Someone please explain to me the mindset of this cyclist

breadmonkey

*Please note that this is note a motorist's tirade against cyclists, just those who are guilty of the following:

Why would somebody wearing a high vis vest, high vis bands all over his body and a helmet be cycling in a bus lane which runs parallel to a perfectly good cycle lane? And I don't mean one of those 'cycle lanes' that have parked cars every 2m, I mean a long open stretch of cycle lane.

roadmanmad

It is very simple to explain.

Cycle lanes are designed by non cyclists. They have steps instead where you meet the roadside, not a flush kerb. They are covered in crap, small stones and fragments of glass.

Anyone using slick typres will avoid them like the plague.

You learn not to cycle on these badly maintained and designed pathways after 2 puntures and a broken wheel shaft.

Trojan

The OP might be referring to the pedestrian-shared, wet-leaf and glass-shard covered Fairview cycle lane. Can't imagine why not.

Mucco

breadmonkey wrote:

Why would somebody wearing a his vis vest, his vis bands all over his body and a helmet be cycling in a bus lane which runs parallel to a perfectly good cycle lane? And I don't mean one of those 'cycle lanes' that have parked cars every 2m, I mean a long open stretch of cycle lane.

Because this someone knows that cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road?
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

breadmonkey

This cycle lane was in excellent condition: no leaves, no branches, no obstacles, no pot holes.

Trojan

breadmonkey wrote:

This cycle lane was in excellent condition: no leaves, no branches, no obstacles, no pot holes.

You seem pretty sure. Does it pass bus shelters, estate entrances, side roads? Did you cycle it yourself?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

roadmanmad wrote:

It is very simple to explain.

Cycle lanes are designed by non cyclists. They have steps instead where you meet the roadside, not a flush kerb. They are covered in crap, small stones and fragments of glass.

Anyone using slick typres will avoid them like the plague.

You learn not to cycle on these badly maintained and designed pathways after 2 puntures and a broken wheel shaft.

well then if they are no good and cyclists don't use them.... get rid of them.

markpb

Where was it?

rubadub

Trojan wrote:

Did you cycle it yourself?

Thats what I would like to know. I used to think many lanes looked OK from a car until I cycled on them. Were there any driveways along the route? these can have kerbs all the way.

The cycletrack may not even have been legal, many are not, so he may have simply being obeying the law.

Johnny Jukebox

Explaination is simple.

Customers wont use crap services.

We, the cyclists, are the customers, and the cycle lanes are the crap services. And they range from adaquete to truly awful.

beans

I can see motorists' annoyance; purpose-built cycle lane offering cyclists' own space, and cyclists just ignoring it and impinging on the space of other road users.

Reasons why I don't use cycle paths when provided boil down to poor upkeep (potholes, glass, debris), and bad design (kerbs, undulations, re-entry to the road dangerous, mixed use with dog-walkers and prams, etc). It's the inconsistency really - if I was used to my local cycle tracks being of some use, then I might be inclined to use more of them. However, on my cycle from Chapelizod to town, the cycle track takes me from a nice wide stretch of clean unbroken tarmac up onto the path used by joggers, pedestrians and covered in detritus from the trees, broken glass and the like. Only to pop me back out onto the road at the junction to the park gate to deal with all the traffic again. This path may as well not be there, even if it's not hazardous per se.

So rather than negotiate these 'facilities' I tend to just steer clear. Does that make sense?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Johnny Jukebox wrote:

Explaination is simple.

Customers wont use crap services.

We, the cyclists, are the customers, and the cycle lanes are the crap services. And they range from adaquete to truly awful.

customer is someone who pays for goods or services...
unlike other road users, cyclists don't pay anything for anything so i don't know how you can class them as customers.

Heinrich

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

customer is someone who pays for goods or services...
unlike other road users, cyclists don't pay anything for anything so i don't know how you can class them as customers.

As for pedestrians...

We all pay taxes!

Johnny Jukebox

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

customer is someone who pays for goods or services...
unlike other road users, cyclists don't pay anything for anything so i don't know how you can class them as customers.

Nonsense. My taxes pay for public services, cycle lanes are public services, ergo I am a customer. Furthermore, my recent communications with the Revenue all start with the salutation "Dear Customer".

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Heinrich wrote:

As for pedestrians...

We all pay taxes!

pedestrians don't pay road tax because they shouldn't be on the road...
they have a system for them....footpaths
that bikes are not allowed on.

parliament

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

well then if they are no good and cyclists don't use them.... get rid of them.

Never thought of that, Ill get the shovel out this weekend and start digging it up

With regards to the OP, unless you're a bus driver or a taxi driver carrying a fare what is it to you if there is a cyclist in the bus lane. A few bus lanes are marked for use by cyclists regardless of there being a dedicated cycle path adjacent

daymobrew

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

pedestrians don't pay road tax because they shouldn't be on the road...

