The rise of the 'cyclivist'

Lambay island

Jawgap wrote: »

That seems to suggest that we should be more interest in generating a cycling environment that is perceived as being safe, rather than one that is actually safe. If the perception is that segregation provides a safer environment than other measures then maybe the efforts should focus on shifting people's perceptions so they understand the reality and therefore know what to protest/advocate for?

btw, surely it's more than a theory if it's being applied in practice through engineering?

Well, do you not believe it would be safer with segregated lanes? I'm content to cycle in the current lanes, roads etc but I'd be less inclined to let my children do the same. I used the word perception as I perceive it as safer btw.

NeedMoreGears

Weepsie wrote: »

They don't have to let you out. An indication isn't a right of way. Now ideally they would, nay should, but see it in this way.
.......

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

Just wondering about this bit.

As far as I understand it (mainly from boards it has to be said), a cycle lane is not quite a "normal" traffic lane. It's more of a subset of a normal lane. As a cyclist in the cycle lane I am also in the normal lane - i.e. I have possession of the lane and am entitled to reasonably move within the lane, without necessarily having to indicate or indeed without having to cede any right of way.

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

In real life I always look ("I was in the right" would be a pretty poor epitaph) and mostly signal but I am curious as to whether the logic of the above actually stacks up. Answers on a postcard.....

ED E

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

Just wondering about this bit.

As far as I understand it (mainly from boards it has to be said), a cycle lane is not quite a "normal" traffic lane. It's more of a subset of a normal lane. As a cyclist in the cycle lane I am also in the normal lane - i.e. I have possession of the lane and am entitled to reasonably move within the lane, without necessarily having to indicate or indeed without having to cede any right of way.

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

In real life I always look ("I was in the right" would be a pretty poor epitaph) and mostly signal but I am curious as to whether the logic of the above actually stacks up. Answers on a postcard.....

There are no cycle lanes. We have cycle "tracks". So under the law clauses dictating lane behaviour don't really reference cycle lanes tracks.

Jawgap

Lambay island wrote: »

Well, do you not believe it would be safer with segregated lanes? I'm content to cycle in the current lanes, roads etc but I'd be less inclined to let my children do the same. I used the word perception as I perceive it as safer btw.

I'm content to go where the evidence leads. I don't doubt that a stretch of segregated track is safer if used properly, but does it follow that overall is cycling is safer because more of it is built?

For example, I'm loathe to bring the 'H' word in given the existence of a thread on the topic, but this study illustrates a point.....

Safety perceptions and reported behavior related to cycling in mixed traffic: A comparison between Brisbane and Copenhagen

.....segregation tends to generate over-confidence which tends to lead cyclists to cycle while distracted and/or forego head protection......one of the conclusions from that study was

"In fact, cyclists in Copenhagen tend to cycle more often while distracted and tend to use less helmets. Nevertheless, evidence shows that distracted cycling is unsafe and helmet wearing is associated with lower crash severity"

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

I must be cycling in a different city.....if the lane is blocked I just maneuver around the obstruction.....and maybe it's just me, but I can count on one hand the amount of time I get "grief" in a given year, and even then it's confined to certain stretches of road I cycle regularly.

....and again the issues you highlight are down to culture, and that culture will still exist when a cyclist has to leave a segregated facility and use shared infrastructure.

As for 'doing nothing wasn't working' - just how does that statement apply to the likes of the canal cycle track, the Clontarf one, the re-vamp of the Park, the introduction of the DB scheme, the establishment of the CTW scheme, the ongoing construction of the various greenways around the country?

I would've thought that its better to show cycling as something that enhances the city and makes it more liveable (in other words show cycling and cyclists in a positive light) is better than engaging in activities that make life more difficult for another group of road users who also have a legitimate interest in how the city is organised and run.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because it works for you, it works for everybody. We need to make cycling more attractive and accessible for kids cycling to school, for more female cyclists, for more older cyclists.

The IBD events are around making cycling a more realistic and safe option for everybody.

Caliden

As a driver I think these 'protests' are great.

