Cycle to Work? Cycle Lanes!!

Pfungstadter

How many here cycle to work.
I cycle over 7k's to work and with the cycle lanes it's great. I can remember cycling to school long before any cycle lanes were around, except the one from Clontarf to East Wall. It was so dangerous but now it's allot safer but still dangerous cos of the muppets everywhere. Many motorists see tham as parking lanes, or just dive on them anyway. Even motor cyclists are the worst for this. There is one thing I don't understand too, why have cycle lanes got times on them just like a bus lane. Just doesn't make sense.

I also love looking at all the drivers not moving every morning not moving and I fly be them, it's great. Just k's of tailback, dunno how people sit there.

Pfungstadter

oops, seems I've got a stutter there.

paulm17781

I always cycle when the whether permits. I have noticed a strange anomoly lately though. People seem to enjoy walking in cycle lanes, you can have cycle lane running next to a wide footpath and people will walk in the cycle lane.

I have also noticed in Blackrock / Stillorgan. Cyclists prefer the footpath. Decent cycle lane and bikes on the path. I think that annoys me even more.

I wish they would properly segregate cycle lanes, a rail between them and the footpath would stop the "Cross-traffic".

neilled

Unfortunatly my experience with cycle lanes isn't great - i got clobbered by a driver who was accelerated past me and suddenly then swung left to park without checking behind him. The thing was - i was in my designated "safe" cycle lane! Dittto the comments about drivers who seem to need to park in them, perhaps the cyclogardai could start issuing tickets to them instead of pulling people up for trivial things on bikes..... get those earphones out now!

daymobrew

Pfungstadter wrote:

How many here cycle to work.

You'll get more answers at the Cycling forum, especially with threads like How far do you cycle?.

Pfungstadter wrote:

Many motorists see tham as parking lanes, or just dive on them anyway. Even motor cyclists are the worst for this.

It is done because no one stops them. From next week, when one can get penalty points for parking or driving on a bike lane cyclists might be able to report them and have some action taken.

Pfungstadter wrote:

There is one thing I don't understand too, why have cycle lanes got times on them just like a bus lane. Just doesn't make sense.

The law was changed in the 1997 to allow people to drive on bike lanes at certain times. That same act made it compulsory to use a cycle track where one was provided.
Unfortunately there are no laws regarding the quailty of a cycle track.

See also: Cycle track photos, History of cyclist deaths and cycling related legislation.

johnnyrotten

Whats most dangerous is Cyclists breaking red lights!

cyclopath2001

daymobrew wrote:

It is done because no one stops them. From next week, when one can get penalty points for parking or driving on a bike lane cyclists might be able to report them and have some action taken.

The 1998 regulations changed the situation so that it's only illegal to drive in a cycle lane which has a continuous white line on it's right. That pretty much means that drivers can do what they like in 95% of cycle lanes.

Pfungstadter

That's the type of sign I see. I don't get it. It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen. So if I cycle outside these times I have to go onto the main carriageway. That's really safe for everybody. and there si a two hour break in the middle of the day. This is an idiotic law, they should be 24hr

randomname2005

Pfungstadter wrote:

That's the type of sign I see. I don't get it. It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen. So if I cycle outside these times I have to go onto the main carriageway. That's really safe for everybody. and there si a two hour break in the middle of the day. This is an idiotic law, they should be 24hr

I was talking about this to some one recently and they came up with the following thoughts:

1) Outside of rush hour there is a lot less traffic and less dangerous for cyclists to cycle in the main carriage way

2) In order to encourage community based activities such as local shops people feel it is necessary to have parking facilities outside these businesses (which is almost fair enough, but couldnt these people walk/cycle to the shops?)

And if memory serves me correctly, it was the PD's who brought in the law so you know who not to vote for in the next election!
R

markpb

randomname2005 wrote:

Outside of rush hour there is a lot less traffic and less dangerous for cyclists to cycle in the main carriage way

Crazy. Outside of rush hour the traffic moves substantially faster, which makes moving out of the cycle lane into traffic lanes much more dangerous. I'd argue that there's more need for cycle lanes outside of the rush periods.

I think you're probably right about bus/cycle lanes being suspended to allow for parking. The bottom of the Malahide road southbound is a prime example of this and while I don't agree with it, I can see where they're coming from. There are plenty of other places where there's no obvious reason for the restriction.

Genghis

he thing that I find most annoying about cycle lanes are their quality. While the cycle lane that effectively forms part of the main road tends to be in relatively good condition, any cycle lane that is seperate tends to be very poor quality. On the whole you had better be on a mountain bike as opposed to a racer if you want to avoid recurring damage to your bike.

Take the Stillorgan Dual Carriageway (N11). For 80% of the route to Shankill from Donnybrook, this road has cycleway that is elevated from the road - usually alongside the footpath.

I often take my racing bike to work so I can get a training cycle in at lunch. Unfortunately the condition of the cycle lane surface utterly spoils this outing - firstly, the surface is very uneven, with potholes and concrete piles throughout. Then you have the constant up/down dip to faciliate driveway entrances every 10 metres. You then also need to contend with dozing pedestrians who wander out into your path, etc.

