Junction design the Dutch pedestrian and cycle friendly way

Qualitymark · 29-08-2013 10:17pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

seem to me from various threads involving the cycling fraternity that they all cry for road sharing but seem very blasé when it comes to their side of it

Ah, the 'fraternity' word, and its loyal ally the 'they' word. Waiting for the 'brigade' word.

monument · 29-08-2013 11:04pm

I'm detecting more than borderline trolling -- warnings from previous threads apply.

Cookie_Monster · 30-08-2013 12:04am

Spook_ie wrote: »

As are most people, but it does seem to me from various threads involving the cycling fraternity that they all cry for road sharing but seem very blasé when it comes to their side of it

blasé in what way? Or are you simply tarring all cyclists with one brush again?

perhaps we should discuss the perceived entitlements of taxi drivers and their constant blockage of road in the same terms in the context of road sharing and rule following?

Iwannahurl · 30-08-2013 12:09am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

... there is no comparison between their standards of construction, design and maintenance and ours.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The need for separate traffic signals is where this type of design breaks down when transposed to the Irish context.

Lest there be any doubt, I posted the video primarily because it was the first time I'd seen it. TTBOMK it was posted once before on Boards and was not much discussed then.

I'm aware of the limitations of the Irish context, as well as the unfulfilled (unrealisable?) longing for Dutch-style cycle infrastructure.

galwaycyclist · 30-08-2013 9:04am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Sorry totaly disagree with your statement, for your statement to be true would mean you are willing to allow pedestrians to cross with the different phases of the lights "as long as they are in the lane"

For the purposes of considering how Irish and UK traffic signals work, the footpath is considered as a lane with its own traffic signals. In the video the narrator refers to the crossings as "zebra crossings". However they clearly cannot be zebra crossings as we would understand them.

Yes in some countries all traffic going in a particular direction, pedestrians, cyclists and cars will get a green at the same time and turning cars are required to yield to pedestrians and cyclists passing inside.

In the case of this video, this may not happening since the captions state that the cyclists and the "car" lanes have different signals. What is happening with the pedestrians is not stated as far as I saw.

You seriously think that cyclists,cars and pedestrians having equal times is the most efficent usage of a junction, really hope you aren't involved in traffic management in any professional capacity, you see what I read between your lines isn't road sharing but for cyclists to disregard whatever phase of the lights is current, i.e if it's green for cars I'll use the carriageway, even if I hold up buses etc., if it green for cyclists I'll use the cycle lane and if it's green for pedestrians, well I'll just cycle slowly or become a pedestran

See above regarding everyone getting green at the same time. And yes in the Netherlands, which is where we are talking about, the engineers will often seek to reduce delay for cyclists by whatever means possible. So in this design the cyclists will have a free right turn - they bypass the lights altogether. In addition Dutch cyclists might get two green signal phases for every loop through the signal sequence. Furthermore, the cyclists may also be getting a four way green - where - for the cyclists - all the arms go green at the same time and cyclists are expected to just avoid each other at potential conflict points.

And yes if some engineer puts in some design that imposes delay, if they are trying to manage one set of road users (cyclists and pedestrians) for the benefit of some other set of road users (motorists) then there is no moral obligation on the first groups to respect or obey the controls being applied.

We can see this in relation to pedestrian crossings and pedestrian phases at traffic lights all over the country. Several generations of Irish road engineers have been training several generations of pedestrians to ignore the red man at traffic signals.

Spook_ie · 30-08-2013 1:23pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

<snipped>

And yes if some engineer puts in some design that imposes delay, if they are trying to manage one set of road users (cyclists and pedestrians) for the benefit of some other set of road users (motorists) then there is no moral obligation on the first groups to respect or obey the controls being applied.

We can see this in relation to pedestrian crossings and pedestrian phases at traffic lights all over the country. Several generations of Irish road engineers have been training several generations of pedestrians to ignore the red man at traffic signals.

Great idea, so I assume then if motorists are being managed for the benefit of cyclists/pedestrians you'd have no objection to motorists ignoring the controls either.

galwaycyclist · 30-08-2013 2:44pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Great idea, so I assume then if motorists are being managed for the benefit of cyclists/pedestrians you'd have no objection to motorists ignoring the controls either.

Where have I stated that I have "no objection" to anyone ignoring any controls?

Spook_ie · 30-08-2013 3:51pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Where have I stated that I have "no objection" to anyone ignoring any controls?

