights you crossed at and go back to the correct side of the road and go back up the hill? Bear in mind that you wouldn't even be in the cycle lane if you were confident enough of being able to swing out from an uncontrolled junction at Home Farm Road and across Mobhi Road.

Back in the day I used this road a lot going southbound and as it is a sharp downhill it was quite easy to build up speed. I wouldn't fancy using that cycle track the "wrong way" by mistake, you'd be in a tree or colliding with someone soon enough. I don't think there are any signs prohibiting or warning you against southbound/downhill use.

The road descends to Botanic Avenue and then climbs again towards the junction with Botanic Road. If you could time it right with the lights, the aim was to carry enough momentum to be still going 30kph when you hit the top of the hill at Botanic Road. A simpler time!

magicbastarder

yeah, i was wondering that too - is the cycle lane a one way or two way cycle lane?
the road is barely wide enough to carry three lanes - the lanes are very narrow, and i've had a bus on my inside and coming the opposite direction on one occasion (i was driving, downhill, rather than cycling), which was a bracing experience.
makes more sense to mimic the layout on the south side of the tolka, one wider lane each way, with a red onroad lane provided.

OneOfThem Stumbled

cython wrote: »

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?!

Take a chill pill. "Menace" is typically a colloquial term meaning "pain in the arse". And cyclists are: they are slow, they weave in and out of traffic, they don't fully take up a space in a lane, but take up enough space that generally another can't fit easily beside them, they have a low profile (in relation to HGVs), they are highly vulnerable road users. For all these reasons and more, they are a pain in the arse while driving when they are on the road.

I mean this is pretty obvious, but I didn't realise I was posting in the cycling forum initially, which would have a biased enough audience that I would have done some sort of self-censorship had I known.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against cyclists per se. I am one, I cycle far more than I drive, I think cycling does far less damage in urban environment than cars for precisely the reasons that cyclists aren't large, heavy, motorised vehicles. It's just that a bike and a bus or SUV in the same space is pretty nuts, but as long as we don't have a better solution we have to put up with it. Cycle lanes, when properly implemented, are a better solution. The OP's position is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion.

magicbastarder

here's a question - are HGVs dangerous because they're big, or because of the visibility issue? or where does the balance lie between them?

also, i don't necessarily see SUVs being more dangerous than a passat, for example. i don't like SUVs, but not from a cyclist safety reason.

and yes, people on this forum are 'biased' due to being better informed than most about the interactions of cars and motorised traffic, as most posters here are, like yourself, both cyclists and motorists.

cython

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Take a chill pill. "Menace" is typically a colloquial term meaning "pain in the arse". And cyclists are: they are slow, they weave in and out of traffic, they don't fully take up a space in a lane, but take up enough space that generally another can't fit easily beside them, they have a low profile (in relation to HGVs), they are highly vulnerable road users. For all these reasons and more, they are a pain in the arse while driving when they are on the road.

I can genuinely say that you are the first person I have encountered who would equate menace to "pain in the arse". As I said, nuisance is the appropriate term rather than menace, as the latter suggests that they pose a danger or threat in the majority of people's parlance. And as far as cyclists being a pain in the arse, well in the city I can quite frankly say that other vehicles making up traffic are a nuisance to me. It may be news to you, but most cyclists don't weave in traffic for fun or because they can, but rather its the only way to make progress. That is not to say that some cyclists don't make bad calls as to when to filter, etc., but plenty of us actually have road sense, and I would warrant take far fewer risks than most drivers. Perspective is everything however, but I can say I would rather be on a roadway with traffic than negotiating an off-road space that pedestrians may well just view as an extra footpath!!

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I mean this is pretty obvious, but I didn't realise I was posting in the cycling forum initially, which would have a biased enough audience that I would have done some sort of self-censorship had I known.

Why do you think self-censorship is required? Did you ever think that if your opinions differ from a majority of cyclists (as appears to be the case) that they may simply be a bit misguided, and just not in the best interests of cyclists, even if your intentions are good? As is often said, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", after all.

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against cyclists per se. I am one, I cycle far more than I drive, I think cycling does far less damage in urban environment than cars for precisely the reasons that cyclists aren't large, heavy, motorised vehicles. It's just that a bike and a bus or SUV in the same space is pretty nuts, but as long as we don't have a better solution we have to put up with it. Cycle lanes, when properly implemented, are a better solution. The OP's position is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion.

