Should cycle lanes be mandatory for cyclists?

beauf

SeanW wrote: »

I can clearly understand why there would be opposition to mandatory cycle lanes, and I agree that some of them are unfit. I have a really dim view of cyclists, but can clearly see that some cycle lanes are not fit. I voted Yes, cycle lanes should be mandatory, but clearly not in all cases, there should be an exemption/defense for such cases...

You are missing the point that it's not possible to navigate many junctions from a cycle lane. It's often better for cyclists to be in the lane as if a car. It's safer and the traffic integrates more smoothly.

Irish Cities and towns cannot handle the increasing congestion. Cycling will just increase. It's a very practiclal transport mode for many people.

Roadhawk

Chuchote wrote: »

There's no need to be terribly pushed about the fact of people running red lights, imho, if it's safe for them to do so.

That is completely ridiculous...the exact same could be said about other vehicles where they to could run a red if safe to do so. Then we would be complaining about having traffic lights at all.

Chuchote wrote: »

Drivers, since the 1990s, have clearly changed their view as a group. It used to be that drivers would wait at red lights and stop at orange in all circumstances. Then the custom changed, and now you get Driver A deciding "Ah, sure it's not that red, after all, I can zip through since it's only just changed", followed by four, five, six, seven other drivers who seem to feel that if they're acting like a bride's train sweeping after the first car, it doesn't count. Their journey is more important, clearly.

I've seen one vehicle or maybe two on the rare occasion run a red as it turns red but never the five, six, seven you seem to see as normal.

Chuchote wrote: »

Cyclists will often sweep through if there's nothing coming, and, in some cases (mostly young lads, in my possibly prejudiced judgment) even if there is. I was waiting with my bike at a red pedestrian light yesterday and there was a family crossing, and a lad on a bike whizzed through in between them. His journey was more important, clearly.

I would estimate that 80%-90% of cyclists would "sweep through if there is nothing coming" regardless of what stage the red light is at. The fact that nothing is coming is not an excuse to break the law. If there is nothing coming why can the other vehicles go?

traprunner

McAlban wrote: »

What special priority do you think Cyclists deserve over other road users at say a multi-signal controlled junction? Where there are cyclist specific signals? Should we put in Sensors to detect cyclists to change the sequence when a cyclist approaches?

Cyclists are not looking for special priority, they are looking to be treated with equal priority to motorised traffic moving in the same direction.

McAlban wrote: »

Good enough to use safely. Which is the objective of them.

The infrastructure fails miserably if that is the objective.

Roadhawk

traprunner wrote: »

Did you not read the thread or any other thread you were involved in to do with cycling infrastructure?

I did...why?

McAlban

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't know if the councils have the budget to maintain separated cycle lanes though, even if they're well designed. it would require a shift in thinking which i don't think is imminent.

They would if the Shinners and Lefties stopped voting away as much of the LPT as they can to appease populist voters.

And that's the issue, if voters don't demand proper cycling infrastructure, it's not built, and all the other issues discussed here are a direct consequence.

Unfortunately I think it would take some tragic road stats and a swing in public opinion like the Netherlands to prompt our populist politicians into jumping on the bandwagon for it. And as with all public infrastructure is not a priority for any of them.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

Now the real question is why should any new infrastructure be provided to cycling when there is such a drive for it not to be used? Its would seem like a waste of government expenditure.

And here is the strawman that was always coming from such and obvious bias poll.

Lol.

lucernarian

I would argue there are already certain legal expectations on the use of cycle lanes. If there is an on-road lane available, any vehiche should use the left most available lane. That would presumably apply to cyclists with the same qualifications (potholes, debris avoidance, overtaking, leaving the road to turn right somewhere) as it would to cars.

What's this poll supposed to achieve? Another circular discussion with all kinds of bias and selective reasoning?

As for off-road cycle lanes, I fail to see how it could be enforced to use the footpath in Dunlin with the paint on it towards Aimens St from Newcomen bridge. Replete with trees and bumps, parallel to a straight and well-paved bus lane (which anyone on a bike are allowed to use).

"Cyclists" are not some alien kind of species, just people using a bike to get from a to b instead of a car, except they are also very vulnerable road users and do need special accommodation.

This is why bikes can and should be allowed to use bus lanes or whatever measures are appropriate to ensure their own safety and that of people walking on footpaths too.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

I've seen one vehicle or maybe two on the rare occasion run a red as it turns red but never the five, six, seven you seem to see as normal.

you'll see it on the two junctions i mentioned earlier. not *all* the time, but i have seen it occur multiple times at both junctions.

