cycle lanes

ba

does anybody know what the difference between a cycle lane marked with a white dashed line versus a solid white line is? and what the purpose of the amber/orange rough surface is?

and if anybody could suggest ways on improving cycle lanes, and i know most roads are devoid of cycle lanes. e.g increased falls for rain water shedding, perhaps boundaries or rails, anything...etc.

feedback would be greatly appreciated. brian

Civilian_Target

Solid line means that you must cycle in the cycle lane and other road vehicles are not allowed to drive or park in it.

Dashed line is indicates that you must stick to the cycle lane but that other road vehicles may drive in it, and if signs indicate, may also park in it at certain times (in which case you're not obliged to use it)

The amber surface is just a sanded coating to provide extra grip, it's coloured so that it's clear where you should go.

cyclopath2001

ba wrote:

and if anybody could suggest ways on improving cycle lanes.

Fire the people the people responsible?

Captain Trips

ba wrote:

does anybody know what the difference between a cycle lane marked with a white dashed line versus a solid white line is? and what the purpose of the amber/orange rough surface is?

and if anybody could suggest ways on improving cycle lanes, and i know most roads are devoid of cycle lanes. e.g increased falls for rain water shedding, perhaps boundaries or rails, anything...etc.

feedback would be greatly appreciated. brian

As far as I know and have read, the solid amber surface means it is mandatory for cyclists to use it and not the main roadway. Cars ARE allowed to park on it and cyclists do not have right of way.

The clear/standard tarmac with white line means basically a suggestion and cars can cross it. Example is at start of dundrum bypass coming from goatstown - the clear white line continues straight on to the traffic lights.

Suggestion:
1. Cyclists should have right of way at ALL times regardless of cyclepath or not.
2. Completed cyclepaths for standard routes. E.g., Through city centre, so there is a cycleway from say stephen's green to some actual destination, without the path stopping and restarting, ending randomly at a footpath (like out in malahide at a new business park entrance it starts on the footpath but there is no ramp so you really just keep on the road)
- DTO has a good site but better would be ones that told you whether you are on a cyclelane or not, and when you are on bus lanes, etc., . That way you could avoid dangerous areas. I am considering doing this on a website myself actually - having a list of major routes for commuting across the city and the relevant cycling info for it, junctions, whether there are bike crossing lights and so on.

3. Cyclepaths should not be on footpaths that go up and down every 10 metres for entrances to houses e.g., N11 southbound from galloping green to deansgrange

4. Surface: some are good but some suck and are just dangerous, again like on the N11 past deansgrange to cornellscourt - it's like 4 different slabs of concrete, very rough surface, no thank you

Ghost Rider

Brian, can you tell us what this feedback is for? Do you work for Dublin City Council?

ba wrote:

does anybody know what the difference between a cycle lane marked with a white dashed line versus a solid white line is? and what the purpose of the amber/orange rough surface is?

and if anybody could suggest ways on improving cycle lanes, and i know most roads are devoid of cycle lanes. e.g increased falls for rain water shedding, perhaps boundaries or rails, anything...etc.

feedback would be greatly appreciated. brian

ba

i am studying architecture. 3rd year. this weeks exercise is to analyse your commute and suggest an intervention. as a design exercise i was considering the introduction of road studs to heighten the awareness of the cycle lane, both felt and seen. doesn't sound much like architecture... i know.
essentially all dashed lines will be replaced with a raised surface, still not finished designing, hand up tomorrow, i'm screwed.

daymobrew

ba wrote:

as a design exercise i was considering the introduction of road studs to heighten the awareness of the cycle lane, both felt and seen.

From a cyclist's perspective such studs could be dangerous, causing the bike tyres to slip. I've had my tyre 'moved' by stones, so a stud might similarly divert the path of the tyre.

GreeBo

Civilian_Target wrote:

Solid line means that you must cycle in the cycle lane and other road vehicles are not allowed to drive or park in it.

Dashed line is indicates that you must stick to the cycle lane but that other road vehicles may drive in it, and if signs indicate, may also park in it at certain times (in which case you're not obliged to use it)

The amber surface is just a sanded coating to provide extra grip, it's coloured so that it's clear where you should go.

Actually, from reading the ROTR last night it says that you *should* use bike lanes, not must.

Ghost Rider

Apparently the solid-line ones must be observed by both cyclists and drivers, while the broken-line ones are merely a polite suggestion by that august and generous institution, the Department of the Environment.

GreeBo wrote:

Actually, from reading the ROTR last night it says that you *should* use bike lanes, not must.

markpb

My understanding of it was that drivers can use broken-line lanes in a pinch point, to pass right turning car, for example but not drive in them as a normal lane.

