Why are cycle lanes compulsory?

Mucco

Can anyone enlighten me as to why the government decided to make cycle lanes compulsory? I'm well able to decide the safest route myself, which is invariabley the road.

M

robfitz

Take your pick:

"To remove cyclists from the roadway so motorists can have an unimpeded journey."

"Because it's got to be more safe to cycle on the cycle track then on the roadway."

"The governement has spent about 30 million building about 300 km of cycle facilities since 1994 in the Greater Dublin Area."

"We will invest in expanding the national network of cycleways in order to encourage more people to cycle and to promote cycling as a safe and healthy mode of travel", Programme for Governement

case_sensitive

Mucco does have a point, though there are now significant stretches of cycle lanes, they are nearly always on the worst-surfaced bit of old road (the bit no one bothered to fill the potholes in, sure it's only for the push-bikes). For an example of this, cycle from Finglas to the quays down the N2/Church st.

Also, the vast majority of cycle paths have broken lines painted on road-side of them, meaning that if a car feels like driving in it, he can, and will. I've been so close to being killed by taxis and trucks (the two greatest offenders are the professional drivers??) it's beyond a joke.

Cycle ways are A Good Thing, but until they're properly protected (or cars/fuel/insurance finally becomes prohibitively expensive), it'll still be riskier cycling around Dublin than driving.

Chalk

they built a cycle path up on its own stretch of road from suton to town [ small break for the ocean]

plenty of bikes sill choose not to use it,
weather independent.

if cyclists arent going to use the better and safer facilites provided,
theyre hardly going to use the dodgy ones they usually make.

Ghost Rider

Since when has the use of cycle lanes been compulsory?

If they actually are, then you'd also expect legislation to prevent motorists from driving or parking in them. As far as I know, no such legislation exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone...

Raam

Chalk wrote:

they built a cycle path up on its own stretch of road from suton to town [ small break for the ocean]

plenty of bikes sill choose not to use it,
weather independent.

I use this one everyday and I see plenty of other cyclists not using it. I usually reckon that they are only going on the coast for a short bit of their journey and will need to turn inland somewhere along the line. It's probably handier for them to use the road because sometimes there can be long stretches between the access points from cyclelane to road.
That said, if they are in fact going the most of the length of the cycle path but not bothering to use it... well, as Chalk hinted at, that doesn't make much sense at all!

Chalk

i usually spot them coming in the other direction,
im on a motorbike so driving up the centre of traffic i get line of sight for a fair bit up the road.

its only a few that do it, but they seem to be going most of the distance
[past a few of the little steps onto it anyway]

Raam

Chalk wrote:

its only a few that do it, but they seem to be going most of the distance
[past a few of the little steps onto it anyway]

they need their heads examined. That cycle path is great, no lights, no traffic, no excuse!

Actually now that I think of it, it can be very windy up on that path sometimes, so maybe cycling on the road offers a bit of shelter?
Either way, I still prefer to use that cycle path

daymobrew

Ghost Rider wrote:

Since when has the use of cycle lanes been compulsory?

If they actually are, then you'd also expect legislation to prevent motorists from driving or parking in them. As far as I know, no such legislation exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, someone...

Compulsory since the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997.

(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

Notice that item 6 prohibits cars from driving on them. I would assume that a car parking on a cycle lane could be done under this item for driving on the cycle lane.

BTW, when the Government eventually enact the rest of the penalty point offences there will be 1 point for driving in a cycle lane (Contravention of restrictions on driving vehicle on cycle track).

With the lack of enforcement I can understand why you would be under the impression that no such legislation exists.

I found the above information from the Irish Statute Book site.

damo22

I poxy walkers stayed off the one in the pheonix park it'd be good aswell.

seamus

For the same reason that pedestrians must use the footpath where one is provided - for their safety.

Curious, however is:

(1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track.

Now, this is not something I've given a lot of thought to. But if you have a piece of red tarmac, edged with a broken line, on the side of a roadway - something you see a lot of in Dublin - then other vehicles are not permitted to drive in it, even if the main roadway is not wide enough.
I do suspect however, that these pieces of red tarmac are not marked with the above mentioned signs, and therefore are not cycle lanes at all. However, DCC will claim them as part of the "cycle network", even though the regulations specifically say that they are not cycle lanes.