McAlban

traprunner wrote: »

Cyclists are not looking for special priority, they are looking to be treated with equal priority to motorised traffic moving in the same direction.

Which is not always possible, because of junction layout etc. (Like a Cyclist having a Red light, to allow vehicles to turn left.

traprunner wrote:

The infrastructure fails miserably if that is the objective.

That is the objective, and yes it fails in most places. Look at the R132 through Santry, the cycle lane is terrible and unsafe, basically a lane panted onto and off the footpath for 3km.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're twisting words by saying cyclists are creating 'a drive' for new infrastructure not to be used. 'new infrastructure' is not what cyclists object to, it's (as is repeated over and over) substandard infrastructure which is the problem.

...Of which many brand new lanes are included. You see the problem is that the lanes is trying to accommodate multiple types of cyclists such as leisurely, commuting, racers/training to name a few and cannot be suited for each style. The expectations are too high to try form a perfect lane.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i use most cycle lanes where provided. it's generally the off-road ones i avoid, as they're the ones where being forced to use them would force you into a kafkaesque universe of bizarre, malicious laws.

I too use every lane that is available in my travels including the off-roads ones. These having "malicious laws" are cycling laws and very easy to obey.

ThisRegard

t depends on how you define "urban areas". If you define "urban areas" the way our boneheaded planners do, then it makes perfect sense to have 50 and 60 kph limits in the middle of nowhere. Like here: where you cross the 50k limit and are supposidly in Longford Town, despite the fact that there's nothing around but one-off houses and agricultural fields. It continues like that for a good half mile or so before you come to anything resembling an actual urban area.

It's just brilliant irony that someone who has no time for cyclists uses a point as to why motorists shouldn't pay attention to posted speed limits in their argument against cyclists.

ThisRegard

McAlban wrote: »

What special priority do you think Cyclists deserve over other road users at say a multi-signal controlled junction? Where there are cyclist specific signals? Should we put in Sensors to detect cyclists to change the sequence when a cyclist approaches?

It's nothing to do with them being given special priority. The issue is if you have a mile long road with a number of exits in and out of estates, premises etc, the cyclist would have to stop at every one of these, stopping for traffic coming out, and probably more dangerously, having to yield to traffic turning across them from a major to a minor road. You're also losing one of the advantages of travelling in a city on a bike, the speed you can get around.

beauf wrote: »

You are missing the point that it's not possible to navigate many junctions from a cycle lane. It's often better for cyclists to be in the lane as if a car. It's safer and the traffic integrates more smoothly.

Exactly. Take a look at this new set of shared pedestrian/cycling lanes. If you're on the off road cycle lane, either side of the road, how do you go straight at this roundabout, noting the concrete barriers between the lanes preventing you crossing it as you would use regular road?

https://goo.gl/maps/atjY3UtiNg52

If they were on the road they'd have the same priority as a car.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

I too use every lane that is available in my travels including the off-roads ones. These having "malicious laws" are cycling laws and very easy to obey.

the junction nearest my house has four potholes or similar impediments in the cycle lane approaching it, in the space of about 50 or 100m. it's simply not possible to use it, and this is approaching a junction with left turning buses.

and there's a pythonesque cycle lane not too far from me which was discussed previously on another thread - on mobhi road where the road uphill is supposedly too narrow to take bikes, so they're forced onto a pedestrian crossing, to use a cycle lane (just painted onto the footpath) on the *right* hand side of the road - which simply disappears then at the junction of home farm road. needless to say, the implication is that the bicycles will also magically disappear at that point and the cyclists will continue on foot.
or else proceed back onto a road they were removed from in the first place (presumably) for their own safety.

it's kinda hard to see with the trees in the way, but this is where it is - the northbound cycle lane is actually on the right hand side of the road:
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3757462,-6.2646234,179m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Chuchote

Roadhawk wrote: »

That is completely ridiculous...the exact same could be said about other vehicles where they to could run a red if safe to do so. Then we would be complaining about having traffic lights at all.

Yes that's more or less what I'm saying; in some cases it's safe to go through a red light. In Paris, drivers can proceed cautiously through red pedestrian lights, giving right-of-way to cyclists and pedestrians. It seems to work well.

I've seen one vehicle or maybe two on the rare occasion run a red as it turns red but never the five, six, seven you seem to see as normal.

I've so often seen this – usually three, but often more. Perhaps my local drivers are particularly hellraising.

I would estimate that 80%-90% of cyclists would "sweep through if there is nothing coming" regardless of what stage the red light is at. The fact that nothing is coming is not an excuse to break the law. If there is nothing coming why can the other vehicles go?

