On-path cycle tracks

cyclopath2001

Spotted this statement on the DTO web site:

"NOTE: It is illegal and dangerous to cycle on all footpaths except those marked with a dedicated cycletrack."

What does this say about the paths marked by Dublin City Council as 'joint use' for cyclists and pedestrians and which do not have a dedicated cycle track?

Are these illegal or just unlawful?

C.

Victor

Hmmm, what about the young children who are legally allowed to cycle on footpaths?

cyclopath2001

It's also very brave of the DTO to imply that it is not dangerous to use a marked on-path cycle track.

Metrobest

Has anyone else laughed as much as I did when I saw the cycle lane from Santry to Drumcondra? What a total joke! The 'path' consists of a white line chalked onto the footpath upon which cyclists are told they can cycle safely. This allows the DTO to put up a big saying ''Santry QBC and Cycle Route'' - well they can forget about the cycle part. At serveral points the footpath narrows and the cycle path ends suddenly, or maybe the footpath ends, which is it? Oddly enough, not one single cyclist was spotted using the cycle-footpath. It's a death trap, and a miracle some granny has not been crushed to death by a cyclist careering down the bumpy footpath.

OfflerCrocGod

There really is very little choice but to cycle on the foot path when you are trying to get anywhere especially in Dublin City Centre It's a pain but I don't want to get killed by a truck driver.

cyclopath2001

I know what you mean, the Howth Road between Killester and Fairview is part of Dublin's Strategic Cycle Network.The DTO claims to have completed this, yet, often, there is no room for cyclists to cycle on it. Cars and trucks are scraping their tyres against the kerb.

Riding on the path is not the solution, you're just annoying the pedestrians and making yourself less visible to traffic for when you need to rejoin the road. You are vulnerbale to SUV's being reversed out of houses.

Drivers would be quite happy if cyclists were forced to to use the footpaths. We should'nt accept it. The DTO says many of Dublin City Council's footpath cycle facilities are illegal and dangerous. On this at least, I agree with them.

Claim your place on the public road. Avoid the insides of large vehicles & take control of your lane where appropriate, especially approaching roundabouts and left turns.

C.

Ernest

Two points about this:
Nobody seems to know the rules on parking on top of these red cycle paths that keep appearing with increasing frequency. Is is illegal for cars to park on them? If they are to be of any value to cyclists they should be the equivalent of "clearways" but cars park on them all the time. Sometimes the cycle paths are just put along the roadway in front of people's houses and visitors have nowhere to park. My point is that they are not properly explained and, for cyclists, frustrating and dangerous; for motorists: irritating and confusing.
Second point is that, where possible, footpaths are the safest place for cycling and it seems to me plain stupid to make cyling on footpaths illegal as a general principle. Obviously narrow footpaths wouldn't work for this but many footpaths are wide enough for both walkers and cyclists to be accomodated with ease. As an occasional cyclist myself I would not dare cycle on the roadway - with or without the so called cycle paths - its just too dangerous!. Very simply cars and bikes just do not mix.
P.S. I still recall that in Berlin, a year or so ago, many city centre footpaths had red cycle tracks going through them and this seemed to work very well.

mackerski

Ernest wrote:

Second point is that, where possible, footpaths are the safest place for cycling and it seems to me plain stupid to make cyling on footpaths illegal as a general principle.

Footpaths are, indeed, abundantly safe for cyclists. They'd be pretty safe for motorists too, but luckily the guards draw the line on that one. This leaves cyclists as the fastest, heaviest thing on the footpath, with a consequent improvement in their safety.

Now that we've cleared that one up, can you tell us where the safest place for pedestrians would be under this system?

Dermot

Metrobest

Footpaths are not at all safe for cyclists. They are full of bumps, tree roots, rivets and rubbish, not to mention grannies, buggies, kids and cars pulling out of driveways. If you call that safe you need to visit your nearest optician. It's not safe for anyone.

Cyclists' safety and cyclists' needs must come before selfish car drivers'. So if a road is too narrow for cars and bikes, the road must be narrowed to one lane and a proper cycle lane built.

