Wheelchairs in the cycle lane

Fian

There is a new proposal that wheelchairs be permitted to use the cycle lanes rather than the footpaths. This is apparently because of footpaths being blocked and more difficult to navigate.

I am somewhat conflicted about this - certainly couldn't begrudge a wheelchair user using the cycle lane if it makes getting around easier for them but i am worried about the safety issue - Bicycles coming around a corner at speed to find a wheelchair in the cycle lane in front of them which might not end well for either party.

Is anyone aware of a similar scheme operating elsewhere in the world and how it works out?

Macy0161

Fian wrote: »

There is a new proposal that wheelchairs be permitted to use the cycle lanes rather than the footpaths. This is apparently because of footpaths being blocked and more difficult to navigate.

Not convinced they'll find cycle lanes any better in this regard tbh. Do they propose on road one's too?

Usual misdirected solution - they should be tackling all the cars parked on the pavements! Obviously they're all hover cars too, as motorists don't drive on pavements, only cyclists...

tomasrojo

I think they are allowed to use the cycle lanes already. At least electric wheelchairs:
http://irishcycle.com/2017/06/17/hold-vote-to-allow-visual-impaired-people-to-use-dublins-cycle-lanes-says-lord-mayor/


In the Netherlands, the cycle infrastructure is a valuable resource for people in mobility scooters and electric wheelchairs. But they have very good, properly networked infrastructure. I don't think many people would begrudge them the use here, but since it's rubbish, and sometimes dangerous rubbish, I'm not sure I'd encourage them to use it.

The bit about people with sight impairment using them is just bizarre.

HivemindXX

I'm pretty sure that wheelchairs can already use the cycle lanes. Perhaps this is just motorised ones. Either way I don't think it's much of a safety issue, nobody should be going around the corner so fast that they couldn't see an obstruction in time to stop. I'm hard pressed to think of an example where this might be an issue, most corners that are so sharp that you can't see around them require you to slow down a lot anyway. There really aren't that many people in wheelchairs using the footpaths in my experience anyway. Perhaps this is an indictment of how difficult it is for wheelchair users to get around. Either way if every wheelchair user I've ever seen on the footpath had been on the cycle path instead it would have made almost no difference to me.

The insane thing about Carr's comment is that he is not just talking about wheelchairs. He specifically mentioned people with sight disabilities and mobility issues which surely covers people on crutches and those who require walking sticks as well.

Anyone with any intelligence whatsoever should be able to see many problems with this idea but to enumerate a few:-

+ Cycle lanes on the footpath are just as full of crap as the pedestrian part.

+ Cycle lanes randomly begin and end, sometimes dumping the users back on to a busy road. This is not ideal for a 90 year old with a walking frame.

+ How is someone who is visually impaired to know when the road narrows and the painted on cycle lane disappears leaving them walking on the side of the road.

+ In the extremely frequent event that a car has parked up on the footpath partially blocking that and completely blocking the cycle lane what is a person with a disability to do? They can either climb back up on to the pavement (with some difficulty presumably) and pass the car on the inside (these people usually don't block the entire footpath), or they can do like cyclists have to and merge in to traffic and pass the obstruction in the car lane. Would a slow moving person with mobility issues or a blind person be willing or capable of doing this?

Here's a less insanely stupid idea... If you actually care about people with disabilities using the footpaths then reduce the amount of crap on the footpaths as much as possible and fine people who block them with their cars.

Based on Carr's previous statements I doubt he really wants to help people with disabilities, he just thinks this is a good opportunity to try and paint cyclists as being selfish gits who don't support the disabled. Unfortunately for him I doubt any disabled person thinks this is a good idea and hopefully all he's managed to do is make a fool of himself to a wider audience.

Chips Lovell

There's lots of people who don't give a f**k about others the way they park. I often have to take a double buggy out on to the road because some eejit has blocked the footpath. I'm gaining a new appreciation of what it must be like to get around in a wheelchair.

dball

they allow cars in the cycle lanes in Amsterdam, i was there a few weeks ago and I could not stop laughing - in fairness they are funny to look at !
But they were all over the place in the city

gctest50

RSF1 Twizy be a bit less wonky

loyatemu

is there currently a law that says they're not allowed use cycle-paths? is there even a law that says you can't walk/jog on a cycle-path?