This is not my experience; our experience is clearly different. I normally wait at red lights with a group of other cyclists; often there's a wild child who whizzes past us and through the red.

Surely what we should all be striving for is a safe city with traffic that moves in a steady stream. Other cities have found that what works best is a 30km/h speed limit, which brings drivers through without many short rushes followed by stops at traffic lights; and good wide separated cycle tracks in the busiest places so that cyclists can move through the city fast and safely.

In all places, cyclists and pedestrians should have priority, for their safety.

This new debate reminds me of the boiling rage that surrounded the imposition of seat belt laws, which are now considered normal and safe.

Danjamin1

For anyone advocating mandatory use of cycle lanes I would challenge them to use the on road lane southbound on the N11 between RTE & UCD. Total joke.

For the record I pick & choose the cycle lanes I'll use, both on & off road, if it impedes my journey in any way I won't use it, but if it's in good condition & allows me to continue as normal I will. Anyone suggesting that cyclists should simply give way to other vehicles has an over-inflated sense of priority, we share the roads & no one vehicle type has more right to use them than another. More often than not I catch up to cars that have overtaken me at the next set of lights anyway!

07Lapierre

Well done Norway!...problem Solved!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/oslo-set-to-ban-cars-from-city-centre-by-2019-1.2397666

Chuchote

07Lapierre wrote: »

Well done Norway!...problem Solved!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/oslo-set-to-ban-cars-from-city-centre-by-2019-1.2397666

“We want to make it better for pedestrians, cyclists. It will be better for shops and everyone.”
Under the plans, the council will build at least 60km of bicycle lanes by 2019, the date of the next municipal elections, and provide a “massive boost” of investment in public transport.

And special arrangements for the disabled. Brilliant plan.

I wish some of the people posting here would get out of their cars and on to a bike even for a few journeys.

seamus

SeanW wrote: »

All road users benefit when road users are segregated by type. Pedestrians are slow but agile and their mode of transport is best suited to short distances, preferably off the carriageway if possible. Bicycles are faster, but somewhat less agile. Still they are more agile the motorised traffic but tend in the main not to be capable of appropriate motor speeds. All this means that each should have their own "space" where feasible. On a practical level, as a pedestrian, I should not have to deal with unaccountable lawbreakers on a daily basis. Red light means stop. Pedestrianised areas are off limits. End of. As a motorist, cyclists should have laws regulating them even if only to provide a counter-balance to the hypocrasy of demanding that motorists have ever more harsh laws, ever more severe enforcement, ever more hostile design of everything, while cyclists are totally unaccountable and behave accordingly.

It's a lovely rant Seanie, but it still doesn't answer the question of what issues are so important that we should divert resources into ensuring that cyclists are licenced.

07Lapierre

Chuchote wrote: »

And special arrangements for the disabled. Brilliant plan.

I wish some of the people posting here would get out of their cars and on to a bike even for a few journeys.

I think the key point is the "massive boost" in investment in public transport. if we did the same here, i think more people would leave their cars at home. At the moment its a pain driving into Dublin City Centre, but for a lot of people, there is no (affordable/reliable) alternative.

Chuchote

07Lapierre wrote: »

I think the key point is the "massive boost" in investment in public transport. if we did the same here, i think more people would leave their cars at home. At the moment its a pain driving into Dublin City Centre, but for a lot of people, there is no (affordable/reliable) alternative.

I absolutely couldn't agree more. You're so right. When the Luas lines were planned, part of the plan was free park-and-ride, so that people could leave their cars outside the city and take the Luas, paying a fare, into the centre to work.

Instead, in a really very wrong change, the park-and-ride car parks are unaffordably expensive, and so people continue to drive into the city. A foolish piece of municipal greed that has been a disaster for Dublin.

monument

traprunner wrote: »

So the majority has spoken. Looks like no new laws are required and it should be an end to Roadhawks anti cyclist polls. Somehow I don't think it will on the latter

Keep focused on the topic and not the poster.

-- moderator

monument

Roadhawk wrote: »

Now the real question is why should any new infrastructure be provided to cycling when there is such a drive for it not to be used? Its would seem like a waste of government expenditure.

traprunner wrote: »

Did you not read the thread or any other thread you were involved in to do with cycling infrastructure?

Roadhawk wrote: »

I did...why?

This is whole thread seems to be an act of trolling.

Your "new" question is the same as a question you have asked and answered at least one or twice, if not more times.

-- moderator

magicbastarder

the question remains - how much would it cost to modify bike lanes in ireland - and to maintain them - to reach the point where mandatory use would be possible? €100m, to pluck a figure out of the air?

how much would such a move then save, or be of benefit to society?