Bee

Metrobest wrote:

Footpaths are not at all safe for cyclists. They are full of bumps, tree roots, rivets and rubbish, not to mention grannies, buggies, kids and cars pulling out of driveways. If you call that safe you need to visit your nearest optician. It's not safe for anyone.

You are absolutely correct my children generally cycle to school along a decent cycle path but unfortunately one section of it i notorious for two items of he type that you mentioned but its usually psycho cyclists (the minority!) that create the most danger on their trip.


[/QUOTE]Cyclists' safety and cyclists' needs must come before selfish car drivers'. [/QUOTE]

Why? Is a cyclists needs more important than my needs when it entails other folks life or death? I mean, what I work at entails life or death and there is no way I can do that work without driving. Think a little before you make bald statements!!!

Bee

p.s. Why do the Gardai ignore the accident causing breaking of red lights on a continous basis by cyclists thru' Dublin city centre.

P.p.s I have dealt with the results of thse accidents on more than one occasion so no flames please!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bee


Bee

cyclopath2001

Cycling is a healthy non-polluting activity. Indirectly, it saves lives. Yet the authorities, when they build cycling 'facilities', routinely discriminate against cyclists through sub-standard tracks and paths that are too narrow for the variety of different cyclists obliged to use them by laws passed without consultation.

The DTO has actually condemed as 'illegal and dangerous', the practice of forcing cyclists to share footpaths with pedestrians. No action has been taken againts the councils.

>>p.s. Why do the Gardai ignore the accident causing breaking of red lights on a continous basis by cyclists thru' Dublin city centre.<<

Probably for the same reason as they ignore drivers also breaking the lights.

C.

sliabh

Bee wrote:

p.s. Why do the Gardai ignore the accident causing breaking of red lights on a continous basis by cyclists thru' Dublin city centre.

*cough* they busted me for it *cough*

Metrobest

Bee wrote:

Why? Is a cyclists needs more important than my needs when it entails other folks life or death? I mean, what I work at entails life or death and there is no way I can do that work without driving. Think a little before you make bald statements!!!

p.s. Why do the Gardai ignore the accident causing breaking of red lights on a continous basis by cyclists thru' Dublin city centre.

Car drivers pollute the city with smog, clog up the roads and generally negatively impact upon the quality of life in the city. Cyclists, on the other hand, are environmentally friendly, healithy and are a positive thing. I'm not anti roads and cars per se; but in the central area of Dublin from Druomcondra to Ranelagh, I think cyclists should be catered for at the expense of drivers.

As far as red lights go, I think the traffic system is entierly illogical. As a cyclist you'll often find it's more logical to move when the light is red so that you avoid being stuck in the second lane between a truck and a double decker bus whilst attempthing a right turn! You try it and see how easy it is! Cycling in Dublin is a nightmare so it's not fair to blame cyclists. 99 percent of cyclists are model road users; pity about the drivers who have no respect fot us.

sliabh

I am pro-cycling myself but I have to point out...

Metrobest wrote:

Cycling in Dublin is a nightmare so it's not fair to blame cyclists. 99 percent of cyclists are model road users; pity about the drivers who have no respect fot us.

99% of cyclists could not be described as "having a light on their bike".

Cyclists are just as responsible for their behaviour as motorists and like motorists there is a lot of room for improvement.

vector

sliabh wrote:

I am pro-cycling myself but I have to point out...

99% of cyclists could not be described as "having a light on their bike".

Cyclists are just as responsible for their behaviour as motorists and like motorists there is a lot of room for improvement.

A bicycle is only required to have a "light" if if it in use during "during lighting up hours" (ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1933, SECTION 161, 1)

At other times a reflector white front red rear is satisfactory re lighting.

sliabh

vector wrote:

A bicycle is only required to have a "light" if if it in use during "during lighting up hours" (ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1933, SECTION 161, 1)

At other times a reflector white front red rear is satisfactory re lighting.

Sorry, I should have been clearer, I meant at night.