The one near Dame street several months ago highlighted just how selfish/oblivious some drivers are. The Nightline driver was more than happy to block all traffic behind him until he was allowed park illegally on double yellows/cycle track.


The laws are already there, it just comes down to enforcement by Gardai.

TGD

Caliden wrote: »

....The laws are already there, it just comes down to enforcement by Gardai.

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

magicbastarder

TGD wrote: »

but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

if what's not illegal? i strongly suspect letting the air out of someone's tyres is illegal. two wrongs, etc.

Jawgap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because it works for you, it works for everybody. We need to make cycling more attractive and accessible for kids cycling to school, for more female cyclists, for more older cyclists.

The IBD events are around making cycling a more realistic and safe option for everybody.

That's just the thing......anyone I know who cycles seems to share the view of "what's all the fuss about" - my own kid cycles to college (having previously cycled to school) and the only change I insisted on him making was getting an old beater to use. Likewise his brother and a couple of cousins.

.....and I don't consider myself anything special - just an oul fellah with a bad knee and tendency to compete out of class in commuter racing

I think the IBD events are highlighting a specific issue (that needs highlighting) but to me all they are doing is suggesting that even dedicated cycle tracks are not, and consequently they're dissuading people from cycling. In effect, its contributing to the 'dangerisation' (I prefer the non-US spelling) of cycling that the likes of the RSA, Luas and AGS seem to prefer to promulgate.

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

if what's not illegal? i strongly suspect letting the air out of someone's tyres is illegal. two wrongs, etc.

And all you do is prolong the obstruction of the cycle lane for others

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm content to go where the evidence leads. I don't doubt that a stretch of segregated track is safer if used properly, but does it follow that overall is cycling is safer because more of it is built?

For example, I'm loathe to bring the 'H' word in given the existence of a thread on the topic, but this study illustrates a point.....

Safety perceptions and reported behavior related to cycling in mixed traffic: A comparison between Brisbane and Copenhagen

.....segregation tends to generate over-confidence which tends to lead cyclists to cycle while distracted and/or forego head protection......one of the conclusions from that study was

"In fact, cyclists in Copenhagen tend to cycle more often while distracted and tend to use less helmets. Nevertheless, evidence shows that distracted cycling is unsafe and helmet wearing is associated with lower crash severity"

I should read the paper, but this does look like a classic bit of confirmation bias. Essentially, assume that the REALLY important thing is being very alert and head protection and then say that Copenhagen is worse than Brisbane because they're more distracted and more bare-headed. But
Copenhagen, as far as I'm aware, is a better place to cycle, and has lower incidences of head injury.

(It doesn't belong here, being a helmet megathread sort of point, but the association of helmets with lower crash severity doesn't hold at the population level; Australia has much worse rates of head injury than Denmark with much higher rates of wearing, and the disparity is even more striking between Australia and the Netherlands. There is an association if you restrict your investigation to hospitalisation/case-control studies.)

Caliden

TGD wrote: »

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

In the case of the St. Andrews street protest, the road has double yellows on it with a small loading bay on one side but delivery trucks just park on the double yellows/cycle lane/footpath.

The video in the OP also has double yellows.

tomasrojo

I'll come back to one of my favourite graphs.



Look at the fatality trend around the time they dropped the car-centric planning and building (circles, mid-70s). And look at how the cycling trend stops dropping like a stone at the same time (triangles).

To be fair, they did an awful lot more than build infrastructure, but whatever they did, it was very obviously successful in turning one trend around, and halting the other.

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because it works for you, it works for everybody. We need to make cycling more attractive and accessible for kids cycling to school, for more female cyclists, for more older cyclists.

The IBD events are around making cycling a more realistic and safe option for everybody.

Equally, if just because something is not up to somebody's apparently required utopian standard, does not mean it is not up to somebody else's standard and they can manage.

Changing behaviour is far more important as far as I'm concerned than going all out for segregation, albeit possibly a lot more difficult

tomasrojo

I think segregation is really more favoured for 50+km/h streets and roads. But there are also engineering solutions required for keeping traffic below 50km/h on the other roads. More right-angled turns, rather than sweeping turns for example.

