Should cycle lanes be demolished?

ted1

Deedsie wrote: »

Some of the cycle lanes should definitely be demolished and rebuilt properly. I am sick of the constant punishment passes on the N11 when I have no choice but to use the bus lane as the cycle lane is in such a terrible condition. Southbound from RTÉ to UCD is particularly awful...

Dropped pin
near 118-162 Stillorgan Rd, Dublin Southside, Dublin https://goo.gl/maps/nmH6C43pbBN2

It's not s bike lane , it's a bike drain. Don't forget the crater that is just past the bus stop.
The private coaches are the worst, the irony seems lost on the wexford bus drivers that they have a huge ad for the 1.5 alive campaign in the back of the bus.

cython

Deedsie wrote: »

Another issue is the change in behaviour after 19:00... 1.5 metres you would be lucky to get 15cm from some people...

I agree re the private coaches, but some taxis are also dreadful. Indicators are compulsory for taxis too right? Continuous white line of a bus lane means don't cross?

Can honestly say that the day where I saw the most consistent and constant bad driving from taxi drivers while commuting was the day of the Dublin Bus strike a couple of years ago, and it was purely because without DB's vehicles in the bus lanes to essentially control the lanes a bit, taxis ran riot and were all over the place diving in and out of the bus lanes without indicators, speeding along lanes tight to cyclists, etc. It gave me a new respect for buses and the inadvertent positive contributions they make to cycling!

crosstownk

Deedsie wrote: »

Dublin bus buses are great to cyclists. Private coaches not so much

I completely agree. I have more space afforded to me by Dublin Bus drivers than any other contingent of driver.

I was in the Harristown DB depot a few months ago and was impressed to see, among the union notices, that there were plenty of posters on the noticeboards about giving cyclists plenty of space. Great to see.

magicbastarder

seen from the bus heading into town last night - the southbound side of o'connell street, just as you approach the bridge. a taxi driver very carefully reversing into the cycle lane between the flexible bollards placed there to keep cars out of it. didn't stop the manouevre even when two cyclists had to inch past.

Doctor Bob

ted1 wrote: »

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.

I was surprised too. I used to go through the park all the time, then via the Newtown Avenue contra-flow (and vice versa), but one day, heading back towards town, I noticed a couple of people who I'd overtaken on Seapoint Avenue were ahead of me again on the Rock Road, so I wondered if the bypass would be quicker. Sure enough, it is.

I take it pretty handy in the park and always wait for the Deepwell laneway to be clear before using it (I'm on a Dutch bike with a big front crate, so I don't like to use the lane if anyone else is on it already). And I also wait for a green light at the Newtown Avenue-Seapoint Avenue junction, regardless of the direction I'm going, which definitely adds time to the park route.

Sometimes the difference mightn't be 5 minutes, but the bypass has never been slower. I'll still use the park occasionally if I fancy a break from traffic; it's certainly more pleasant and safer.

ThisRegard

crosstownk wrote: »

I completely agree. I have more space afforded to me by Dublin Bus drivers than any other contingent of driver.

It was a Dublin Bus driver that pulled up behind while we were both moving, beeped and gestured for me to get off the road and onto the shared pedestrian/cycle lane.

I understand the general point you're making, but each side has their share of dicks.

clod71

Cycle lanes are good for kids and people generally travelling around the city in chill mode and out of the main traffic stream, maybe while listening to music and dreaming with eyes open.
Get rid of them would be a mistake in my opinion.
Have more and in a better state would be probably a better option.

mrcheez

clod71 wrote: »

Cycle lanes are good for kids and people generally travelling around the city in chill mode and out of the main traffic stream, maybe while listening to music and dreaming with eyes open.
Get rid of them would be a mistake in my opinion.
Have more and in a better state would be probably a better option.

I think the main benefit is a reminder to traffic to "please be aware bikes use this lane too".

Particularly handy here when going straight:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3481947,-6.255854,3a,75y,78.87h,73.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5Cfnn4RyNUmTWTMvK9L6QA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5Cfnn4RyNUmTWTMvK9L6QA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D345.06879%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

manafana

monument wrote: »

No they should be improved. Like the Churchtown route already mentioned which has gone from one of the worst to one of the best: http://irishcycle.com/2014/04/27/preview-churchtown-cycle-route-not-a-million-miles-from-perfection/

Footpaths are a bit of a state in many places and cars park on them... Should we remove them?

the churchtown one still has its flaws for me, if a bus pulls in because its like a path it can be tricky to come around said bus, the lane itself is prefect but i'd like see it level with the road.

Macy0161

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.

Only difference I see is in the design point - scooters and motorbikes are using mandatory cycle lanes as de facto "2 wheel lanes" from what I see from both bike and car. Not content with illegally being bus lanes, they're taking the cycle lanes too!