There is a sizeable number of cyclists (possibly even the majority?) that don't have lights for cycling in the dark.

robfitz

vector wrote:

A bicycle is only required to have a "light" if if it in use during "during lighting up hours" (ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1933, SECTION 161, 1)

Most of the acts from that far back would have been superseded by now the most current version I could find is.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI189Y1963.html

S.I. No. 189/1963: ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES)

Pedal cycles. 29.
...
(3) A front lamp fitted to a cycle shall—
(a) when lit, show to the front of the cycle a white or yellow light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,
...
(4) A rear lamp fitted to a cycle shall—
(a) when lit, show to the rear of the cycle a red light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,
...

Obligatory rear reflectors. 33.
...
(4) (a) In the case of a pedal cycle or a mechanically propelled bicycle used without a side-car, one obligatory rear reflector shall be fitted to the vehicle. edit: red
...

I could not find a requirement for a front white reflector, other that if one is present it should be white in color.

I like section though.

Restrictions on flashing lights.

42. No lamp (other than direction indicators) fitted to a vehicle shall show or be constructed or adapted so as to be capable of showing a flashing light unless such light is invisible to persons outside the vehicle.

robfitz

Ernest wrote:

footpaths are the safest place for cycling and it seems to me plain stupid to make cyling on footpaths illegal as a general principle.

The footpath is ment to provide a safe place for pedestrians. At some juctions due to poor layout or car driving, it might be quicker or safer for a cyclists to to use the footpath to progress through traffic.

I would suggest reading some of the articles at http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html for research into the safety of cycle paths.

rubadub

Bee wrote:

Cyclists' safety and cyclists' needs must come before selfish car drivers'. [/QUOTE]

Why? Is a cyclists needs more important than my needs when it entails other folks life or death? I mean, what I work at entails life or death and there is no way I can do that work without driving. Think a little before you make bald statements!!!
[/QUOTE]
Did you read the bit after that saying "So if a road is too narrow for cars and bikes, the road must be narrowed to one lane and a proper cycle lane built."
If a car gets a tiny knock from a cyclist the driver is not going to get injured, other way around...

What happened to the planned introduction of on-spot fines for cycling on the footpath? Did they cop on that it would cause chaos when cyclists insisted on cycling on narrow (inadequate) roads causing huge delays to traffic? I routinely cycle on the path on narrow roads, if they did introduce fines I would cycle well out from the kerb so trucks/SUVs wouldnt even think of passing me at what they consider a "safe distance".

On the stillorgan dual carriage way at whites cross the gardai are there nearly every day stopping people using the bus lane, I would also like to know the legal situation for this, they park on the cycle lane and pull cars in who park there too. I'd love to report them.

robfitz

Metrobest wrote:

Cyclists' safety and cyclists' needs must come before selfish car drivers'. So if a road is too narrow for cars and bikes, the road must be narrowed to one lane and a proper cycle lane built.

I think the comment here is that if a cycle track is to be marked on the road it needs to be a lane in it's own right and not part of another lane of traffic. I.e. don't take a 3 meter inside lane and mark a 1+ meter stripped cycle track on it.

rubadub wrote:

On the stillorgan dual carriage way at whites cross the gardai are there nearly every day stopping people using the bus lane, I would also like to know the legal situation for this, they park on the cycle lane and pull cars in who park there too. I'd love to report them.

They are allowed to do this, as long as it is safe to do so.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI274Y1998.html

S.I. No. 274/1998: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1998

Non-application of certain Prohibitions and Restrictions

5.
...
(2) A prohibition or restriction imposed by these Regulations shall not apply to the driver of a fire brigade vehicle or an ambulance or to the use by a member of the Garda Siochana of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member, where such use does not thereby endanger the safety of road users.
...

vector

robfitz wrote:

...Restrictions on flashing lights.

42. No lamp (other than direction indicators) fitted to a vehicle shall show or be constructed or adapted so as to be capable of showing a flashing light unless such light is invisible to persons outside the vehicle...QUOTE]

Two points
-is a bicycle a "vehicle"
if it is then
-attach the flashing light to your t-shirt or other article of clothing
and not to the actual "vehicle"

cyclopath2001

Yes, a bicycle is a 'vehicle'., this is why it sould not be ridden on a path unless there is a separate cycle lane marked.