It's a funny thing that we keep building junctions that allow higher-speed manoeuvres: housing estates with smooth arcing turns at the junctions, for example. If you don't want people to drive above the speed limit, don't design a road that invites them to do it.

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

I should read the paper, but this does look like a classic bit of confirmation bias. Essentially, assume that the REALLY important thing is being very alert and head protection and then say that Copenhagen is worse than Brisbane because they're more distracted and more bare-headed. But
Copenhagen, as far as I'm aware, is a better place to cycle, and has lower incidences of head injury.

(It doesn't belong here, being a helmet megathread sort of point, but the association of helmets with lower crash severity doesn't hold at the population level; Australia has much worse rates of head injury than Denmark with much higher rates of wearing, and the disparity is even more striking between Australia and the Netherlands. There is an association if you restrict your investigation to hospitalisation/case-control studies.)

I read it that it was more about a 'volvo-effect' - segregation makes you think you are safer......which you are, but only from certain hazards......which leads to altered behaviour which leads to a different form of risk taking which means the overall quantum of safety you enjoy is not significantly varied.

In that case, the Danes are much more likely to whip out the ol' mobile while cycling and leave the helmet at home.....meaning that the safety offered by removing a cyclist from traffic is countered by them now cycling while distracted!

There's also another paper somewhere - I can't just put my hand on it - that discusses intoxication and cycling. It basically showed how people are more likely to cycle pi$$ed on a segregated track.......but that seemed to arise from people getting boozed up and thinking it was ok to do so because the way home on the bike was off-road!

Annie get your Run

I've just seen this on twitter (also on the Garda Siochana FB page). It's a chance to have your say in the policing plan and it includes roads policing. Might be something that would interest folks here.

Jawgap

Weepsie wrote: »

Equally, if just because something is not up to somebody's apparently required utopian standard, does not mean it is not up to somebody else's standard and they can manage.

Changing behaviour is far more important as far as I'm concerned than going all out for segregation, albeit possibly politically a lot more difficult

FYP

I think you can look at various issues over the last number of decades and see that when the State puts its 'mind' to it, it can generate behavioural changes among the citizenry in fairly rapid fashion - the political will/leadership just needs to exist (and a bit of money).

I'd also say that as a country we don't respond terribly well to the education, touchy-feely approach to cultural change - it has, to a degree, to be rammed home by vigorous enforcement that puts things like driving licences in the firing line. I well constructed, solid programme of enforcement, in my opinion, will improve cyclist safety quicker than a 1000km of segregated track and for a fraction of the cost.

Weepsie

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I've just seen this on twitter (also on the Garda Siochana FB page). It's a chance to have your say in the policing plan and it includes roads policing. Might be something that would interest folks here.

I assume remove Noirin will be a popular suggestion

magicbastarder

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you can look at various issues over the last number of decades and see that when the State puts its 'mind' to it, it can generate behavioural changes among the citizenry in fairly rapid fashion - the political will/leadership just needs to exist (and a bit of money).

*cough*water*cough*

Jawgap

magicbastarder wrote: »

*cough*water*cough*

I surprised you still have that cough given the changes I alluded to included

....the ban on smoky coal (anyone remember what a winter night in Dublin was like during a temp inversion in the 1980s)

....the smoking ban in pubs (apparently we'd never put up with it and, iirc, it was given 3 months)

.....and yes, people overturned the water charges......but meekly accepted the much more vicious USC, and *cough*LPT*cough*

....anyway, I'm off shopping now

magicbastarder

ah yeah, that was intended as a joke.

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

I read it that it was more about a 'volvo-effect' - segregation makes you think you are safer......which you are, but only from certain hazards......which leads to altered behaviour which leads to a different form of risk taking which means the overall quantum of safety you enjoy is not significantly varied.