Of course, my understanding, the law and what actually happens out there differ ever so slightly

blorg

The "should" in the current rules of the road is out of date and is replaced by "must" in the new draft, due to legislation a few years ago. The dashed lines ones "must" be used by cyclists as much as the solid line ones, with only minor exceptions (avoiding an obstacle or if the cyclist is turning right _and_ has clearly indicated this IIRC.) But motorists can drive in them too.

Ghost Rider

Is this the draft you're referring to?

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7604-0.pdf

If so, does it reflect legislation that has already been passed?

blorg wrote:

The "should" in the current rules of the road is out of date and is replaced by "must" in the new draft, due to legislation a few years ago. The dashed lines ones "must" be used by cyclists as much as the solid line ones, with only minor exceptions (avoiding an obstacle or if the cyclist is turning right _and_ has clearly indicated this IIRC.) But motorists can drive in them too.

blorg

One of the key things is, if you are going to have a cycle lane, you have to get it right. A bad cycle lane will not be used by cyclists but its presence is interpreted by motorists as a license for them to harrass cyclists who choose to use the road. Hence a bad cycle lane is far worse than none at all.

blorg

Ghost Rider wrote:

Is this the draft you're referring to?

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7604-0.pdf

Until it becomes legislation, we still have the right not to use non-mandatory cycle lanes at any time, though, right?

That's the draft, yes, but the Rules of the Road are _not_ legislation, they are an interpretation of existing legislation. The legislation making cycle lanes mandatory was passed in 1998:

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

The exceptions are much as I described.

Ghost Rider

Yes, you're quite right. I've since edited my post.

I didn't realise the legislation had already changed. The law is very much designed to facilitate drivers rather than motorists, especially when you consider how few "mandatory" cycle tracks there actually are.

blorg wrote:

That's the draft, yes, but the Rules of the Road are _not_ legislation, they are an interpretation of existing legislation. The legislation making cycle lanes mandatory was passed in 1998:



The exceptions are much as I described.

ferdi

i fookin hate cars parking in cycle lanes! they always get a phlemmer on the window if i have the time.

Cianos

Do you think life would be easier on the cyclist if there were no cycle lanes at all, but rather strong advertising campaigns both promoting cycling as a form of commute and to create a better awareness of them on the road? It seems quite silly that cycle lanes start stop start stop all over the place...as if the cyclist does not have to go any further:rolleyes: Maybe they are trying to fill a EU quoata for cycle lanes 'Oh we have miles and miles of cycle lanes...they, eh, just dont go anywhere'.

At the end of the day the cyclist is always going to be the bottom of the food chain on the road...so what else could be done to protect them?

Ghost Rider

Lots can be done.

Many of the cycle lanes, and the legislation surrounding them, are tokenistic. You can argue about the motivation - whether it's EU quotas or attempting to curry favour with a certain type of voter - but the important fact is that the lanes themselves are not very successful. (Some of them are irresponsible, and some are probably criminally negligent.) But while there is no shortage of ideas about how to improve them, there is most certainly a shortage of the political will required to be the "primum mobile".

Also, if DCC was as committed to making Dublin city as cycle-friendly as it claims it is, then I dare say a congestion charge similar to the one Ken Livingstone introduced in London would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Education is no harm, but you would only expect it to work in cases where people are misinformed on a large scale. Personally, I don't believe people are "making a mistake" in not cycling, such that simply pointing out the errors of their ways might make them abandon their cars. To some extent, the problem is that the conditions are still not quite bad enough for drivers to stop driving (although they are getting there...)

But it's a complex problem. Many Irish people simply cannot stand the idea of public transport (- I often wonder if it's connected to our national obsession with owning property...) Some are lazy. Some are snobbish about cycling. Many are afraid of cycling and, it has to be said, until the very conditions we're discussing improve, that fear is not entirely without basis.

I personally believe the "nudge" factor in making people abandon their cars will be the rising costs of running the damn things.

Cianos wrote:

At the end of the day the cyclist is always going to be the bottom of the food chain on the road...so what else could be done to protect them?

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote:

That's the draft, yes, but the Rules of the Road are _not_ legislation, they are an interpretation of existing legislation. The legislation making cycle lanes mandatory was passed in 1998:

The draft ROTR is wrong about cycle tracks on footpaths, it's showing a sign (pedestrians/bicycle) that's not lawfully defined and it also fails to describe that the only lawful cycle tracks on footways are those that are separate from the the pedestrian part.

In general, it's a botched attempt to summarise the existing oppressive regulations and is biased towards the convenience of motorists.