Sorry, but the bolded text is right up there with oft-used "I'm not a racist, but....." in terms of any supposed validity it may lend to a viewpoint. Never mind that by the same logic of relative size we should probably take motorcyclists out of city traffic too, since while they can move quicker than pedal cycles, their vehicles offer little more protection.....

whisky_galore

Have mixed feelings on them; esp. when they begin and end randomly and the shared footpath/cycle lanes seem encourage some to cycle on any old footpath. Useful on some stretches and utterly useless on others.

tomasrojo

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Take a chill pill. "Menace" is typically a colloquial term meaning "pain in the arse".

No, menace "typically" means "a possible danger", and that's the usual way people with no sense of proportion use it when talking about cyclists.

Your use (a troublesome or annoying person) is far from the typical usage. It's probably the least common use of it. And it's mostly used about children in that sense anyway, and very old-fashioned (the British "Dennis the Menace").

OneOfThem Stumbled

cython wrote: »

I can genuinely say that you are the first person I have encountered who would equate menace to "pain in the arse". As I said, nuisance is the appropriate term rather than menace, as the latter suggests that they pose a danger or threat in the majority of people's parlance.

Zzzz

cython wrote: »

Sorry, but the bolded text is right up there with oft-used "I'm not a racist, but....." in terms of any supposed validity it may lend to a viewpoint. Never mind that by the same logic of relative size we should probably take motorcyclists out of city traffic too, since while they can move quicker than pedal cycles, their vehicles offer little more protection.....

I'm sorry, but the bolded text above is a rejoinder that is right up there with the oft-used "Godwin" in terms of adding any weight to a rebuttal.

Travelling by motorbike is by far the most dangerous form of transport available, but there is no alternative for them but to travel amidst normal traffic. As a caveat, motorcycles are so dangerous to their drivers that there need not be any other vehicle involved for them to be deadly (just to clarify, I mean 'deadly' in the literal, rather than figurative sense). Although they are heavy, and this may lessen some of the damage of impacts, this is negated by their high speed and propensity to throw their passengers!

The fact that motorbikes are on the road is no counter to the idea that properly designed and used cycle-paths afford cyclists protection which is much needed. The reason why we are in this position with motorcycles is not because they represent some sort of ideal (unless road deaths float your boat) but because there is no other viable alternative other than banning the mode of transport altogether (which would seem entirely gratuitous on the grounds that motorcyclists typically don't put anyone else on the road in danger but themselves).

tomasrojo wrote: »

No, menace "typically" means "a possible danger", and that's the usual way people with no sense of proportion use it when talking about cyclists.

Your use (a troublesome or annoying person) is far from the typical usage. It's probably the least common use of it. And it's mostly used about children in that sense anyway, and very old-fashioned (the British "Dennis the Menace").

I appeal to you to have a look at the third definition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/menace?s=t

Oh no, obviously I was talking about all the motorists that have been run down by cyclists.

tomasrojo

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

I appeal to you to have a look at the third definition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/menace?s=t

Yes, thank you for clarifying that it's the least common meaning.

galwaycyclist

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Travelling by motorbike is by far the most dangerous form of transport available, but there is no alternative for them but to travel amidst normal traffic.

Partially correct. In the Netherlands cycle facilities are often open to, used by, and designed for, mopeds.

I believe back in the 80's and early 90's all Dutch cycle facilities were open to mopeds below a certain power rating. They then backed away from this a bit in urban areas.

I would argue that the high quality of Dutch cycling provision may be attributable in part to the fact that they were originally developed for motorised traffic as well as cyclists.

Anyway back to the Irish versions.

OneOfThem Stumbled

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, thank you for clarifying that it's the least common meaning.

Ah Jesus, you are a menace.

In case there is any confusion, I am not claiming you are the messiah, even though that would be the primary usage.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Partially correct. In the Netherlands cycle facilities are often open to, used by, and designed for, mopeds.

I believe back in the 80's and early 90's all Dutch cycle facilities were open to mopeds below a certain power rating. They then backed away from this a bit in urban areas.

