Cycle lanes should not be mandatory for cyclists - RSA

07Lapierre

PeadarCo wrote: »

I've used that road out training. The stretch by St Annes park is great because it has no traffic lights for 1km plus and has good surface. Its a good location to put the foot down on the way out to Howth. Speed wise its very easy/good training to get up into the mid 40's plus. That's not a safe speed on bike on the cycle lane where you have pedestrians in close proximity. The speed limit in that area is 60km/hr ( open to correction). So a cyclist doing those sorts of speeds is not slowing down traffic unduly.

OK..Maybe I should have said:

"To be fair, I think any cyclist that chooses to cycle at <40kph along the Clontarf Road instead of the cycle path is being unreasonable"

jimmycrackcorm

doolox wrote:

There is a separate cycle lane and route for cyclists on both sides of the n4 which is rarely used but the main route is totally unsuitable for cyclists as it involves a lot of high speed merging and lane changing with motorised transport of widely varying dimensions and profiles, trucks busses etc which may not see a cyclist in time to stop. Heaven help anybody in a small car ahead of a truck who is forced to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist in these situations.

I don't know what cycle lane there is that goes westbound over the m50. T there is one eastbound via Palmerston but is of no use the opposite way.

eeeee

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair, I think any cyclist that chooses the Clontarf Road instead of the cycle path is being unreasonable. It's one of the best cycle paths out here and if they want to cycle on the road, there's always the Howth or Malahide roads. At St Ann's Park, the road is too narrow for cyclists and Motorists now. Fairs fair...use the cycle path.

I use the road too training, very much depends on what your doing and how fast your going. I usually use it coming home :pac:

I'm actually not in favour of bike lanes, the clontarf one is the only decent one we have and that's not without its problems. I think the more you separate cyclists from the rest of traffic the more the rest of traffic doesn't have to deal with cyclists, the less the rest of traffic are safe in dealing with cyclists. I almost never use cycle lanes. They routinely leave me off in dangerous spots to left turning traffic at junctions, don't allow me to go straight on the road I'm traveling on (temple hill), are full of puncture causing shyte and debris, never cleaned, stop suddenly and randomly, pedestrians in them, etc etc etc.
I rarely use them and if I'm cycling somewhere new I've learnt to absolutely avoid them.

TL DR: The more we're all together the more we all learn how to get along basically.

Chuchote

Nee, the countries that have the most cycling, and the most success with cycling as a normal way of getting around - Netherlands, Denmark, Germany - do use separated cycle lanes. And when I first knew Paris it was a cyclist-free zone, but when separated lanes were put in, people started using them big time and now there's a lot of cycling there.

With no separated lanes you'll get intrepid youths, and a few intrepid maidens, cycling among the trucks and vans and cars, but with lanes you'll get the trepid, like me.

eeeee

I disagree, for the reasons I've laid out.
Every country is different, and those countries have a much bigger cycling culture than ours - even racing. We don't. It's not always possible to transplant things wholesale without the accompanying culture to go with it.

Bottom line no matter how much segregation there is you can't separate the two constantly, and both need to learn how to deal with each other safely. They need to interact more. The more people that cycle and the more visible cyclists are in general the safer it's gonna be for all. That's my opinion on it, ymmv.

magicbastarder

i have that debate in my head a lot. i'm happy in - and prefer - on road cycle lanes, in no small part because they're less likely to have debris in them, but then i'm confident on the bike and have also been driving for over 20 years so might understand traffic better than someone who wants to cycle but cannot drive. so i'm wary about placing myself in a position of trying to justify a 'what's good enough for me is good enough for you' approach.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have that debate in my head a lot. i'm happy in - and prefer - on road cycle lanes, in no small part because they're less likely to have debris in them, but then i'm confident on the bike and have also been driving for over 20 years so might understand traffic better than someone who wants to cycle but cannot drive. so i'm wary about placing myself in a position of trying to justify a 'what's good enough for me is good enough for you' approach.

So to summarize...

Kids cycle on the path.
Kids/Teenagers cycle on the Cycle Lane.
Inexperienced adults, cycle on the Cycle lane
Commuters cycle on the Cycle lane and/or Road, (Subject to experience/confidence and Cycle lane condition)

and Finally if you wear Lycra..Cycle on the Road but make sure you're doing at least 40kph!

Lumen

07Lapierre wrote: »

and Finally if you wear Lycra..Cycle on the Road but make sure you're doing at least 40kph!

I like the idea of a minimum speed limit for cyclists on such stretches, measured using average speed cameras and enforced by shaming.

You'd be given intermediate splits to help with the pacing and then at the Sutton lights a sign would broadcast your victory or shame for all to see.

I'm not quite sure how they'd manage the image recognition but it can't be that far beyond current tech.

magicbastarder

so we need to add gradient to that calculation!