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

the question remains - how much would it cost to modify bike lanes in ireland - and to maintain them - to reach the point where mandatory use would be possible? €100m, to pluck a figure out of the air?

how much would such a move then save, or be of benefit to society?

Well, with one child in every four in Ireland now obese, protected and separate cycle lanes to school would save a lot of misery by returning children to fitness. In money terms, this would save the health service many millions of euro.

Bicycles wear out roads less than cars, for obvious reasons, so the roads would cost less to maintain in proportion to the number of people who left their cars and took to cycling. Again, with adults there would be a beneficial side effect in better health for the cyclists, and also for people living or working in cities, where there would be less fumes.

(There's a video going around of Chinese tourists in Paris – I think it's on Al Jazeera – and they're astonished at how clean the air is. I'm always rather astonished at how polluted the Paris air is; but it's nothing to Chinese cities.)

magicbastarder

and to address the (off topic) issue of requiring licences for bikes; where to begin?
it's one of the most authoritarian things i think the DoT - or irish society as a whole - could do regarding transport. few states around the world require it (the aussies are going to introduce something similar, but then again, until very recently it was a legal requirement to remain seated while cycling, and it's regarded as an extremely cyclist-unfriendly place), and it would run against multiple interests in trying to get more people out on the bike. the latter has benefits from a transport and health point of view, and lesser benefits in other areas.

plus, the bike is the most democratic form of transport there is. it's the lowest common denominator form of wheeled transport, available to everyone from the time they're able to balance themselves. it was previously implicated in a great opening up of opportunities for people (especially women) in rural areas where motorised transport was not available.

i can't think of any other activity which is legal and unlicenced under a certain age, but then has to be licenced once that certain age is reached. usually the assumption with licencing something - if it requires licencing - is that you have to be a certain age before you can even do it, but this turns that notion completely on its head; it seems to assume a reversion of skill or experience, in that you could cycle on a public road without a licence aged 15y11m, but one month later (with probably one month's more maturity) you're now not to be trusted without one?

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Bicycles wear out roads less than cars, for obvious reasons

the difference is *far* greater than people usually realise. the wear on the road is proportional to something like the third or fourth power of the weight per wheel.
so a bicycle carrying 50KG per wheel would cause approx. one thousandth the damage per wheel that a car would.

Mantis Toboggan

I wouldn't force any cyclists to use the cycle lanes provided but any insurance claims made by cyclists were they were using the road instead of the provided cycle Lane should be thrown out.

Chuchote

Tyson Fury wrote: »

I wouldn't force any cyclists to use the cycle lanes provided but any insurance claims made by cyclists were they were using the road instead of the provided cycle Lane should be thrown out.

Dream on.

shootermacg

Cycle lanes are a risk to a cyclist turning right. I always position myself for a right turn as soon as there's a break in the traffic, even if that's 100M from the turn.

Why do I do this? Because the vast majority motorists look at a right hand turn gesture as an excuse to to speed up. This just shows what we as cyclists are dealing with.

Roadhawk

shootermacg wrote: »

Cycle lanes are a risk to a cyclist turning right. I always position myself for a right turn as soon as there's a break in the traffic, even if that's 100M from the turn.

Why do I do this? Because the vast majority motorists look at a right hand turn gesture as an excuse to to speed up. This just shows what we as cyclists are dealing with.

Its easy enough to do when the traffic has a red light and when there is a cycle box like these https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B020'42.7%22N+6%C2%B015'32.3%22W/@53.3451953,-6.2593231,64m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.345202!4d-6.25898

But other than that perfect scenario there is no easy way to turn right. I do the same...move across early but still keep that right arm out.

cython

Tyson Fury wrote: »

I wouldn't force any cyclists to use the cycle lanes provided but any insurance claims made by cyclists were they were using the road instead of the provided cycle Lane should be thrown out.

All I can say to this is that at least it's nonsensical and ridiculous enough to live up to your moniker! At best it's victim blaming of the highest order, and at worst it legitimises this kind of rubbish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZin1R9aupE

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

All I can say to this is that at least it's nonsensical and ridiculous enough to live up to your moniker! At best it's victim blaming of the highest order, and at worst it legitimises this kind of rubbish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZin1R9aupE

That vid is hilarious...Serious anger issue there. Its not like the driver could have gotten any further in traffic.

Roadhawk

Bloody hell my bike was just stolen. freaking out right now...