I would argue that the high quality of Dutch cycling provision may be attributable in part to the fact that they were originally developed for motorised traffic as well as cyclists.

Anyway back to the Irish versions.

Yeah that's interesting. The distinctions between bikes with motors, mopeds and motorbikes is a subject in itself. Inherently there shouldn't be much wrong with a low-powered moped from using a cycle lane (it could be preferable, in fact), but because the distinction isn't as obvious between "something big with a motor and something small with a motor" as it is between "something you pedal and something you don't" it would probably be liable to some creep, I'd say.

I remember there was some discussions about whether motorised bikes (battery) could be liable for the whole gamut of road tax, insurance and licencing, btu I think that that was dismissed due to their incredibly low power (I don't think they are ever entirely self-propelled)

But you'd want to get cycle lanes sorted out in the first place before even considering expanding their role I'd say.

McAlban

One of my favourites...

R132 at the 5 Roads

The Planning and Maintenance of this Cycle track (and one on the opposite side of the road) is a sample of the ineptitude of the Authorities to ensure our roads are safe.

Fingal CC are resurfacing the Junctions/overbridges of the M1, so maybe this will get a facelift, there's a new Primary School being built very near to it.

As for the OP's question improving the infrastructure is the only way to go, Grade Separated cycle tracks, proper legislation and so on.

I can't believe some posters are saying that cycle tracks aren't good enough because they have to wait for a light. (at least they wait), or because the other modes such as pedestrians or motorists have equal priority (such as the R132 at the Airport). Note I say equal, pedestrians, buses and cyclists all have to use the lights.

tomasrojo

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Ah Jesus, you are a menace.

In case there is any confusion, I am not claiming you are the messiah, even though that would be the primary usage.

It is a rather silly, hair-splitting argument, yes. Just try to write keeping in mind the modern meanings of words, and there'll be no more misunderstanding. Keep in mind that not all readers of Boards are time-travellers from the 1950s, like you are.

This is a handy guide to allow you translate into twenty-first century speech:
http://www.citrus.k12.fl.us/staffdev/Social%20Studies/PDF/Slang%20of%20the%201950s.pdf

That's the word from the bird, daddy-o.

monument

check_six wrote: »

Okay, so that Mobhi Road lane is for cyclist's heading northbound, until the lane just stops on the wrong side of the road at Home Farm Road (with a no right turn sign too!)?

I think they never thought of that applying to cyclists -- it's directed at the withflow general northbound lane:

check_six wrote: »

Back in the day I used this road a lot going southbound and as it is a sharp downhill it was quite easy to build up speed. I wouldn't fancy using that cycle track the "wrong way" by mistake, you'd be in a tree or colliding with someone soon enough. I don't think there are any signs prohibiting or warning you against southbound/downhill use.

Back it that day it might have been one of these:



I think they removed these features after the Sunday Times featured them.

check_six wrote: »

The road descends to Botanic Avenue and then climbs again towards the junction with Botanic Road. If you could time it right with the lights, the aim was to carry enough momentum to be still going 30kph when you hit the top of the hill at Botanic Road. A simpler time!

Given that I now hit 30km/h on the cargo bike on a very minor incline with a small wind behind me, I think I must have been going faster around there on the hybrid down that hill -- I think I've done more emergency stops at the Botanic Avenue junction than all other junctions in my life (usually just being extra cautious when the lights start to change) .

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Partially correct. In the Netherlands cycle facilities are often open to, used by, and designed for, mopeds.

I believe back in the 80's and early 90's all Dutch cycle facilities were open to mopeds below a certain power rating. They then backed away from this a bit in urban areas.

I would argue that the high quality of Dutch cycling provision may be attributable in part to the fact that they were originally developed for motorised traffic as well as cyclists.

Anyway back to the Irish versions.

Low-powered mopeds or at least they are supposed to be lower power. Cities including Amsterdam and Utrecht are removing them from cycle paths.

More details here:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/the-moped-menace-in-the-netherlands/

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/amsterdam-can-send-mopeds-to-the-carriageway/

Allowing low-powered number plates in cycle paths always depended on them having different number plates and I think they are sent back onto the road where the speed limit is lower.

The same design quality can be achieved by designing for electric bicycle (and faster cyclists).