The main issue I have with grade separated lanes in this state is that they don't tend to carry on the priority you'd get on the road in the majority of cases. But even then, there's bugger all consistency.

Have to join the LOL's at "Stayin alive at 1.5" big upping Wexford Bus. Maybe they do give adequate space in Wexford, but they're brutal in Dublin.

DavyD_83

MadDog1999 wrote: »

Ya I see what DanDublin1982 means. The roads that have cycle lanes are already usually wide enough for motor vehicles anyway. You wouldn't see cycle lanes on other roads would you?

Yep, no planner would ever put in a lane that makes the actual driving lane too narrow for a normal car, right? :rolleyes:

(Don't have the time or will to go find images)

Cycle lanes where they fit, are maintained and are beneficial to both cyclists and drivers should be kept in place and increased.
Cycle lanes that cannot be put in place in a reasonable manner should not be put in, or should be remove if already there. These only give people false impressions of what is happening (drivers ignoring a cycle lane, or cyclists not using a cycle lane which must make sense/be safe if it was built) and add to animosity in general

TLDR:
Good cycle lanes are good for everybody
Bad cycle lanes are bad for everybody

tomasrojo

Well, they should indicate when changing lane anyway. As for whether a bus-lane line, being a continuous white line, means that you can't leave the lane: I've seen it discussed before, and I think the conclusion was that it didn't have the same meaning as a standard continuous white line, except maybe in the sense of telling private motor traffic not to cross *into* the bus lane.

I have no references to back this up, and it could be totally wrong.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, they should indicate when changing lane anyway. As for whether a bus-lane line, being a continuous white line, means that you can't leave the lane: I've seen it discussed before, and I think the conclusion was that it didn't have the same meaning as a standard continuous white line, except maybe in the sense of telling private motor traffic not to cross *into* the bus lane.

I have no references to back this up, and it could be totally wrong.

Yeah, I take it the same as a mandatory cycle lane solid white.

cython

Deedsie wrote: »

Sorry to go off topic, quick question...

The wide continuous white line of a bus lane, is this line to be treated the same as other continuous white lines? Taxis and other cars regularly go in and out of the lane without indicating at all. Just wonder what the rule is. When I'm driving I treat it the same as any other continuous white line.

The bus lane line is officially designated as RRM 024, whereas the continuous white line at the centre of a roadway (or double line) is RRM 001. Regarding the latter, the legislation states:

25 Centre of Roadway Lines


25. (1) Where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided on a roadway or where two such traffic signs are provided in parallel, a driver shall not cross that sign or signs.


(2) Where traffic sign number RRM 002 [broken white line] has been provided on a roadway, a driver shall not cross that line, save where it can be crossed without danger to other traffic or pedestrians.


(3) Where traffic sign number RRM 001 and traffic sign number RRM 002 have been provided in parallel and traffic sign RRM 001 is nearer, a driver shall not cross such line, and where traffic sign number RRM 002 is nearer, a driver shall not cross the line save where it can be crossed without danger to other traffic or pedestrians.


(4) Nothing in this article shall so operate as to prevent a driver from driving across a roadway, along the centre of which the traffic signs referred to have been provided, for the purpose of entering or leaving land or premises adjoining the right hand side of that roadway.

By contrast to this, there are no such conditions attached to RRM 024, which the legislation simply says denotes a bus lane, and goes on to explain the classes of vehicle allowed to be driven in same. So once the vehicle is permitted in the bus lane, I don't think there is any legal prohibition on crossing the RRM 024 line. Realistically there are several road with bus lanes where a bus, taxi or cyclist may wish to turn right, but that do not provide explicit "breaks" in the line, so it would be unreasonable to think that the line could not be crossed by vehicles permitted in the lane, IMHO. Having said that, due care and yielding right of way to traffic already in the lane you wish to enter, etc. all still apply!

dreoilin

Charlie19 wrote: »

No.

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

I wouldn't encourage any cyclist to use the lanes here in Waterford to ease their nerves anyway - drivers here use them as a lane to avoid ramps!

KingBrian2

I would much like to see better road surfacing for bikes. As is, it causes one to veer away from the lane and nearer to the cars coming from behind.

Oymyakon

I hate bike lanes that are just painted onto a footpath, especially in cases as follows where you have to stop every 100m to cross the road:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4446941,-6.2337115,3a,75y,257.14h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4LooEgrlCrvFsPi7djAsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Surely the road could just be widened to accommodate the lane as it is on the opposite side.

V-man

Oymyakon wrote: »

I hate bike lanes that are just painted onto a footpath, especially in cases as follows where you have to stop every 100m to cross the road
Surely the road could just be widened to accommodate the lane as it is on the opposite side.