PeadarCo

magicbastarder wrote:

i have that debate in my head a lot. i'm happy in - and prefer - on road cycle lanes, in no small part because they're less likely to have debris in them, but then i'm confident on the bike and have also been driving for over 20 years so might understand traffic better than someone who wants to cycle but cannot drive. so i'm wary about placing myself in a position of trying to justify a 'what's good enough for me is good enough for you' approach.

The problem is what's good for one cyclist may not suit another cyclist. The Clontarf cycle lane is a perfect example. It's a great piece of infrastructure but it won't suit all cyclists 100% of the time. More than any other form of transport there's a huge difference between individuals abilities,speeds and needs. Some people cycle and train alot and have good equipment. Another person might use a hack bike and there short commute might be the only exercise they do all week. What they will want from a cycle lane might differ radically for perfectly valid reasons on both sides.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not quite sure how they'd manage the image recognition but it can't be that far beyond current tech.

easy. mandatory registration plates for cyclists.

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

I like the idea of a minimum speed limit for cyclists on such stretches, measured using average speed cameras and enforced by shaming.

That's me out. I don't cycle very fast.

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

easy. mandatory registration plates for cyclists.

FFFfffffff

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

easy. mandatory registration plates for cyclists.

Tax and Insurance too eh? ....:pac:........:pac:.....

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

That's me out. I don't cycle very fast.

But they made a whole separate road for you!

monument

magicbastarder wrote: »

easy. mandatory registration plates for cyclists.

Facial recognition systems are getting so good that there'll be no need for registration plates. The public services card database already has a good chunk of photos of adults on file... just need to add the rest and the children too.

It'll be one way to really sell the national ID car... I mean sell the public services card to the plebs: We'll be able to fine cyclists automatically!

Carawaystick

Lumen wrote: »

But they made a whole separate road for you!

NO they DIDN'T!

There's loads of places where the cycle track ends and there's "shared space" with people walking.

That's not separate.

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

I like the idea of a minimum speed limit for cyclists on such stretches, measured using average speed cameras and enforced by shaming.

You'd be given intermediate splits to help with the pacing and then at the Sutton lights a sign would broadcast your victory or shame for all to see.

I'm not quite sure how they'd manage the image recognition but it can't be that far beyond current tech.

you'd have to paint the road green then, so everyone knows the sprint section is coming up

Lumen

Carawaystick wrote: »

NO they DIDN'T!

There's loads of places where the cycle track ends and there's "shared space" with people walking.

That's not separate.

All roads except motorways are shared with pedestrians.

munsterbear

Anyway, the issue with the N4/M50 westbound is that there is no cycle track for this traffic. If you're at Chapelizod cycling westbound, any semblance of a cycle lane ends and you just continue on the road.[/QUOTE]

If you are cycling through Chapelizod going west, cycle past the hotel and at the bus turnaround point you cross the road onto the brand new tarmac cycle/footpath. From here you can cycle on the Old Lucan Road, basically between the garage and Stewards. This takes you to a bridge solely for cyclists and pedestrians over the M50, after there its your choice to cross bridge to Liffey Valley or go right onto road beside Murrays Pub, Kings Hospital etc towards the Hermitage Clinic. Again there is cycle lanes and there are a number of bridges to cross over if you need to get to Lucan.

I've no idea why cyclists prefer to take the more dangerous route by crossing the on/off ramps for the M50 especially given the speed of some of the vehicles and the sheer number that swerve across 2 or lanes at the last moment. And it also bypasses the two sets of lights on the Palmerstown bypass. Anything I've cycled into or out of town, this is the route I've taken and it is a lot more relaxing than trying to cross those other lanes.

rubadub

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've seen some but very few cyclists using the the road in clontarf heading out to howth. This is can be annoying as the road is so narrow now and there is the 3 mill euro newly cycle lane beside it.

It probably wouldn't be as annoying if I could get figure out the reason why.

If you are genuinely interested then maybe get a load of a road bike and try cycling in it yourself. Being a roadbike/racer is important. I used to wonder why so many avoided lanes I cycle in -then I had a puncture and had to borrow a roadbike and it was a nightmare cycling on them, like driving across a field in a regular car.

I like to stick to cycle tracks as I am well aware of the sociopath lunatics out there doing "punishment passes" etc mainly taxis and buses. I resorted to getting a cross country mountain bike as its the only bike I think suitable for the "perfectly good cycle lanes" I keep hearing about. I had hybrid bikes but do not think they were up to it.

Imagine if lane 1 on motorways was similarly full of pedestrians, dogs on illegally long leads, glass, kerbs, potholes, stops/starts, driveway dips & rises etc. Very few would drive in that lane if it was like that, and stick to lane 2 & 3, and as people would have experience driving in such an intolerable lane there would be few wondering what the reason was why they avoid it.

Some are confused why cyclists are on the "dangerous" road rather than the "safe" cycle lane. If they actual went on it they might be wondering the exact opposite.

In another thread I was saying I am unsure if pedestrians are legally permitted to walk in cycle tracks, I think they can, I have never seen or heard of gardai cautioning anybody doing it. If they can legally do it I would like to see them called shared cycle/pedestrian lanes or similar -as this is what they already are (legal or not), then many motorists would not question it as much -just like if lane 1 on motorways was legally shared by pedestrians they would not be surprised to hear of people avoiding it.