Attaching flashers to yourself rather than fixing them to the bike is probably not unlawful but you must have the regulation lamps and reflector attached as appropriate.

I do not use flashers, I think they're annoying for drivers. I choose light coloured tops with some reflective material & either a brightly coloured helmet or hat.

The most important thing is to give drivers something to focus on so that they can assess your speed and direction.

Remember that Dublin City Council cycle tracks are non-operational at night (7pm-7am).

Metrobest

sliabh wrote:

I am pro-cycling myself but I have to point out...
99% of cyclists could not be described as "having a light on their bike".

Cyclists are just as responsible for their behaviour as motorists and like motorists there is a lot of room for improvement.

The only reason cyclists utilise the footpath is dangerous, narrow roads. No cyclist takes pleasure from the bumpy footpath, swerving to avoid pedestrians. If road facilites were adequate cyclists would use them.

Instead of asking why cyclists don't wear lights, let's ask: why are drivers travelling so quickly that they can't notice a cyclist in time? Drivers should accept that cyclists need the roadspace more than they do. Along highways drivers can zoom at whatever speed they choose. In the city centre cars should be banned altogether - or the speed limit reduced to 20kmph. That way cyclists don't need lights.

If a car is going at the proper speed, it will notice a cyclist without problems. Why should it be cyclists' reponsibiliy to dress up in tacky flourescant jackets and to attach expensive lights to their bikes? Is it not the repsonibility of the car driver to make sure he does not run down a cyclist? I totally object to the assertion that cyclists are endangering their safety by traveling without lights. The only danger to cyclists is bad drivers; why aren't we focusing on that problem instead of demonising cyclists.

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I do not use flashers, I think they're annoying for drivers. I choose light coloured tops with some reflective material & either a brightly coloured helmet or hat.

Depending on the design I find that flashing lights on a cyclist (the red ones anyway) are actually easier to see. But a lot of them are so small/weak that they might as well be invisible.

metrobest wrote:

Why should it be cyclists' reponsibiliy to dress up in tacky flourescant jackets and to attach expensive lights to their bikes?

WTF? Why shouldn't it be?

metrobest wrote:

Is it not the repsonibility of the car driver to make sure he does not run down a cyclist?

It is my responsibility not to hit a cyclist. But the cyclist can't abdicate all responsibility for their safety. They must cycle in a safe manner, their bike must be road worthy and they have to have lights when out at night. Apart from the fact that it's the law the more you do to increase your visibility the less your chance of being hit by another road user.

And this applies even in cities where there is street lighting. Quite often with other car lights, pedestrians and general street clutter a cyclist needs lights to stand out.

uberwolf

up the stillorgan dual carriageway there's a situ I'd like clarified, the pretty dire on path cycle lane was recently dug up by a company called sierra communications and they haven't made any attempt to make the pathway usable since they left the site. I wouldn't use that lane anyway due to it's design but they have rendered it completely unusable IMO. Who's responsible here?

sliabh

uberwolf wrote:

but they have rendered it completely unusable IMO. Who's responsible here?

Any road opening has to be approved by the local authority. And in many cases the construction firm has to sign over a bond to guarantee that they will return the road to it's original condition (this is forfeit if the work is not done)

Now that's the theory. However, it may not apply to cycle paths, local authority work seems to be exempt (i.e. if Sierra were working for the council) and from the standards of roads in general around Dublin I'd say enforcement is lax. But for now you could take some photos and try to pressurise the council to do something about it.

The worst case of this I have seen has to be the people that did some work by the Leeson street bridge. They dug out the concrete path and put in 2 traffic cones until the hole was filled. Then they back filled with tarmcadam AROUND THE CONES!
What is left of the cones is still there over a year later. :rolleyes:

robfitz

sliabh wrote:

Any road opening has to be approved by the local authority. And in many cases the construction firm has to sign over a bond to guarantee that they will return the road to it's original condition (this is forfeit if the work is not done)

Each county would have there own policy documents, here are some for Dublin City Council.