I'll have to keep an eye out for this on my way home. See how they mark it.

daymobrew

damo22 wrote:

I poxy walkers stayed off the one in the pheonix park it'd be good aswell.

I hear your pain! It makes me so mad. :mad: A small air horn might be fun to use to alert the trespassers.

[Apologies to those who have read the rest as I have posted it before]
I asked a Park Warden about this a while back - he said they've gotten loads of complaints from cyclists about this. He said that they have gone along and asked people to move but obviously it falls of deaf ears.
He explained that some women feel unsafe on the pedestrian lane because it is, in the womens' opinion, somewhat isolated from the road. I can see the point.

He also told me that the paths used to be the other way around - with the pedestrian one near the road. He didn't know why or when it was changed.

Like with all cycling, there are cyclists who use the pedestrian lane, thus giving the rest a bad name. I wonder if they do it out of spite.

Mucco

seamus wrote:

For the same reason that pedestrians must use the footpath where one is provided - for their safety.

And the evidence that cycle lanes are safer is???

seamus

Mucco wrote:

And the evidence that cycle lanes are safer is???

The evidence that they're not......? Are you actually going to tell me that it's no safer to walk/cycle away from the main roadway? Or are you just being anal?

John_C

I don't like that cycle lane from Sutton at all. If you travel above about 10mph you create a serious danger to pedestrians. Also, closer to town the lane gets very discontinuous as you pass entrances to industrial sites. I use the cycle lane when traffic is heavy so as to not cause a nusience and use the road when traffic is light.

As to the safety issue, I have no evidence either but I've always considered cycling on the road safer to cycling on a cycle lane. The majority of accidents happen at junctions and a car is more likely to either not see you or cut you off if you're in the cycle lane. On top of that a lot of cycle lanes do stupid things at junctions anyway.

Raam

John_C wrote:

I don't like that cycle lane from Sutton at all. If you travel above about 10mph you create a serious danger to pedestrians.

that can be true on sunny days or at weekends when there are many people out and about. Thankfully, at morning commute time (7 - 8 am for me), and to a lesser extent, evening commute time (5 - 6.30 pm for me), there are not very many people out at all, so it isn't really a problem for me. Also, when you rejoin the cycle lane at the wooden Bull Island bridge (heading to town) the cycle lane is no longer shared with pedestrians. Some people still choose to walk in it though

Raam

just a thought, where is the "best" place to go for a cycle in the Dublin area/borders?

Morgan

seamus wrote:

The evidence that they're not......? Are you actually going to tell me that it's no safer to walk/cycle away from the main roadway? Or are you just being anal?

Here's one opinion on it:
http://www.madmtb.com/tmp/vehicular.pdf

Google for "vehicular cycling" or "effective cycling" for more.

seamus

Sorry, actually I think I see his point now, he's referring to junctions. Tbh, it's tough to say. I was talking solely about danger while cycling on the cycle track, where cycle track and road are separated by some physical barrier (kerb, grass verge, etc).

But do we know that cycling on the road and encountering a junction and cycling on a cycle lane and encountering a junction are different in terms of danger. Certainly, one gives the right-of-way to the cyclist, whereas the other gives the right-of-way to the motorist. In theory, that should mean that the latter is the less dangerous, because the cyclist - the more vunerable road user - is the one who must yield, i.e. he is in control of his own safety. In practice, I'm not sure if it does, since you don't require a licence to cycle, so the notion of yielding seems to be foreign to a lot of cyclists.

In terms of whether more cyclists get hit by vehicles from behind, clearly cycling on the road is going to be more dangerous.

Civilian_Target

How often do you hear of (visible) cyclists being hit by vehicles from behind?

Ghost Rider

I'm surprised this legislation exists as I've never heard of either (i) a motorist being arrested for driving in, or parking in, a cycle lane, or (ii) a cyclist being arrested for not using a cycle lane.