I think that's certainly true to an extent. The pro-infrastructure bloggers love photos of Dutch people being blasé on bikes, and it's often remarked on as a phenomenon. (Including, as you say, cycling drunk, which from what my Dutch friends tell me, is worse than here, but, then again, every activity in every combination with cycling would be more common than here, because they cycle an awful lot more.)

I'm not sure that the Dutch are running to stand still though. There's that graph showing fatality trends and participation I posted, but also you can see that fatality rates for Ireland and the Netherlands are pretty similar (deaths per 100 million km of about 10 or 12), but the Dutch have WAY more very young and very old cyclists. Part of our "success" is creating a built environment where very vulnerable people don't travel on bikes.

ED E

Weepsie wrote: »

Equally, if just because something is not up to somebody's apparently required utopian standard, does not mean it is not up to somebody else's standard and they can manage.

Changing behaviour is far more important as far as I'm concerned than going all out for segregation, albeit possibly a lot more difficult

84% holding phones while driving. We're failing at the behavior bit. Councils are slow, AGS are a joke.

Zynks

Weepsie wrote: »

If you're maneuvering, and the motorist isn't looking, then I would think that you on the bike have not done your due diligence and looked yourself before maneuvering.

Too many people just indicate and go be they on bike or car, and that's only those who indicate.

I'll just leave this quote from the UK police since ours is not very communicative and the rules are pretty much the same

Plasid

eagle eye wrote: »

A place on the road for cyclists only makes me scream for a bicycle tax. Why should I be paying motor tax to repair a part of the road I cannot use?

I think if there was a bicycle tax it would make people more aware of the fact that it's for cyclists only and we could spend more money putting these lanes on a lot more roads too and not just in towns and cities.

Of course as somebody who cycles myself I don't want to pay a bicycle tax.

You pay for the majority of road maintenance and building through general taxation, so you already pay while on your bike

Enforcement is the only issue here

Plasid

TGD wrote: »

The answer to this question my be already in this thread somewhere, but is it illegal (in the strict 'legal' sense) to park in cycle lanes - i.e. are the drivers actually breaking a law?

Sometimes I get the urge to let the air out of the tyres of trucks etc that are parked on cycle lanes (would that go beyond 'cyclivist'?) but I wouldn't consider doing it if it isn't illegal.

A very French style of protest. Happened to the clampers in Paris with their clamps superglued by third parties and randomly for parking Infringement (real or perceived)

tomasrojo

It's illegal to drive a motorised vehicle on or park on a cycle track bordered by an unbroken white line.

AndrewJRenko

blackwhite wrote: »

And all you do is prolong the obstruction of the cycle lane for others

It's the same principle as clamping - short term pain for long term gain. You can be fairly sure he won't park there the next day.

Jawgap wrote: »

That's just the thing......anyone I know who cycles seems to share the view of "what's all the fuss about" - my own kid cycles to college (having previously cycled to school) and the only change I insisted on him making was getting an old beater to use. Likewise his brother and a couple of cousins.

.....and I don't consider myself anything special - just an oul fellah with a bad knee and tendency to compete out of class in commuter racing

It's not the people who ARE cycling that you need to be talking to, it's the people who are NOT cycling.

Corca Baiscinn

....anyway, I'm off shopping now

I'm all in favour of behaviour change but imo enforcing rules of the road and the plastic bag levy are not comparable. The latter involved the imposition of a charge and the obligation on the retailer to collect it. Even the smoke in pubs ban was easier than ROTR as while there are many pubs they are always to be found in their predictable location and it's a good guess that there are more non-smokers than smokers to complain if ban infringed. ROTR infringements on the other hand happen randomly everywhere and there's a good chance the majority of motorists aren't bothered by the risk and inconvenience of parking in cycle lanes,( though hopefully they feel differently re dangerous overtaking). Remember too that people who cycle are perceived as an out group and not "people like us". It seems to me that there's an awful lot more processing, money, manpower involved in enforcing this area of behaviour change. I agree it should be done but in the meantime more power to ibike Dublin for trying to protect the little bit of infrastructure that's designated for bike riders.