Directions for the Control and Management of Roadworks in Dublin City 2002
http://www.dublincity.ie/traffic/roadworks.pdf (3 MB)

Draft Communications Regulations Act, 2002
http://www.dublincity.ie/profile/publications/roads/comms_regs.htm

/me doesn't like steel plates

5.11 Availability and Use of Steel Plates
Steel plates must be available on site or alternatively steel plates must be capable of being delivered to the site within 30 minutes in sufficient quantity, to cover in its entirety, any excavation that cannot be backfilled
· The plates must be set in flush with the road surface
· They must have an anti-skid surface. (edit: bold in original)
· The plates shall be fixed to the road surface (to prevent dislodgement) by means of countersunk holding down bolts. A groove is required to be made around each excavation into which the plate shall sit and be fixed.
· Consideration should be given to accidental wheel loading, where appropriate.
· The utility/company and its contractor will be responsible for the structural adequacy and safety of any such plates.

luckat

In Japan, bicycles have right of way on footpaths. Oh, and today is Moon Viewing Day there. Watch out!

Victor

sliabh wrote:

Any road opening has to be approved by the local authority. And in many cases the construction firm has to sign over a bond to guarantee that they will return the road to it's original condition (this is forfeit if the work is not done)

Whoever opens the road is responsible, need to provide a bond and must keep the opening in good repair for 18 months.

vector

Victor wrote:

Whoever opens the road is responsible, need to provide a bond and must keep the opening in good repair for 18 months.

and here is what will actually happen...
Whoever wants to open the road can, once they are finished they can leave the road in whatever condition they like, no one in power knows or cares who is responsible, three to six months later the taxpayer pays for a local authority crew or a contractors crew to fix it to a resonable standard, it it never really fixed until the whole section of road is retarred.

Metrobest

sliabh wrote:

WTF? Why shouldn't it be?

It is my responsibility not to hit a cyclist. But the cyclist can't abdicate all responsibility for their safety. They must cycle in a safe manner, their bike must be road worthy and they have to have lights when out at night. Apart from the fact that it's the law the more you do to increase your visibility the less your chance of being hit by another road user.

And this applies even in cities where there is street lighting. Quite often with other car lights, pedestrians and general street clutter a cyclist needs lights to stand out.

The fact is, if there were a proper cycle lane network and (low) speed limits were adhered to, no cyclist would be at risk, even without lights. As far as I'm concerned, a cyclist should have to have no more than a reflector on the back of his bike. Almost all accidents involving cyclists are due to driver errors. So why aren't we focusing on drivers? Why are there no campaigns telling drivers to watch out for cyclists? Why are the cycle facilities in Dublin so appaling? Why are cars allowed park in the (inadequate few) cycle lanes that exist? These are the real issues.

It shows the power of the car lobby that whever cycling is discussed, people accuse cyclists of being unsafe. Cyclists are the safest, most environmentally-friendly people you could meet. If only the same could be said for car drivers.

Saying ''Cyclists must wear lights and reflector jackets'' is the same as saying ''All drivers must drive Audis or BMWs because other brands don't have airbags and are thus less safe''. In an ideal world lights would be attached to all bicycles, but we have to look at what's practical for cyclists, instead of listening to car drivers' scaremongering.

sliabh

Metrobest wrote:

Saying ''Cyclists must wear lights and reflector jackets'' is the same as saying ''All drivers must drive Audis or BMWs because other brands don't have airbags and are thus less safe''. In an ideal world lights would be attached to all bicycles, but we have to look at what's practical for cyclists, instead of listening to car drivers' scaremongering.

Utter rubbish!

Apart from the fact that it's the law you seem to imply that a cyclist can never be in the wrong. And that it's the duty of all other road users to do all they can at all times to accomodate cyclists even when they are making no effort to meet basic standards of satefy by not having lights.

Taking your argument to it's conculsion a bike should not need brakes, instead a decent run out should be provided for cyclists to slow down at the end of their journey (and of course traffic lights should not apply to them) and all roads, street furniture and other vehicles should be padded as well so that they don't need helmets.

And would you care to explain to me why it's not practial for a cyclist to have lights?

Maybe in your world they need big 12v car batteries and a set of halogens (front and back) on the bike to provide full car standard illumination? But out here in the real world it's generally accepted that this is a standard and not particularly onerous requirement of riding a bike. Just think yourself lucky that you are not required to have a bike registration and insurance like in some countries.

vector

On the subject of reflective jackets...

