Cycling Infrastructure and Safety

Moflojo

ted1 wrote: »

also once again Cllr Ring get in to the action with cyclists.

And Councillor Ring can GO TO HELL getting his wick in about the "30kph speed limit wouldn't have made a difference". How inappropriate is that?! Bottomfeeder. What a waste of oxygen he is.

Moflojo

average_runner wrote: »

Not sure it would help, cause people would still turn left onto Portland Row. So if cyclist is in the blind spot and goes straight on and truck turn left it will still happen, unless you put a yield sign for the cyclists not to go straight on from the cycle lane till its safe

People need to stay aware, drivers check their mirrors and cyclists not dart down the side of cars when the car/truck clearly indicates its going left

Drivers don't always indicate or check their mirrors, and cyclists don't/can't always see the indicators anyway. The solution is infrastructural, not behavioural.

Weepsie

Moflojo wrote: »

Drivers don't always indicate or check their mirrors, and cyclists don't/can't always see the indicators anyway. The solution is infrastructural, not behavioural.

If you don't see the indicators, you're not looking. If you can't, I must assume there is an obstruction and that should be enough to say wait behind to be sure. But yes that's a behavioural/habitual thing to try and get into.

average_runner

Moflojo wrote: »

Drivers don't always indicate or check their mirrors, and cyclists don't/can't always see the indicators anyway. The solution is infrastructural, not behavioural.

It is a good bit of it also.

Yes drivers are very bad at indicating or checking their mirrors.

We could improve the infrastructure but alot the roads aren't wide enough for this.

The best solution is for bikes to have their own traffic lights. So at junction have the following:

Green bike for bikes and red for cars.
Green for cars and red for bikes.
Green man for the walkers.

Also have all junctions with cameras for future accidents and release what cause it.
I hate the way there is car accidents, like going into a ditch and don't release why it happened.

Moflojo

average_runner wrote: »

We could improve the infrastructure but alot the roads aren't wide enough for this.

This is a total fallacy as far as I'm concerned. The majority of the streets in Dublin are wide enough to facilitate two-way segregated cycleways.

The reason people think the streets aren't wide enough? Parking 'lanes'.

When I see a street with a lane, or two, of parked cars and no cycling infrastructure it tells me that my city values empty parked vehicles more than it does a person on a bicycle. The state deploys more money and resources on looking after the empty vehicles of its citizens than it does on childcare.

average_runner

Moflojo wrote: »

This is a total fallacy as far as I'm concerned. The majority of the streets in Dublin are wide enough to facilitate two-way segregated cycleways.

The reason people think the streets aren't wide enough? Parking 'lanes'.

When I see a street with a lane, or two, of parked cars and no cycling infrastructure it tells me that my city values empty parked vehicles more than it does a person on a bicycle. The state deploys more money and resources on looking after the empty vehicles of its citizens than it does on childcare.

There is plenty of roads not wide enough. The green light system is the best approach.

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

There is plenty of roads not wide enough.

What roads? If you can fit a car on a road, you can fit a two-way cycleway on it.

Moflojo

buffalo wrote: »

What roads? If you can fit a car on a road, you can fit a two-way cycleway on it.

And if a junction has a filter lane, it has room for a two-way cycleway too. How many junctions in Dublin don't have a filter lane of some kind?

Capel Street, for instance, is a "narrow" one-way street in central Dublin with one lane for traffic, no cycling infrastructure at all, and two lanes for parking. Mad Ted.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

What roads? If you can fit a car on a road, you can fit a two-way cycleway on it.

Hardly now, lower churchtown rd for example, lower dundrum rd also.

Greenhills rd has a cycle lane both sides and two cars can't pass each other without going into the cycle lanes.

Strawberry beds and the road from Lucan to Clonee is another one.

The newcastle road from lucan to newcastle.

average_runner

Also widening the roads won't improve our junction behaviour, lights might

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

Greenhills rd has a cycle lane both sides and two cars can't pass each other without going into the cycle lanes.

I don't think you understood my post. You could put a two-way cycleway on the Greenhills Road and still have plenty of room for a one-way car lane. Make it inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. The other cars can reroute through Ballymount.

average_runner

buffalo wrote: »

I don't think you understood my post. You could put a two-way cycleway on the Greenhills Road and still have plenty of room for a one-way car lane. Make it inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. The other cars can reroute through Ballymount.