Part 1:
Cycling there last week direction Rivervalley, look over my side and indicate with hand signal to make clear I am going straight. The next moment one .... car driver that is way behind uses his horn expecting me to stop so he could left turn into the estate.

Part 2:
So I am going straight, car driver decides not to brake and turns left into the estate.

Close call.........
Unfortunately many car drivers have no common sense, more shockingly this was a driver in his forties. Worst is that I would be wrong by Irish Law......

Compare that to the Netherlands.
Drivers who enter the residential area from the road, or leaving the estate , should other traffic (including pedestrians) prioritize . In addition, the input / output of a residential area is designed as an exit with continuous sidewalk.

cython

Oymyakon wrote: »

I hate bike lanes that are just painted onto a footpath, especially in cases as follows where you have to stop every 100m to cross the road:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4446941,-6.2337115,3a,75y,257.14h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4LooEgrlCrvFsPi7djAsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Surely the road could just be widened to accommodate the lane as it is on the opposite side.

The only reason that the cycle lane on the opposite side is on-road is because there is a bus lane that they have shoe-horned it into, and the footpath is too narrow. If not for that I'm absolutely certain there would be an off-road cycle track on that side as well, de-prioritising cyclists. I don't know, nor have I cycled in, the specific area you linked, but it's a regrettably common pattern, and were I cycling there I'd stay on the road.

Oymyakon

V-man wrote: »

Part 1:
Cycling there last week direction Rivervalley, look over my side and indicate with hand signal to make clear I am going straight. The next moment one .... car driver that is way behind uses his horn expecting me to stop so he could left turn into the estate.

Part 2:
So I am going straight, car driver decides not to brake and turns left into the estate.

Exact same thing has happened to me in the past and I didn't know if I was in the right or wrong.

tomasrojo

Yield triangles: road user has priority.

V-man

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yield triangles: road user has priority.

Yes, agreed.
Now open Google Maps with the original link, go back 100 meters towards Airside and check the first estate entrance, this one has no Yield Signs. Pretty certain same yield rule would apply here but at best it is confusing. Anyway my "incident" happened at the first entrance without yield sign.

tomasrojo

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4445076,-6.2321236,3a,75y,139.37h,54.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLmx7F0iqMbjK1C74ywD9Bw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There? Yeah, not sure what priority would apply, but this minimally modified footpath is so unsuitable for cycling the obvious strategy is to use the road. Except that you'll probably get harassed for that too.

magicbastarder

i was wondering today, after a taxi undertook me on a single lane roundabout, about the legality of carrying water balloons filled with easily-washed off paint, which you could lob at cars driven by idiots, to make it easier to report them to the gardai.

2RockMountain

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was wondering today, after a taxi undertook me on a single lane roundabout, about the legality of carrying water balloons filled with easily-washed off paint, which you could lob at cars driven by idiots, to make it easier to report them to the gardai.

I was wondering yesterday, after a 99D Micra driver with N-plates gave a huge rev just behind me to try to scare me off the 2-lane road onto the cycle lane, about the legality of carrying a mace.



I caught up on him in traffic, and landed at his window with a few loud slaps on the roof, so hopefully, he won't be so keen to bully other cyclists in future. But a mace would be nice.

tomasrojo

Having been very credibly threatened with extreme violence for tapping on the trunk of a car to let the driver know a light had changed, I don't recommend any of these strategies.

magicbastarder

i was once accused of assault after tapping the bonnet of a car and gesturing they should pull out from the kerb.
ironically, the accusation came just after i'd been knocked down by another motorist, allowing the first to catch up with me.

droidus

I once had someone get out and scream at me for knocking on their passenger window whilst stopped in traffic.

Then I explained that their petrol cap was open and asked if they would they like me to close it for them.

The look on her face was priceless.

2RockMountain

droidus wrote: »

I once had someone get out and scream at me for knocking on their passenger window whilst stopped in traffic.

Then I explained that their petrol cap was open and asked if they would they like me to close it for them.

The look on her face was priceless.

Now that you mention it, I remember the guy in the Fiesta on a very wet, dark winter's evening who had no lights on at all. I stopped on his inside and waved for attention, not touching his car at all. I got two fingers in return.

After traffic moved on, I went round the outside to his window, which he kindly opened and told him he had no lights. I also told him something else, but you really don't need to know that.

GreatDefector

tomasrojo wrote: »

Having been very credibly threatened with extreme violence for tapping on the trunk of a car to let the driver know a light had changed, I don't recommend any of these strategies.

Yeah, I gave a driver the finger for ploughing through the roundabout without stopping or looking and being on his phone while I was well established on the roundabout making a turn

He stopped, chased me and swung kicks at me (completely missed me and I cycled on)..... Not worth it if serious