[RandomAccess]

Hey, whats the story with this cycle lane/footpath/pedestrian crossing intersection.

http://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces...88.94,,0,18.44

Alberto Contador nearly creamed a few Pedestrians here today who were coming across the road (he was going flat out, about double the speed of other cyclists).

I can't tell who has priority (if anyone) but I certainly think the cyclist should have taken some care. What are the rules here?

[BX 19]

Pedestrian has priority in this situation I would imagine.

[Keith186]

Originally Posted by RandomAccess

Hey, whats the story with this cycle lane/footpath/pedestrian crossing intersection.

http://maps.google.com/maps/myplaces...88.94,,0,18.44

Alberto Contador nearly creamed a few Pedestrians here today who were coming across the road (he was going flat out, about double the speed of other cyclists).

I can't tell who has priority (if anyone) but I certainly think the cyclist should have taken some care. What are the rules here?

Cycle lane line markings stop where where they intersect so in absence of them I'd say BX 19 is right.

[Cabaal]

Regardless of if the pedestrian was crossing on a green man or not the cyclist should have cyclied with due care and attention and should not hit the pedestrian.

The exact same applys to a car.

[Vladimir Kurtains]

Contador should have yielded for pedestrians. And anyone going at any speed has no business on that cycle path. He should have been on the road.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by Vladimir Kurtains

Contador should have yielded for pedestrians. And anyone going at any speed has no business on that cycle path. He should have been on the road.

Agreed. But try telling that to the DB driver who beeped at me the other day. while I was going 38kmph in the bus lane (I know, I know, I should've been going faster). I'm awaiting a reply from the DoT on the whole 'repeal of mandatory use of cycle lane' issue.

[dited]

Originally Posted by buffalo

I'm awaiting a reply from the DoT on the whole 'repeal of mandatory use of cycle lane' issue.

I sent 'aul Leo a mail in November on this issue; got an acknowledgement in early December, nothing since.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by dited

I sent 'aul Leo a mail in November on this issue; got an acknowledgement in early December, nothing since.

oh, that's not encouraging. Got the ack myself this afternoon. Will wait and see if anything else follows.

[BoySnowie]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Agreed. But try telling that to the DB driver who beeped at me the other day. while I was going 38kmph in the bus lane (I know, I know, I should've been going faster). I'm awaiting a reply from the DoT on the whole 'repeal of mandatory use of cycle lane' issue.

We need segregated bike paths - it is very frustrating for us bikers to use poorly designed pathetic "bike lanes" that are dangerous for us bikers AND people walking. Look at the new Grand Canal bikeway - that is something we could use on Clontarf Road.

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by BoySnowie

We need segregated bike paths - it is very frustrating for us bikers to use poorly designed pathetic "bike lanes" that are dangerous for us bikers AND people walking. Look at the new Grand Canal bikeway - that is something we could use on Clontarf Road.

I'm not a fan of segregated paths myself. There are occasions when I use them, but mostly I prefer the road. My thought is that if we repeal mandatory use legislation, and cyclists have a choice, then the onus is on councils to build better designed, better quality bike paths, which will encourage people to use them. Rather than this "slap down some red-coloured tarmac, and tell people we've built 1,000km of cycle lanes" nonsense.

[monument]

Originally Posted by buffalo

I'm not a fan of segregated paths myself. There are occasions when I use them, but mostly I prefer the road. My thought is that if we repeal mandatory use legislation, and cyclists have a choice, then the onus is on councils to build better designed, better quality bike paths, which will encourage people to use them. Rather than this "slap down some red-coloured tarmac, and tell people we've built 1,000km of cycle lanes" nonsense.

Agreed. Under the 'build it and they will come' mindset -- if you build quality, usable cycle paths, people will use them.

But this is exactly why there seems to be such resistance to the removal of mandatory use -- some people don't want cyclists choosing. So much crap has been build across Dublin where the road is much quicker. So they continue to be unrealistic with a law which won't work and creates conflict between cyclists and drivers, mainly bus and taxi drivers.

And it's worth saying: Problems with crap cycle tracks such as stopping all the time affects slow cyclists just as much if not more than faster and more fit cyclists.

[Páid]

I'm surprised there aren't any yield signs on the cycle lane. You normally see them at these junctions so that its clear that cyclists have to give way to pedestrians. There's one a little further up at a gate into the park.

[Raam]

Originally Posted by Páid

I'm surprised there aren't any yield signs on the cycle lane. You normally see them at these junctions so that its clear that cyclists have to give way to pedestrians. There's one a little further up at a gate into the park.

No, that means that it's the start of a Strava KOM segment.

[seamus]

To be fair, that's not exactly a "clear" example as it says yield but it doesn't give indication of where one is to yield or to whom.

I suspect in the example in the OP, yield markings existed at one point but have since been lost under continual re-layings of the concerete and slabs at that point.

[Kav0777]

I particularly don't like the cycle lanes that go on the path between a bus stop and the road. A bus pulls in to let people off and they are stepping straight on to a cycle lane. Has to be one of the least thought out designs I've seen.

An example can be seen at the bus stop between the Aer Arann offices and Little Venice Resteraunt on the old airport road/ swords road.