Ballymount couldn't handle it, reroute the bikes through there be a better solution or through tymon park.

Anyhow its junction behaviour that i was mainly talking about.

Annie get your Run

average_runner wrote: »

There is plenty of roads not wide enough. The green light system is the best approach.

With respect, we can hardly manage to get people to obey the lights as it is (everyone, that's motorists, buses, trucks, motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians) without adding another layer to the system.

There are many possible solutions, however, as has been said before possibly the main one is enforcement. There are no consequences in this country for breaking the rules of the road (or certainly very little, who cares about a few penalty points!). The other issue is changing behavior and we can only do that if we start to teach safe road use from a young age. It doesn't help that the RSA, AA and DTT have utter contempt for cyclists and make zero effort to change driver behavior towards them (us).

I hope that girl is going to be Okay and +1 to when is the next protest.

Actually, I saw a suggestion somewhere I thought was an excellent idea, what if everyone who cycled picked one date to leave the bike at home and commute by car/train/bus whatever, it would show the impact of forcing everyone off their bikes would have, might make people think twice including that gobshi*e Shane Ross.

eeguy

Weepsie wrote: »

If you don't see the indicators, you're not looking. If you can't, I must assume there is an obstruction and that should be enough to say wait behind to be sure. But yes that's a behavioural/habitual thing to try and get into.

You can't see the indicators if you're alongside the truck, or they'll do the typical thing of indicating as they make the turn

07Lapierre

eeguy wrote: »

You can't see the indicators if you're alongside the truck, or they'll do the typical thing of indicating as they make the turn

When Cycling, you should NEVER stop beside a truck. Either stop behind the Truck or at least a car length in front.

Alanstrainor

07Lapierre wrote: »

When Cycling, you should NEVER stop beside a truck. Either stop behind the Truck or at least a car length in front.

I make a point of looking at the driver and giving a wave if I stop in front at lights. Only then can you be certain he's seen you.

07Lapierre

Annie get your Run wrote: »

There are many possible solutions, however, as has been said before possibly the main one is enforcement.

+1 that's enforcement of the ROTR for ALL road users, regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

average_runner

07Lapierre wrote: »

+1 that's enforcement of the ROTR for ALL road users, regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

Very true, i saw two incidents today, one was a very good cyclists.


1) 2 lane road, one lane for going left and lane clearly marked saying that. Car turning left, indicating, cyclists in the same lane shoots on the inside, straight by the car and doesnt turn left. Very lucky cyclists.

2) 3 lane road, one lane is for turning left and going straight, truck is turning left, cant see cyclist but is she smart enough to stay back. He never saw her.

07Lapierre

average_runner wrote: »

1) 2 lane road, one lane for going left and lane clearly marked saying that. Car turning left, indicating, cyclists in the same lane shoots on the inside, straight by the car and doesnt turn left. Very lucky STUPID cyclists.

Chuchote

07Lapierre wrote: »

When Cycling, you should NEVER stop beside a truck. Either stop behind the Truck or at least a car length in front.

Now, tell me this. How exactly does her bike being tangled in the truck's front wheels suggest that she stopped beside a truck, rather than suggesting that the truck drove up behind her?

Another woman down in Drimnagh this morning, near Old County Road, with gardaí and fire brigade present.

07Lapierre

Chuchote wrote: »

Now, tell me this. How exactly does her bike being tangled in the truck's front wheels suggest that she stopped beside a truck, rather than suggesting that the truck drove up behind her?

Another woman down in Drimnagh this morning, near Old County Road, with gardaí and fire brigade present.

I never said she did! It was just a general piece of advise for all cyclists that i have learned over the years. I'm not commenting on the incident your referring to.

Stephenc66

[QUOTE People need to stay aware, drivers check their mirrors and cyclists not dart down the side of cars when the car/truck clearly indicates its going left[/QUOTE]

Annie get your Run wrote: »

With respect, we can hardly manage to get people to obey the lights as it is (everyone, that's motorists, buses, trucks, motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians) without adding another layer to the system.