Perhaps it might be a wrong interpretation of you saying that one group has No Moral Obligation to respect or obey the controls maybe you'd expand and clarify on that statement

galwaycyclist · 30-08-2013 4:12pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps it might be a wrong interpretation of you saying that one group has No Moral Obligation to respect or obey the controls maybe you'd expand and clarify on that statement

Because it is a matter of what controls are being applied to whom and why.

Clearly what is important is context. Clearly if controls are being applied on any group then it should be seen to be for some good reason rather than simply for the benefit of another group.

Asking Mrs Rosa Parks to give up her seat at the front of the bus so that Mrs Smith can sit down is ok if it's because Mrs Smith is old and has trouble with her legs.

If Mrs Parks is being told to sit at the back of the bus because she is coloured and Mrs Smith is white and uppity coloured folks should know their place - then that is not OK.

Spook_ie · 30-08-2013 10:18pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Because it is a matter of what controls are being applied to whom and why.

Clearly what is important is context. Clearly if controls are being applied on any group then it should be seen to be for some good reason rather than simply for the benefit of another group.

<snipped racist analogy>.

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

Qualitymark · 30-08-2013 11:17pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

I believe that the Dutch are right; the heavier and more deadly the vehicle, the more care its driver should take, and the more responsibility its driver bears in any accident.

Cyclists should go ahead at junctions because they are more fragile than half-tonne cars; drivers should be able to see them and avoid hitting them.

Spook_ie · 31-08-2013 12:00am

Qualitymark wrote: »

I believe that the Dutch are right; the heavier and more deadly the vehicle, the more care its driver should take, and the more responsibility its driver bears in any accident.

Cyclists should go ahead at junctions because they are more fragile than half-tonne cars; drivers should be able to see them and avoid hitting them.

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

monument · 31-08-2013 8:22am

Spook_ie wrote: »

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

You really need to accept the idea that in an Irish context for the foreseeable future you should expect to see cyclists in any and all lanes on city streets and on any road besides a motorway. That's the law and that's cyclists responsibility.

In a Dutch context you're talking about cycle paths which mopeds users often illegally use (on the ones they are not alloewed use) because these are more attractive than mixing with large buses, HGVs and cars. In this context you don't need to force 99.999% of people to use cycle paths and those left over are a blip not worth talking about when it comes to affects on drivers.

Overall you're very close to the "cyclists can't act responsible so they should not get any improvements" argument and that's just silly because if that logic was applied to all road roads than all road building would end.

You also seems to be working off the idea that any upgrade would be done on the bases of current cyclists and that more cyclists is undesirable - which is not the case, as the goal is to increase the percentage of cyclists and more cyclists comes with clear benefits for us all.

Qualitymark · 31-08-2013 9:25am

Spook_ie wrote: »

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

I drive, and cycle, using the philosophy that I should mind my own responsibility, and not regard others' as any of my business.

Iwannahurl · 31-08-2013 1:23pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

Firstly, galwaycyclist's allusion to Rosa Parks was not a "racist analogy" but, as I see it, an analogy broadly comparing discriminatory policy in the area of traffic and transportation to laws based on the colour of people's skin. If laws and policies are discriminatory then we should not be surprised or outraged if those discriminated against feel justified in ignoring, or objecting to, those laws and policies. For the record, I believe this is a reasonable analogy for the purposes of illustration, but like all analogies it should not be taken too far or too literally.

That said, your question is an interesting one. Should sustainable modes of travel be given preferential treatment? It is my belief that they should, and there are a number of inter-related reasons in different policy areas why that should be the case. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, road safety, public health, energy efficiency, climate change, social capital and sustainable urban planning.

Public policy favouring private car use scores poorly under those and other headings, whereas the opposite is the case for walking, cycling and public transport. Not only do we need a 'level playing pitch' for these modes of travel, but as a society we need positive discrimination in order to ensure a much greater modal share for them in future. Other countries have gone much further in that direction than we have, but there are early signs that we are starting to get the message in Ireland.

And no, there is no moral obligation on motorists, for example, to engage in civil disobedience or to ignore laws that favour, say, public transport. Take bus lanes, for instance. Motorists mightn't like them, but they serve a useful societal purpose and are there for the greater good. This is in no way equivalent to situations such as roads engineering practices that treat pedestrians and cyclists as second-class citizens.

monument · 01-09-2013 12:40am

No posts full of personal attacks, focusing on loads of off-topic thread issues and playing the ball and not the man will be tolerated.