Carawaystick

Lumen wrote: »

All roads except motorways are shared with pedestrians.

This is wrong, because there are roads only pedestrians can use, and there are roads that are not motorways pedestrians are not allowed use despite not being motorways


But as you wrote that there's a whole separate road for people cycling, I'll let you explain that clearly first

Cookie_Monster

Carawaystick wrote: »

This is wrong, because there are roads only pedestrians can use,

such as? (genuinely), even pedestrianised streets allow for delivery vehicles at times.

Carawaystick wrote: »

and there are roads that are not motorways pedestrians are not allowed use despite not being motorways

Tunnels being the main (only?) ones, which mostly/all bans cyclists too for whatever cryptic reason they came up with.

Macy0161

rubadub wrote: »

Imagine if lane 1 on motorways was similarly full of pedestrians, dogs on illegally long leads, glass, kerbs, potholes, stops/starts, driveway dips & rises etc. Very few would drive in that lane if it was like that, and stick to lane 2 & 3, and as people would have experience driving in such an intolerable lane there would be few wondering what the reason was why they avoid it.

It'd be fine, as the majority the tested, licenced, regulated, insured, identifiable and therefore above reproach motorists already think it's the slow lane rather than the driving lane, so just sit in overtaking lanes the whole time with the driving lane empty!

rubadub

Carawaystick wrote: »

But as you wrote that there's a whole separate road for people cycling, I'll let you explain that clearly first

are there though? I am still wondering if it is illegal for pedestrians to use some cycletracks or cycleways.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/14/section/68/enacted/en/html

68.—(1) In this section “cycleway” means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

(2) (a) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and maintain a cycleway.

(b) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway it shall by order declare either—

(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or

(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

(c) Any person who uses a cycleway in contravention of an order under paragraph (b) shall be guilty of an offence.

There are "jaywalking" type laws for crossing "roadways" but it would seem they might be allowed cross cycletracks/cycleways, and so possibly walk along them too.

check_six

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Tunnels being the main (only?) ones, which mostly/all bans cyclists too for whatever cryptic reason they came up with.

Well, that's because a bicycle in rush hour could break down, or overheat and go on fire and block the tunnel.

This would cause chaos.

Because only motorised vehicles are permitted to use facilities like the Dublin Port Tunnel, this kind of blockage *NEVER* happens.

There will be no further questions.

Thank you and goodnight.

Lumen

Carawaystick wrote: »

This is wrong, because there are roads only pedestrians can use, and there are roads that are not motorways pedestrians are not allowed use despite not being motorways

OK, I know that footpaths are technically roads but that wasn't what I was getting at.

My principal objection to segregation is that it represents a victory of individualism over collectivism, a sort of whiney, snowflakey, I-must-have-my-absolutely-favourite-thing mentality.

The ability to share and compromise is the greatest positive attribute of our species.

Grassey

rubadub wrote: »

I like to stick to cycle tracks as I am well aware of the sociopath lunatics out there doing "punishment passes" etc mainly taxis and buses.

They still aren't safe, I'd a car cut across 2 lanes (with no traffic) this morning, mount the grade separated cycle lane inches in front of me, hit the brakes, then take the left turn (I was going straight). Poor thing was probably late for work or something equally more important than avoiding killing me.

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

They still aren't safe, I'd a car cut across 2 lanes (with no traffic) this morning, mount the grade separated cycle lane inches in front of me, hit the brakes, then take the left turn (I was going straight). Poor thing was probably late for work or something equally more important than avoiding killing me.

I've also had that experience. Motorists illegally in the bus lane decided to undertake another motorist also in the bus lane (but at least trying to get of it, so stopped, indicator on), by mounting the grade separated cycle path.

Tombo2001

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've seen some but very few cyclists using the the road in clontarf heading out to howth. This is can be annoying as the road is so narrow now and there is the 3 mill euro newly cycle lane beside it.

It probably wouldn't be as annoying if I could get figure out the reason why.

Not having a pop at cyclists, there'll be a plenty along too does that later in the thread. I do stress that there's only a few cyclists on the road there.

As a frequent user of the cycle path; I would agree with you that its an instance where drivers would be right to be frustrated.

Yes the cycle path is not mandatory. However, it is as close to perfection as cycle paths in Dublin are going to get. Its completely off road, it has a good deal of space, it has a good surface. There are some stop starts on it, but not many.

The issue I suspect that some cyclists have with it is that it is not safe (legal, but not safe) for cyclists on road bikes to pelt along the cycle path at full speed, when there are other cyclists and pedestrians about the place.

So presumably rather than go slower, they go on the road themselves. Rather than inconvenience themselves, the inconvenience others.

The other, fairer reason is that if you are approaching the coast road say from some of the roads in clontarf, it can just take a while to cross the road, and then you may have to physically lift your bike onto the cycle path. That is awkward.