There are many possible solutions, however, as has been said before possibly the main one is enforcement. There are no consequences in this country for breaking the rules of the road (or certainly very little, who cares about a few penalty points!). The other issue is changing behavior and we can only do that if we start to teach safe road use from a young age. It doesn't help that the RSA, AA and DTT have utter contempt for cyclists and make zero effort to change driver behavior towards them (us). /QUOTE]

I think that these two posts sum it up best of all. It must be about collective responsibility. And the simplest most cost effective way of doing this is enforcement prosecuted to the maximum especially with fines hit people in the pocket. Cyclists and Vehicle drivers alike.

Yes infrastructural changes would help but a behavioral change among all road users would make the biggest change.Starting with respecting the rights of other road users (of all types) to be safe and not put in jeopardy by selfishness

Chuchote

Stephen, behaviour isn't going to change - the only thing that will change it is infrastructure. The number of people commuting by bike into Dublin city centre has doubled in something like two years, and will double again and again faster. And drivers are being whipped up by the Two Minutes Hate of various radio jocks. Infrastructural change - good, roomy, protected cycleways - is the only thing that's going to solve this.

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

Ballymount couldn't handle it, reroute the bikes through there be a better solution or through tymon park.

Couldn't handle it? Would the roads spontaneously combust? Or do you mean there'd be a lot of congestion... just like there is at present?

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

Stephen, behaviour isn't going to change - the only thing that will change it is infrastructure.

Protected cycleways or not, behaviour must change. Infrastructure will not fix behaviour. Might make it less noticeable but that is about it. It unfortunately won't happen voluntarily so enforcement is where it must come from until it becomes the social norm to follow the rules

Stephenc66

Chuchote wrote: »

Stephen, behaviour isn't going to change - the only thing that will change it is infrastructure. The number of people commuting by bike into Dublin city centre has doubled in something like two years, and will double again and again faster. And drivers are being whipped up by the Two Minutes Hate of various radio jocks. Infrastructural change - good, roomy, protected cycleways - is the only thing that's going to solve this.

Chuchote, I would love to be able to disagree with you on the behavioral change but on reflection you are probably right. The effort involved would be gargantuan.

I do believe however that protected cycle ways are a pipe dream. There are to many vested interests in not allowing them to happen on a scale that would actually make a difference.

And I can't see sense prevailing anytime soon

V-man

Stephenc66 wrote: »

I do believe however that protected cycle ways are a pipe dream. There are to many vested interests in not allowing them to happen on a scale that would actually make a difference.
And I can't see sense prevailing anytime soon

It would only take one man in a certain position.
That man is not Shane Ross.

brendanb586

Stephenc66 wrote: »

And I can't see sense prevailing anytime soon

That is the biggest problem, while we are blaming cyclists, drivers and behaviour. In no other major country would there be a junction with the traffic of Portland Row/Summerhill (as an example) that would not have dedicated off road cycling paths, with dedicated lights. Common sense would indicate that people have died and seriously injured, so we make the changes to stop people dying such as allowing cyclist a 10 second headstart and stopping 10 seconds to allow traffic to pass (like NL), ensuring that all R-roads that cross have a dedicated offroad cycle path through the junction.

Of course, here in Dublin the common sense is to:
a) retain parking for inner city residence and business.
b) ensure traffic get through junctions as fast as possible
c) (for our councilllors) avoid changing the "character" like removing those horrid path/steps/walls on the summerhill side.

that way they can appease the locals who "need" their car (and will never change habits due to ease of this), and all it takes is one or two funerals a year that they can attend and commiserate while putting another 30 km/h speed camera at the junction.

:mad:

magicbastarder

V-man wrote: »

It would only take one man in a certain position.
That man is not Shane Ross.

i think that's a simplistic way of looking at it. a minister for sport and transport cannot change policy to that extent on his or her own, as there are budgetary concerns and other considerable knock on effects.
e.g. it's not ross's responsibility alone to decide to proceed with metro north.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think that's a simplistic way of looking at it. a minister for sport and transport cannot change policy to that extent on his or her own, as there are budgetary concerns and other considerable knock on effects.
e.g. it's not ross's responsibility alone to decide to proceed with metro north.

It's true; but surely that's why someone is appointed a minister of whatever, because s/he has the ability to plan and make the systems under his or her command?

That given, Transport and Sport is an insane combination of duties.

magicbastarder

why? they share a significant number of letters. a clear match.