My suspicion is that either there is no enforcement of this legislation or that the legislation itself is greatly compromised, perhaps in the way that Seamus suggests. I don't believe I've ever even seen a "traffic sign number" as they're referred to in the Road Traffic Act. Where do they appear?

Note also that according to the Act, bike lanes are subject to "periods of operation" - presumably, periods in which the afore-mentioned rules regarding cars do not apply. This could be yet another way in which the Government may appear to be providing for cyclists but in fact be favouring cars.

Does anyone use the cycle paths on the north quays - say, between O'Connell Bridge and the Point Depot? They're a joke.

seamus wrote:

For the same reason that pedestrians must use the footpath where one is provided - for their safety.

Curious, however is:

Now, this is not something I've given a lot of thought to. But if you have a piece of red tarmac, edged with a broken line, on the side of a roadway - something you see a lot of in Dublin - then other vehicles are not permitted to drive in it, even if the main roadway is not wide enough.
I do suspect however, that these pieces of red tarmac are not marked with the above mentioned signs, and therefore are not cycle lanes at all. However, DCC will claim them as part of the "cycle network", even though the regulations specifically say that they are not cycle lanes.

I'll have to keep an eye out for this on my way home. See how they mark it.

GreeBo

There is a difference between a Cycle "Lane" and a Cycle "Track", a track is for cyclists only and is cordered by a solid white line, a lane is for motorists and bikes, bordered by a broken white line.
I often cycle on the road as the bike lanes that are in a good bit off the road are lethal when it comes to estate junctions, motorists turn into the roads without seeing you, and the cars leaving the estates drive right over the bike lane as they wait to enter the main road...

copacetic

GreeBo wrote:

There is a difference between a Cycle "Lane" and a Cycle "Track", a track is for cyclists only and is cordered by a solid white line, a lane is for motorists and bikes, bordered by a broken white line.
I often cycle on the road as the bike lanes that are in a good bit off the road are lethal when it comes to estate junctions, motorists turn into the roads without seeing you, and the cars leaving the estates drive right over the bike lane as they wait to enter the main road...

or the one on the N11 which is on the footpath and veers in and out of bustops, with a give way to pedestrians sign, has a big dip outside all the houses and a bump up and down on both sides of the dip. Of course anyway coming out of these houses, dosesn't keep much of a look out for the cyclist.
incredibly dangerous on a road bike, never use it.

daymobrew

Ghost Rider wrote:

Does anyone use the cycle paths on the north quays - say, between O'Connell Bridge and the Point Depot? They're a joke.

I'm not familar with these cycle paths/lanes/tracks.

What is 'amusing' about them?
For potholes or other surface issues Dublin City Council should be able to fix them.


Last year I wrote to Sandra McGeever, Road Maintenance Division, about some issues. A few were fixed. I got a copied on a stern letter she sent to Roadstone (on East Wall Road) to clean up the concrete spillages. It said that Roadstone would be held responsible for accidents caused by the spillages. I've been too lazy about following up on the remaining issues.

Address I used:
Ms Sandra McGeever,
Road Maintenance Division,
Dublin City Council,
Block 2, Floor 2,
Civic Offices, Wood Quay,
Dublin 8.

BTW, I had to call her a few times to get the ball rolling. I think she was waiting for a few complaints in the areas I reports before doing anything.

I also have the phone numbers for a few of the DCC road maintenance depots - the 'lads on the street' can often fix things quicker than going via the Civic Offices administrative route.

Ghost Rider

They're not actually amusing - I was using the word "joke" colloquially. I could equally have said "They're awful."

Why? Chiefly because there is absolutely no continuity between them over that one mile stretch. They stop and start at least three times in the stretch between the Custom House and the Point Depot alone. Now because the cycle lanes are on the right side of the road, a cyclist heading east (i.e. from the city centre) has to cross the road to continue his journey on the left side of the main road. As you probably know, at most times of the day this is a notoriously dangerous stretch of road, lined with trucks heading to and from the docks.