Chips Lovell

The most recent statutory instrument indicates that they're already allowed to use them:

Originally Posted by S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012.
14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by?

(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,

(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or

(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058.

(3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where?

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

(5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

(b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

Chips Lovell

The wording refers to motorized ones. There's no explicit prohibition of manually operated ones or pedestrians.

Fian

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The wording refers to motorized ones. There's no explicit prohibition of manually operated ones or pedestrians.

Though a manual one is not a "mechanically propelled vehicle" so it is not necessary to specifically exclude them from a prohibition that doesn't apply in the first place. So it appears clear that they are already entitled to use them.

Chips Lovell

That's what I'm reading from it too.

Lumen

Fian wrote: »

Bicycles coming around a corner at speed to find a wheelchair in the cycle lane in front of them which might not end well for either party.

Obviously you/we/I must cycle/drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance we can see to be clear (and is likely to remain so), but presumably you're talking about people who are too stupid to do this, of which there are unfortunately many on our roads.

mr spuckler

they're saying this proposal was a hoax...

Weepsie

Fian wrote: »

them but i am worried about the safety issue -

Bicycles coming around a corner at speed to find a wheelchair in the cycle lane in front of them which might not end well for either party.

Absolute BS.

I'll say what I say to drivers about cyclists on a bend. You should always be expecting an obstacle and you should always be taking a bend carefully in the expectation there might be someone or something just around it.

It's not a safety concern at all, though people might genuinely think that. It's worrying about inconvenienced.

Don't take a bend at speed if you're actually concerned about anothers welfare

Fian

mr spuckler wrote: »

they're saying this proposal was a hoax...

HivemindXX wrote: »

Based on Carr's previous statements I doubt he really wants to help people with disabilities, he just thinks this is a good opportunity to try and paint cyclists as being selfish gits who don't support the disabled. Unfortunately for him I doubt any disabled person thinks this is a good idea and hopefully all he's managed to do is make a fool of himself to a wider audience.

Hmmmm.......

Annie get your Run

I'd be more pissed off about his comments on removing bicycles locked to poles around Dublin - try providing sufficient bike parking spaces before you start doing sh*t like that. The guy is a top notch gobshi*te, really, how do we end up with twats like this in positions of power?? (thankfully not too much power but all the same).

mr spuckler

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I'd be more pissed off about his comments on removing bicycles locked to poles around Dublin - try providing sufficient bike parking spaces before you start doing sh*t like that. The guy is a top notch gobshi*te, really, how do we end up with twats like this in positions of power?? (thankfully not too much power but all the same).

absolutely, i've ranted about this on a previous thread. it's one of the things that will also restrict the roll out of the station-less bike share schemes. Sheffield stands cost €65 each when ordered individually so probably €30 each when bought in bulk. lash 1,000 of them around the city in areas of high cycling demand, €30k very well spent imho.

they recently took 2 car spaces on Stephens st lower in Dublin to convert for bike spaces, put in the car shaped bike stands (for want of a better description!) for a few weeks, took them both back out for a few weeks (so cars again used the spaces) and have now replaced them again with Sheffield stands. i'd love to know how much that exercise in ingenuity and efficiency cost the council!

Moflojo

Dublin Bus [advert] shelters and a number of JCDecaux outdoor sites in the city will all feature the adverts.

Serious hat tip to the journalist for throwing this subtle dig into the article.

Bus 'shelters' are often the worst obstructions on any given street and are just a source of advertising revenue for Dublin Bus, which couldn't really care less about 'sheltering' its users.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

Hmmmm.......

someone had a bright idea which did more to make him look foolish than it did to achieve the aim of highlighting access for disabled people. i wonder if he'll blame the intern.

Moflojo

On a more positive note, I think the Lord Mayor's term of office is finished at the end of this month.

HivemindXX

List of problems for people with disabilities mentioned in that article in order:-

- Locked bikes
- Blocked pathways (blockage not defined)
- Sandwich boards
- Bikes again
- Badly parked car
- Overgrown hedges
- Sandwich board again
- Bicycle for the third time
- Parked cars again

No mention of street furniture. I guarantee you if all those poles and utility boxes were on the road they would find a way to reduce them pretty quickly...oh wait, they did...put them on the footpath.