Feels like karma :mad::mad::mad:

ThisRegard

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its easy enough to do when the traffic has a red light and when there is a cycle box like these https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B020'42.7%22N+6%C2%B015'32.3%22W/@53.3451953,-6.2593231,64m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.345202!4d-6.25898

But other than that perfect scenario there is no easy way to turn right. I do the same...move across early but still keep that right arm out.

That's a poor example, you're referring to a one way street with no actual right turn.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Bloody hell my bike was just stolen. freaking out right now...

Feels like karma :mad::mad::mad:

where from? there's a 'stolen bikes' thread on the cycling forum, but it tends to feature the sort of bikes lycra warriors would use.

shootermacg

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its easy enough to do when the traffic has a red light and when there is a cycle box like these https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B020'42.7%22N+6%C2%B015'32.3%22W/@53.3451953,-6.2593231,64m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.345202!4d-6.25898

But other than that perfect scenario there is no easy way to turn right. I do the same...move across early but still keep that right arm out.

This one is terrible, nothing like a straight road and a set of lights to beat to make cars decide to up the speed.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2992917,-6.2333537,3a,75y,217.75h,75.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_NqzJQCsGkrzhWGKsr4Xdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Danjamin1

Roadhawk wrote: »

Bloody hell my bike was just stolen. freaking out right now...

Feels like karma :mad::mad::mad:

Sorry to hear that, it happened to me 18 months ago & it still annoys me!

traprunner

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its easy enough to do when the traffic has a red light and when there is a cycle box like these https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B020'42.7%22N+6%C2%B015'32.3%22W/@53.3451953,-6.2593231,64m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.345202!4d-6.25898

But other than that perfect scenario there is no easy way to turn right. I do the same...move across early but still keep that right arm out.

It's easy enough when there is no car in the cycle box. There are very few cars that do not encroach partially or fully into those boxes.

BuffyBot

I'd like to remind all that snide digs and comments directed at other users are not acceptable. Attack a viewpoint by all means, but not a individual

magicbastarder

shootermacg wrote: »

This one is terrible, nothing like a straight road and a set of lights to beat to make cars decide to up the speed.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2992917,-6.2333537,3a,75y,217.75h,75.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_NqzJQCsGkrzhWGKsr4Xdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

this is the most obvious example i usually cite - uphill, in a 60km/h zone, crossing a bus lane and two lanes of 'normal' traffic, to turn right off the N11 onto brewery road.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2842079,-6.1943518,3a,75y,162h,71.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seVX8dlsKd7JR3DiGKHTamA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

shootermacg

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the most obvious example i usually cite - uphill, in a 60km/h zone, crossing a bus lane and two lanes of 'normal' traffic, to turn right off the N11 onto brewery road.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2842079,-6.1943518,3a,75y,162h,71.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seVX8dlsKd7JR3DiGKHTamA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Yikes, I'd actually consider using the lights on that one!

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

where from? there's a 'stolen bikes' thread on the cycling forum, but it tends to feature the sort of bikes lycra warriors would use.

Nasty spite.

magicbastarder

i include myself in that category!

07Lapierre

"Lycra Warrior" is better than MAMIL!

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

where from? there's a 'stolen bikes' thread on the cycling forum, but it tends to feature the sort of bikes lycra warriors would use.

It was a racing bike...just traded a hybrid in last week for a Ridley Aero Noah. I didnt take the chassis number off it so the guards can only keep an eye out.

Tut :mad:

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

It was a racing bike...just traded a hybrid in last week for a Ridley Aero Noah.

ouch!

shootermacg

Chuchote wrote: »

Nasty spite.

Lately I'd been leaning towards lycra myself. I was on my friday visit to Lidl with number wan son, when i paused to look at the cycling shorts. The ten year old taps me on the back and says "Dad you wouldn't seriously consider actually wearing those things? Would you?" to which I answered, well...maybe...they would be great in the wind, so why not?

He said, he'd start ignoring me in public if I did..because those are wack. I left the shorts alone and continued shopping.

Little does he know I'd already bought a pair of 3 quarter length, cycle leggings the week before.

magicbastarder

i once cycled out to a house party (with a change of clothes on my back) and my friends when i arrived were aghast at the sight of me in lycra. i pointed out that i was hardly going to worry about their reaction when i'd treated the roads from blanchardstown to blackrock to the spectacle.

shootermacg

Roadhawk wrote: »

It was a racing bike...just traded a hybrid in last week for a Ridley Aero Noah. I didnt take the chassis number off it so the guards can only keep an eye out.

Tut :mad:

Georgeous bike, sorry to hear it.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i include myself in that category!

Just shows how easy it is to misinterpret a joke on the internet.

Sorry to hear about the lovely bike, Roadhawk. The sooner trackability is built into bicycles the better.