Where can I buy a yellow jacket, sleeved no hood, and sleeve-less/short-sleeved no hood, I've always wanted one

(I've always wanted an single orange flashing light on a wire for the roof of my car two but that would be a childish waste of money)

Victor

vector wrote:

Where can I buy a yellow jacket, sleeved no hood, and sleeve-less/short-sleeved no hood, I've always wanted one

Possibly builder's providers or shops that do health and safety gear.

You can get lightweight singlets (not jackets) also - sign up to Dublin Cycling Campaign (by standing order) and I think you get a free one.

Metrobest

sliabh wrote:

Apart from the fact that it's the law you seem to imply that a cyclist can never be in the wrong. And that it's the duty of all other road users to do all they can at all times to accomodate cyclists even when they are making no effort to meet basic standards of satefy by not having lights..

In my view reflectors are sufficient. The car's lights should be strong enough to spot a person cycling, in the cycle lane, on a brightly-lit city street. Asfar as I'm concerned, a light is optional extra, the same way as an airbag is for a car.

sliabh wrote:

Taking your argument to it's conculsion a bike should not need brakes..

That's an erroneous conclusion. Not having a back-light only affects the status of the cyclist. Having no brakes would mean the cyclist couldn't control his vehicle. That's unacceptable.

sliabh wrote:

out here in the real world it's generally accepted that this is a standard and not particularly onerous requirement of riding a bike. Just think yourself lucky that you are not required to have a bike registration and insurance like in some countries.

Bikes are supposed to be a cheap way to travel. I repeat, reflectors are sufficient in city areas when cars are traveling slowly and cycle facilities sufficient. Sometimes the law is an ass. In the case of cyclists it's a FIELD of asses.

Here in Hollland I think you'll find the highest use of bikes in Europe. I cycle everywhere on the fantastic lanes that snake through the city. There is a requirement of having a light but is widely ignored, even by the most upscale members of society, because drivers are aware of cyclists' presence on the roads and thus drive slowly.

jlang

Metrobest, as a cyclist and motorist I have to disagree. Lights (and good ones at that) are essential for cyclists.

Trojan

As a cyclist who commutes every day in Dublin, I think you're wrong to suggest that a light is an optional extra - in the dark rainy mornings, and in the dusky twilight a light is essential. Maybe this is due to the prevailing weather conditions, the lack of awareness of Dublin drivers, or the poor quality cycle lanes, as compared to those in Holland. Nevertheless, it is also Irish law that a bike must have lights.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/lighting_of_bicycles_in_ireland.html

All bicycles used on public roads in Ireland must at all times display a rear reflector. A rear reflector means a red reflector that can be plainly seen for a distance of 99 meters (325 feet) to the rear when the headlights of a vehicle shine directly on it. The only exception to this rule is on a child's bicycle where that bicycle is used during the daytime.

During "lighting-up time", that is, the period beginning half an hour after sunset and ending half an hour before sunrise on the following morning, all cyclists are required to have fitted (and make use of) the following lighting on their bicycles:

* One front lamp
* One rear lamp

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/reflectors.html :

There is a very scientific answer: reflectors work only under very specific conditions. Those conditions happen to prevail in most of the nighttime driving we do, so we get the impression that reflectors work most or all of the time. But reflectors don't work at all if those conditions aren't met, and many well-defined bicycle accident types occur in situations when we can expect reflectors to not work.

Few people understand how easy it is to wander outside the range of conditions in which reflectors will work. But it's astonishingly easy.

Also see:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harart-commute-lights.html
http://www.bhsi.org/lights.htm

Metrobest

Just to clarify: on badly-lit suburban and rural roads, I totally agree lights are essential.

On city streets, well lit, cycle lane in place, speed limit 20kmph, cyclists don't need lights. Reflectors are sufficient.

luckat

I drive and I cycle, and I'm constantly astonished at how many cyclists seem to think they have an angelic ring of immortality that makes them visible to drivers. If you're driving along, already fairly dazzled by all the headlights and traffic lights and shop lights and indicators and reflections, and someone cycles in front of you dressed in dark colours and with no lights, *you just don't see him*.