Many times I have just used the bus lane, though that is fairly dangerous (when a Bus Eireann coach passes you at 100kph you get something of a rude awakening), and also you tend to get hooted off the road.

Esel

Pfungstadter wrote:

That's the type of sign I see. I don't get it. It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen. So if I cycle outside these times I have to go onto the main carriageway. That's really safe for everybody. and there si a two hour break in the middle of the day. This is an idiotic law, they should be 24hr

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick in your interpretation.

It probably means that other traffic can drive in or partly in the cycle lane during the 'off' hours. Cyclists should, of course, continue to use the cycle lane during these times.

Your logic would have buses and taxis not allowed to use bus lanes during 'off' hours. Think about it.

Pfungstadter

You don't understand, why do you need to drive in a cycle lane. Most Road lanes are around 3.5 to 4.0 metres wide and a cyle lane is just over 0.5m (if your lucky), so why would you drive on it? It's just really bad driving if you do and I see it all the time, especiallly when you've got parking for cars on the left side of the cycle lane, there are just loads of idiots who completely ignore the lane.

And the condition is something to be desired, the red coat covers up years of neglect and trenches and rubbish repairs to potholes. And the lack of maintenance of gully's too is terrible.

Don't get me wrong, not all are like this and I think there are the best thing the corporation has done in years. Even it they did put up the wrong sign on some that actually prohibits cycling (bike on a white background with a red circle).

neilled

Because some dubs see the need for 4x4's with shiney alloy wheels in the challenging environment that is ............dublin gridlock. Still, i bet they don't feel those pot holes as much as we do!

Leave the 4x4's to the culchies who really need them - (from a self confessed culch!)

Gegerty

As long as there are idiots out there who think that when they are turning left that I have to yield to them when I'm going straight on in a cycle lane I will continue to pick and choose which cycle lanes I use. Most of them on my route are great, others are a health hazzard and I avoid at all cost, laws or no laws.

But then you just can't win. You'll get drivers who see a cycle lane and see you on the road not using the cycle lane and they think that gives them permission to squeeze you into the curb or that it somehow allows them to freely knock you down and not get proscecuted. You know they're probably right, it wouldn't surprise me if the cyclist is wrong ALWAYS, in every situation so long as he's not using the cycle lane. But hey, how right are you going to feel when your wheels are going over someones head?

cyclopath2001

Pfungstadter wrote:

Even it they did put up the wrong sign on some that actually prohibits cycling (bike on a white background with a red circle).

That sign you mention is RUS009a, it would only be a prohibition if there was a diagonal line through it. It means exactly the same as RUS009, the one with a white bike on a blue background. Both are supposed to designate a cycle track. But I've also seen them used where there is no cycle track of any kind.

I've no idea why there's two very different signs that mean the same thing.

There is another sign: white bicycle and pedestrian on a blue background. It not documented in the statutory regulations at all.

It's all part of the general shambles of Dublin's so-called Strategic Cycle Network.

Pfungstadter

A Red circle with white background is a prohibition sign, did you learn the rules of the road!!!, that's why speed limits are in them, and if there is one with a car in it it means cars are prohibited, or a motorbike, or lorry, or horse drawn vehicle. Or if it's blank, everything.

Who ever put up the early cycle lanes put up the wrong sign and the new ones have the correct Blue background, bike's only, or if it's a direction arrow, this way only, and so on.

but as usual road signs are a disaster in this country and the muppets are doing it again on the new N2 with the wrong overhead signs.

mikemac

markpb wrote:

I think you're probably right about bus/cycle lanes being suspended to allow for parking. The bottom of the Malahide road southbound is a prime example of this and while I don't agree with it, I can see where they're coming from. There are plenty of other places where there's no obvious reason for the restriction.

I travel this road every morning on my motorbike. I could never figure out why there are cars and vans parked there during the hours that the bus lane is in operation.(7-7 I believe)

Tbh on my bike I often use the cycle lane when there's a queue of traffic as it's safer than filtering on the right. I never filter behind a cyclist as obviously they have right of way in a cycle lane.

However, there are plenty of posts on boards on breaking red lights and cyclists are the worst offenders. There are plenty of cyclists on the footpath when I'm out jogging on the Malahide Road despite there being an excellant cycle lane there already.

So to the OP. I never put cyclists in danger yet it seems to me that cyclists break plenty of road traffic laws. Don't knock motorcyclists as I guarantee you that car drivers are far more likely to knock you down. Motorcylists are far more aware than car drivers simply because they have to be.

I've cycled to work down the Malahide Rd, through Fairview and North Strand to the IFSC so I see it from a cyclist's point of view also

Esel

micmclo wrote:

... Don't knock motorcyclists as I guarantee you that car drivers are far more likely to knock you down. Motorcylists are far more aware than car drivers simply because they have to be. ...