Warning to all: Nobody is to reply to his post.... Edit: Post deleted as it would otherwise be unfare allow a reply and that would drag this thread more off topic.

Back on topic please!

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 3:12pm

monument wrote: »

You really need to accept the idea that in an Irish context for the foreseeable future you should expect to see cyclists in any and all lanes on city streets and on any road besides a motorway. That's the law and that's cyclists responsibility.

In a Dutch context you're talking about cycle paths which mopeds users often illegally use (on the ones they are not alloewed use) because these are more attractive than mixing with large buses, HGVs and cars. In this context you don't need to force 99.999% of people to use cycle paths and those left over are a blip not worth talking about when it comes to affects on drivers.

Overall you're very close to the "cyclists can't act responsible so they should not get any improvements" argument and that's just silly because if that logic was applied to all road roads than all road building would end.

You also seems to be working off the idea that any upgrade would be done on the bases of current cyclists and that more cyclists is undesirable - which is not the case, as the goal is to increase the percentage of cyclists and more cyclists comes with clear benefits for us all.

You mean I should accept the concept that cyclists are basically going to ignore the law, time then to revisit the registration of cyclists to give Garda the chance to enforce the law. As it is now you read posts from cyclists about reporting registrations of vehicles to Gards where as if a cyclist needs reporting unless there is a Gard next door to them you have zero chance.

bk · 02-09-2013 3:54pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean I should accept the concept that cyclists are basically going to ignore the law, time then to revisit the registration of cyclists to give Garda the chance to enforce the law. As it is now you read posts from cyclists about reporting registrations of vehicles to Gards where as if a cyclist needs reporting unless there is a Gard next door to them you have zero chance.

Yawn, all registration would lead to is significantly less people cycling and more traffic and congestion on our roads.

Not a single country in Europe has cycle registrations, it is a stupid and bureaucratic idea.

And it is a distraction from the real solution to this problem, which is to build, high quality, Dutch style cycle infrastructure that cyclists actually want to use.

Iwannahurl · 02-09-2013 4:11pm

Registration for cyclists -- the sort of thing you might hear a taxi driver saying.

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=3560.0

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 4:22pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Registration for cyclists -- the sort of thing you might hear a taxi driver saying.

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=3560.0

I don't see any mention of registration in those two links

monument · 02-09-2013 4:31pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean I should accept the concept that cyclists are basically going to ignore the law, time then to revisit the registration of cyclists to give Garda the chance to enforce the law. As it is now you read posts from cyclists about reporting registrations of vehicles to Gards where as if a cyclist needs reporting unless there is a Gard next door to them you have zero chance.

Err... No. Under Irish law cyclists are allowed to use all lanes, regardless of if there's a cycle lane / track / path nearby... What law breaking are you talking about?

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 4:39pm

monument wrote: »

Err... No. Under Irish law cyclists are allowed to use all lanes, regardless of if there's a cycle lane / track / path nearby... What law breaking are you talking about?

The usual, breaking red lights, failing to yield at yield signs, failing to stop at stop signs, cycling wrong way in one way streets ( without the requisite cyclelanes ), cycling wrong way in cycle lanes on dual carriageways, failing to yield to pedestrians at crossings, failing to cycle with due care and consideration to other road users such as people on horseback, about the only law that cyclists don't break is speeding and that's only because no one thought to include them. Pretty much all the laws and regulations that road users are supposed to comply with.

Oh yeah, forgot someone somewhere mentioned using cameras to catch RLJ's etc. guess what the unregistered cyclist gets off scottfree again, wasn't a cyclist thought that one up I suppose?

Qualitymark · 02-09-2013 4:41pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The usual, breaking red lights, failing to yield at yield signs, failing to stop at stop signs, cycling wrong way in one way streets ( without the requisite cyclelanes ), cycling wrong way in cycle lanes on dual carriageways, failing to yield to pedestrians at crossings, failing to cycle with due care and consideration to other road users such as people on horseback, about the only law that cyclists don't break is speeding and that's only because no one thought to include them. Pretty much all the laws and regulations that road users are supposed to comply with.

Oh yeah, forgot someone somewhere mentioned using cameras to catch RLJ's etc. guess what the unregistered cyclist gets off scottfree again, wasn't a cyclist thought that one up I suppose?