I don't know whether the use of these particular cycle paths is compulsory. I can't tell because (a) I don't know whether they are lanes, tracks, paths or whatever (c) I don't know whether they are classified as either RRM 022 or RRM 023 -type roads and (b) I don't know what their "periods of operation" are. Perhaps that is my fault. But if these lanes are compulsory for cyclists, then they amount to an incredibly irresponsible piece of planning because of the way they "encourage" cyclists to traverse a very dangerous road more than once.

My strong suspicion is that these lanes (or whatever they are in the relevant bureaucratic parlance) were placed there primarily to satisfy quotas, in the absence of any consideration of their potential use to cyclists. I'm not convinced there is any quick fix to the problem but I'll give it some thought and, if relevant, lodge a complaint.

In the meantime I'll be recommending that cyclists travelling eastward along the north quays from the Custom House to the Point Depot should ignore these cycle paths, as they are probably far more dangerous than remaining on the main road.

daymobrew wrote:

I'm not familar with these cycle paths/lanes/tracks.

What is 'amusing' about them?
For potholes or other surface issues Dublin City Council should be able to fix them.


Last year I wrote to Sandra McGeever, Road Maintenance Division, about some issues. A few were fixed. I got a copied on a stern letter she sent to Roadstone (on East Wall Road) to clean up the concrete spillages. It said that Roadstone would be held responsible for accidents caused by the spillages. I've been too lazy about following up on the remaining issues.

Address I used:
Ms Sandra McGeever,
Road Maintenance Division,
Dublin City Council,
Block 2, Floor 2,
Civic Offices, Wood Quay,
Dublin 8.

BTW, I had to call her a few times to get the ball rolling. I think she was waiting for a few complaints in the areas I reports before doing anything.

I also have the phone numbers for a few of the DCC road maintenance depots - the 'lads on the street' can often fix things quicker than going via the Civic Offices administrative route.

Mucco

seamus wrote:

The evidence that they're not......? Are you actually going to tell me that it's no safer to walk/cycle away from the main roadway? Or are you just being anal?

Sorry Seamus, I kinda led you into that:

Following on from Morgan's link, John Franklin's website lists many research papers on the safety (or not) of cycle lanes:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

daymobrew

Ghost Rider wrote:

They're not actually amusing - I was using the word "joke" colloquially. I could equally have said "They're awful."

Yes, it was obvious
I basically wanted you to articulate the problems with the cycle lanes. It's easy for people to say things like "it sucks" without justifying it. Thanks for the detailed description.

I remember jogging toward The Point Depot one morning and the footpath just disappeared! It was a right bitch to cross the road, with all those trucks flying by.

seamus

Mucco wrote:

Sorry Seamus, I kinda led you into that:

Following on from Morgan's link, John Franklin's website lists many research papers on the safety (or not) of cycle lanes:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

A quick scan tells me it is as I thought - that poor behaviour on the part of both road users at junctions increases the danger of generally using cycle tracks.

It's an interesting one. It's less safe to cycle *on* the road on the straight, but junctions are more dangerous when you're not cycling on the road. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on building tracks that are 100% separated from the road, i.e. with over/underpasses at junctions.

Ghost Rider

That's exactly it, and it happens in a few places.

daymobrew wrote:

Yes, it was obvious
I basically wanted you to articulate the problems with the cycle lanes. It's easy for people to say things like "it sucks" without justifying it. Thanks for the detailed description.

I remember jogging toward The Point Depot one morning and the footpath just disappeared! It was a right bitch to cross the road, with all those trucks flying by.

GreeBo

Cycle paths that have un signalled junctions or, as previously mentioned run along a row of houses, etc are lethal and avoided by me. (cycle 12miles a day)
I think this quote from the US sums it up nicely

"Aim of well-designed roadway system should be to integrate bicycles and motor vehicles, according to the well-established and effective principles of traffic law and engineering, not to separate them."

The problem with most bike lanes is they take cyclists away from the traffic so they are forgotten about, you are not away that there is a bike travelling parallel to you, then at a junction you are amazed when you turn left and suddnely there is a bike underneath your car.
Technically the cyclists had right of way as he was in front of you, but technicalities dont help you when you are dead.

Mucco

So, to repeat the question, why has the government taken away the cyclists' choice to choose what they consider to be the safest route? I would genuinely like to know the government's thinking.

M