I know it's hard to keep lights - since petty crime is not dealt with in this country, and is largely accepted by society anyway - but just buy a pair of those little clip-on ones and keep them in your bag during the day. And wear a reflective belt.

Metrobest

luckat wrote:

I drive and I cycle, and I'm constantly astonished at how many cyclists seem to think they have an angelic ring of immortality that makes them visible to drivers. If you're driving along, already fairly dazzled by all the headlights and traffic lights and shop lights and indicators and reflections, and someone cycles in front of you dressed in dark colours and with no lights, *you just don't see him*.

I know it's hard to keep lights - since petty crime is not dealt with in this country, and is largely accepted by society anyway - but just buy a pair of those little clip-on ones and keep them in your bag during the day. And wear a reflective belt.

'True' cyclists don't drive. If you really cycled a lot, you wouldn't be seeing things from a driver's perspective. But I agree with one of your points: Someone shouldn't cycle in front of your car. That's idiocy. But why aren't you directing your criticism at the city planners for desinging such utterly awful cycle lanes, instead of demonising cyclists?

I reject your request that cyclists wear tacky bands on their bodies just so cars don't run them over. It's an appaling request, making cyclists look like clowns in vile illuminous jackets. And keeping lights in your bag is plain hassle. How can more people be encouraged to cycle when you're making it so difficult and unfashionable. People in yellow jackets look eccentric - why don't you pay a visit to Amsterdam and you'll find the roads clogged (pardon the pun) with cyclists, none of whom are wearing tacky jackets or have bikes that look like a christmas tree. Cycling is all about conveinience, speed, economy, the environment and pleasure - the things you mention take away that pleasure and economy.

mackerski

Metrobest wrote:

In my view reflectors are sufficient. The car's lights should be strong enough to spot a person cycling, in the cycle lane, on a brightly-lit city street. Asfar as I'm concerned, a light is optional extra, the same way as an airbag is for a car.

Then stand for election, get elected, muster enough support for your cause among other public representatives and change the law. Until you've done all that, put a bloody light on your bike and take the same kind of responsibility for your own safety that other road users have to.

We all have private viewpoints - one of mine relates to the motorway speed limit being way too low. Life being unfair, I have a lot more to lose than you have if I obstinately insist on acting on my beliefs instead of obeying the law. Until Charles Darwin catches up with you, that is.

Dermot

antoinolachtnai

On the original issue of 'mixed-use' paths:

There's no reason why a 15 foot wide paved path with a relatively low footfall shouldn't be shared between pedestrians and cycles. It's perfectly workable. Obviously, bicycles have to take it easy on downhills and pedestrians have to be careful. But there shouldn't be such a big deal.

mackerski

antoinolachtnai wrote:

There's no reason why a 15 foot wide paved path with a relatively low footfall shouldn't be shared between pedestrians and cycles. It's perfectly workable. Obviously, bicycles have to take it easy on downhills and pedestrians have to be careful. But there shouldn't be such a big deal.

What's obvious to you and me may not be obvious to all those cyclists. We've already seen one cyclist here who thinks the world should look out for him instead of vice-versa. In a country that fails to hold cyclists accountable for direction of travel and lighting, I'd hate to add the further burden of pedestrian safety into the mix.

Having said that, we already have dual-use footpaths. Predictably, many of them shouldn't be.

Dermot

Metrobest

antoinolachtnai wrote:

On the original issue of 'mixed-use' paths:

There's no reason why a 15 foot wide paved path with a relatively low footfall shouldn't be shared between pedestrians and cycles. It's perfectly workable. Obviously, bicycles have to take it easy on downhills and pedestrians have to be careful. But there shouldn't be such a big deal.

The reason the footpath exists is to protect pedestrians from faster vehicles. It's for feet: that's why it's called FOOTpath. Bicycles need to run on bike paths, not glorified footpaths. By all means, if the footpath measures 15 feet, narrow it and build a stand-alone cycle lane. But painting a white line on a footpath and pretending it's a cycle lane is tokenism at its most brazen.