Bicycles mentioned three times and badly parked cars twice. I'd like to see a survey of people with mobility problems and visual impairment so we can tell how big a problem badly parked bicycles are compared to badly parked cars. He does seem to imply (unsurprisingly given his form) that bicycles should never be locked to poles on the path.

I think he should probably have a good hard look at the fact that nobody seemed to have any problem believing he was stupid/anti-cyclist enough to suggest this in all seriousness.

tomasrojo

The council provides hoops on street furniture so bicycle can be locked to them more securely. Bit of a mixed message.

Carr says of his "hoax" statement:

Which was the whole point – to make people think

Oh, my thoughts have been clarified; you are not just an arse; you are a COLOSSAL arse.

buffalo

HivemindXX wrote: »

List of problems for people with disabilities mentioned in that article in order:-

- Locked bikes
- Blocked pathways (blockage not defined)
- Sandwich boards
- Bikes again
- Badly parked car
- Overgrown hedges
- Sandwich board again
- Bicycle for the third time
- Parked cars again

What's bizarre about the Lord Mayor of DCC raising 'awareness' of the above is (unless I'm very much mistaken) that they are pretty much all things which are within DCC's areas of responsibility. Sandwich boards? Illegal advertising. Badly parked bikes and cars? Traffic wardens and clampers.

Why is DCC raising awareness when they could be enforcing the law?

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

Obviously you/we/I must cycle/drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance we can see to be clear (and is likely to remain so), but presumably you're talking about people who are too stupid to do this, of which there are unfortunately many on our roads.

Remember the time that you came round a bend too fast to react to the road conditions ahead in the north county many a year ago?

Lumen

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Remember the time that you came round a bend too fast to react to the road conditions ahead in the north county many a year ago?

I do indeed, despite the concussion. I claim no special relationship with common sense. :pac:

Vel

mr spuckler wrote: »

they recently took 2 car spaces on Stephens st lower in Dublin to convert for bike spaces, put in the car shaped bike stands (for want of a better description!) for a few weeks, took them both back out for a few weeks (so cars again used the spaces) and have now replaced them again with Sheffield stands. i'd love to know how much that exercise in ingenuity and efficiency cost the council!

I can give some insight into this! This is an exercise by those within the council who are aware that more bike parking is needed, to convince those within the council who maybe don't feel similarly but hold the power that more bike parking is needed!

So the temporary bike stands go in, the usage is monitored and is then used as proof that there is a demand for bike parking in that particular area. Temporary stand is then removed, to be placed elsewhere for the same purpose and the end result will then eventuallly/hopefully be permanent stands at that location.

A bit crazy I know, as it is so obvious to those of us who cycle that extra stands are needed everywhere but the intention behind it is good!

tomasrojo

https://www.thejournal.ie/fines-penalties-accessibility-dublin-campaign-disabilities-3452062-Jun2017/

Hidden lede:
Perfectly good campaign about footway obstruction ruined by mayor with obsessive dislike of bikes.

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/fines-penalties-accessibility-dublin-campaign-disabilities-3452062-Jun2017/

Hidden lede:
Perfectly good campaign about footway obstruction ruined by mayor with obsessive dislike of bikes.

Really! Carr just went on and on about how bicycles were the problem and how they were going to be getting rid of them. It appears he means any bicycles locked to poles. He seems to suggest that once they cut the locks it is not their business what happens then. Surely that can't be correct.

This reinforces the need for a proper survey of existing bike parking in the city. If the stated aim of the government is to increase modal share to 10% (which is a pretty low bar) then there needs to be enough bicycle parking to support that and it needs to be placed well.

In Carr's dystopian future what do I do when I arrive at my destination and there are no official bike stands within sight? How do I know where the nearest stand is, let alone the nearest open one? Can I be sure there are stands anywhere nearby? I know of lots of stands which have been removed entirely, or put down side streets out of sight.

Perhaps Carr is trying to ensure he is retroactively correct and that no cyclist does any shopping by ensuring it becomes too inconvenient.

magicbastarder

'city with inadequate bike parking facilities starts to seize bikes not parked in dedicated bike parking facilities' shocker.

tomasrojo

It'll cost them a fair bit every time they meet a Fahgettaboudit too. (Admittedly, most bikes are locked with pretty poor locks, but it'll cost them a cutting disc on an angle grinder every one or two Fahgettaboudits..)