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could have a particular 'God, how I hate cyclists" thread that all these virtually identical rants could be auto-sorted into?

Getting back to the original video on page 1 of this thread, it looks like a really sensible junction design, safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 4:47pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could have a particular 'God, how I hate cyclists" thread that all these virtually identical rants could be auto-sorted into?

Getting back to the original video on page 1 of this thread, it looks like a really sensible junction design, safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

I agree with you BUT only if the cyclists are where you expect them to be, which is where I came in

bk · 02-09-2013 4:48pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The usual, breaking red lights, failing to yield at yield signs, failing to stop at stop signs, cycling wrong way in one way streets ( without the requisite cyclelanes ), cycling wrong way in cycle lanes on dual carriageways, failing to yield to pedestrians at crossings, failing to cycle with due care and consideration to other road users such as people on horseback, about the only law that cyclists don't break is speeding and that's only because no one thought to include them. Pretty much all the laws and regulations that road users are supposed to comply with.

Cars have registration, yet motorists frequently break all those laws too, as can be seen any day standing for a few minutes at any junction in Dublin.

Lets just be clear here, Spook_ie is in favour of anything which makes cycling less attractive and reduces the number of cyclists:

- Cycle registration

- Mandatory helmet laws

- Cyclists paying motor tax!!

- Cyclists having mandatory insurance

But you will never see him say that we should build dutch style cycle infrastructure or introduce more 30km/h zones. The two steps proven to improve cyclist safety and get more people cycling!

Just look at this thread, which is about Dutch style junctions, which would go a long way to improving cycling safety, but Spook_ie has now successfully knocked the thread off topic into a completely useless discussion about cycle registration!

And he gets away with doing this on pretty much every cycling related thread!

monument · 02-09-2013 4:55pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The usual, breaking red lights, failing to yield at yield signs, failing to stop at stop signs, cycling wrong way in one way streets ( without the requisite cyclelanes ), cycling wrong way in cycle lanes on dual carriageways, failing to yield to pedestrians at crossings, failing to cycle with due care and consideration to other road users such as people on horseback, about the only law that cyclists don't break is speeding and that's only because no one thought to include them. Pretty much all the laws and regulations that road users are supposed to comply with.

Oh yeah, forgot someone somewhere mentioned using cameras to catch RLJ's etc. guess what the unregistered cyclist gets off scottfree again, wasn't a cyclist thought that one up I suppose?

What has any of that got to do with the post you replied to?

Qualitymark · 02-09-2013 4:56pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I agree with you BUT only if the cyclists are where you expect them to be, which is where I came in

But,

...umm

...isn't that (if you look at the video) what this specific junction design does? It makes sure that cyclists are at all times seen by drivers?

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 5:09pm

monument wrote: »

Err... No. Under Irish law cyclists are allowed to use all lanes, regardless of if there's a cycle lane / track / path nearby... What law breaking are you talking about?

monument wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with the post you replied to?

Perhaps the bit in bold

It was after all your post that you asked it in

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 5:13pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

But,

...umm

...isn't that (if you look at the video) what this specific junction design does? It makes sure that cyclists are at all times seen by drivers?

Yes, and as I said only if the cyclists are where you expect them to be, if they aren't where they should be and are only following the regulations that they feel like then it's not worth a damn!

Spook_ie · 02-09-2013 5:18pm

bk wrote: »

Cars have registration, yet motorists frequently break all those laws too, as can be seen any day standing for a few minutes at any junction in Dublin.

Lets just be clear here, Spook_ie is in favour of anything which makes cycling less attractive and reduces the number of cyclists:

- Cycle registration

- Mandatory helmet laws

- Cyclists paying motor tax!!

- Cyclists having mandatory insurance

But you will never see him say that we should build dutch style cycle infrastructure or introduce more 30km/h zones. The two steps proven to improve cyclist safety and get more people cycling!

Just look at this thread, which is about Dutch style junctions, which would go a long way to improving cycling safety, but Spook_ie has now successfully knocked the thread off topic into a completely useless discussion about cycle registration!

And he gets away with doing this on pretty much every cycling related thread!

You mean I should just accept illegality from cyclists because they can get away with it, interesting concept.

Or that because I don't agree with your views then my views are invalidated, again another interesting concept.

Junction design the Dutch pedestrian and cycle friendly way

Comments