I agree.

cyclopath2001

Pfungstadter wrote:

A Red circle with white background is a prohibition sign, did you learn the rules of the road!!!,

Yes I have read the rules, many times. There is nothing in them about cycle lane signage. I've also read the relevant statutory instruments, have you? These supercede the 'Rules of the Road'. The ROTR is an out-of date, defective guide to the laws.

The RUS009a sign is not the wrong sign, the regulations allow this as an alternative to RUS009. It's stupid to have two signs which mean the same thing but it is in the law. The most likely explanation is that the RUS009a was erected before they decided on RUS009 (the blue one) and they included it in the regulations so that they wouldn't have to take the old signs down.

The red-circle signs do not always indicate a prohibition (where did you get this idea from?), they sometimes indicate something that is mandatory. The meanings of a sign is whatever the relevant statutory instrument says it is.

micmclo wrote:

There are plenty of cyclists on the footpath when I'm out jogging on the Malahide Road despite there being an excellant cycle lane there already.

An excellent cycle lane on the Malahide Road? I'd doubt it. Dublin City Council doesn't do 'excellent'.

Can you tell me exactly where it is?

markpb

micmclo wrote:

I travel this road every morning on my motorbike. I could never figure out why there are cars and vans parked there during the hours that the bus lane is in operation.(7-7 I believe)

Nope, it's 7-10 or something like that to allow people to park outside the businesses at the south end of the road. Slows down buses/cyclists no end for the rest of the day. It doesn't even come back into effect in the evening because obviously no-one travels into town in the evening

However, there are plenty of posts on boards on breaking red lights and cyclists are the worst offenders. There are plenty of cyclists on the footpath when I'm out jogging on the Malahide Road despite there being an excellant cycle lane there already.

The cycle lane on the Malahide road aint bad as cycle lanes go. Does anyone know if the on-path stretch coming towards the Malahide/Collins junction is still in operation? The markings on the footpath are completely gone and I'm not sure if they've been scrubbed or just worn off.

Pfungstadter

It's obvious, I've driven in many countries, atleast seven others, and if you see a red circle and what ever is shown in it is prohibited. Didn't we adopt this geneva road sign convention or not? That's why if you see 120km/h in a red circle you can't go faster than this speed.

Red circles with white background = Prohibition sign

Blue circle = Compulsory

Yellow Chevron / Red Triangle whhite background = warning signs

Andrew Duffy

Pfungstadter wrote:

Didn't we adopt this geneva road sign convention or not?

Not. Have you noticed how warning signs here are on yellow diamonds rather than red-and-white triangles?
If our signage system were consistenly implemented it would make a lot more sense than the international one - i.e., red circles indicate regulation, red circles with strikethrough indicates prohibition. However, stuff like bicycle lanes is hard to sign - the red circle states that bicyles MUST use the lane, which, although law, is unenforceable.

robfitz

The major pieces of legislation and regulations for cyclists are covered in:

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998
Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997
Road Traffic (Signs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998
Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations, 1997
Roads Act, 1993, Section 68, Cycleways


Here are real life examples of the cycle track signs and markings:

A cycle track is part of the roadway or footwayto the left of a single or inside a double RRM 022 or RRM 023 line, in assoication with a RUS 009 or RUS 009a sign.

RUS 009
RUS 009a

RUS 009 with information plate another example

RRM 022
RRM 022 double line version

RRM 023
RRM 023 double line version off roadway

Off roadway two way cycle track (I don't think a center line is required)
On roadway two way cycle track

RTS 007 cyclist traffic light (RTS 006 is the two lamp version)

Advanced stop line (There is no exact requirements, other then two stop lines in a association with a cycle track)


There are no required signs or markings for Cycleways.

A cycleway is a public road exclusively for cyclists, or cyclists and pedestrians.


I would say all the other different types of signs you see related to cyclists have no legal basis. In many places you'll find signs and markings that mean the cyclist or motorist is acting illegally by following there direction.

Pfungstadter

I don't have time to read all that,

but in every other country a red circle sign is a prohibtion sign. You see them on the entrances to motorways in some countries,
one will have a red circle and a bike,
another with a horse drawing vehicle,

Ireland it seems just has to do it differently

cyclopath2001

markpb wrote:

The cycle lane on the Malahide road aint bad as cycle lanes go. Does anyone know if the on-path stretch coming towards the Malahide/Collins junction is still in operation? The markings on the footpath are completely gone and I'm not sure if they've been scrubbed or just worn off.

That was taken out of operation back in 1998, a few months after it was opened. People continued to use it as while the sign was taken down, some of the markings were still there.

Now, they've removed the section in Artane approaching the Kilmore Road junction and also the one beside Donneycarney church. They've left the signs up, but the markings are gone. These are both narrow sections where a lane is needed to assist cyclists passing heavy traffic.

I'm not aware of any cycle lane on the Malahide Road that could be considered 'good'.

zAbbo

I cycle to and from work every day, around 6-7k in total, Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of a cycle lane, but thats not my main gripe - its Roundabouts, why do some drivers not bother indicate, I have no idea where there are going, and find it easier to just give up and use a pedestrian crossing at roundabouts(as retarded as that seems).