Car drivers/owners don't pay road tax either - they pay a vehicle tax. Tax paid by everyone contributes to road building fund.

Note, \m/_(>_<)_\m/ is known for troll-like behaviour on boards. Feel free to ignore his/her posts.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

parliament wrote:

Never thought of that, Ill get the shovel out this weekend and start digging it up

well that's a much better way of getting fit, and at least that way you wont hinder the rest of the population.

DirkVoodoo

Yeah, I openly refuse to cycle down the teeth-shattering, crotch-thumping stretch of cycle lane on the N11 just past the Esso station in black rock. They paved the bits between driveways so that you have this kind of sinusoidal stretch of cycle track that is both uncomfortable and dangerous to cycle on.


I look over my shoulder, see if there are buses or taxis speeding up, and if not then i just pop into the bus lane and by-pass that god awful mess without causing too much inconvenience.

And the glass thing is very annoying, seems like whenever there is a car crash they just sweep the glass onto the cycle lane...probably because no one uses them :rolleyes:

breadmonkey

The specific portion of cycle lane I am referring to is between Foxrock church and White's Cross. And yes, I do cycle it occasionally. You can go down there and inspect it yourself if you refuse to believe me.

Mucco

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

customer is someone who pays for goods or services...
unlike other road users, cyclists don't pay anything for anything so i don't know how you can class them as customers.

Whitelegg (1992) shows that car drivers are heavily subsidised by the rest of the population, ie they don't pay enough tax to cover the costs of roads, accidents, health problems etc.. associated with driving.

blorg

breadmonkey wrote:

The specific portion of cycle lane I am referring to is between Foxrock church and White's Cross. And yes, I do cycle it occasionally. You can go down there and inspect it yourself if you refuse to believe me.

Ah ok, yes, well that part has several problems. Downhill towards Foxrock church it is of the kerby variety - bounces up and down driveways continually. Utterly uncyclable on at any reasonable speed. On the other side it has some truly awful features - the way it weaves around the bus stop opposite Foxrock church is very dangerous and the path around there is littered with pedestrians. Immediately after this bus stop it crosses a road (Pine Avenue?) which has a really nasty hard kerb in the middle which will take out your rim if you are going at any speed. Further on it is again kerby, up and down the driveways, has at least one more dangerous intersection and bus stop before sweeping a cyclist around onto Leopardstown road even if they want to continue straight along the N11.

Incidentally that very same cycle path was actually closed recently as roadworks were being carried out, although they are now finished. Once you are off it is difficult to get back on easily.

The path is designed for, and suitable for, slow moving weekend cyclists and children. A mountain bike is essential. It is utterly unsuitable for commuters/fast moving cyclists on road bikes or indeed hybrids.

I honestly hope the above helps explain the situation to you breadmonkey; you might note that cyclists are actually more likely to use paths other than this particular one, which is one of the worst in Dublin.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Mucco wrote:

Whitelegg (1992) shows that car drivers are heavily subsidised by the rest of the population, ie they don't pay enough tax to cover the costs of roads, accidents, health problems etc.. associated with driving.

and then you have the road tax going to the OAP's

what a country

breadmonkey

I've cycled it, it's fine. I knew I wouldn't get anywhere here.

Morgan

breadmonkey wrote:

I knew I wouldn't get anywhere here.

You asked a question and got several clear, considered replies. What more do you want?

markpb

I guess its a case of different strokes for different folks. What's you consider a good cycle lane, others might not. The cyclist you saw clearly did not think the lane was suitable.

As long as cyclists are sensible and don't hold up buses too much, I've no problem with them (including me) cycling in bus lanes.

Bunnyhopper

breadmonkey wrote:

Why would somebody wearing a high vis vest, high vis bands all over his body and a helmet be cycling in a bus lane which runs parallel to a perfectly good cycle lane? And I don't mean one of those 'cycle lanes' that have parked cars every 2m, I mean a long open stretch of cycle lane.

Why? In short, because he decided it was safer.

I'm not familiar with the particular stretch of cycle lane that you're referring to but I would speculate (and on this point we're all speculating) that the cyclist in question is very safety conscious, which I base on the fact that he was "wearing a high vis vest, high vis bands all over his body and a helmet". In that case, it's probable that he had made a judgement that he was safer off the cycle lane than on it. Choosing to cycle in a bus lane rather than a cycle lane is surely not something that many safety-conscious cyclists would do if they considered the cycle lane to be "perfectly good".

Just out of curiosity, why did this particular cyclist irritate you so much? If he was in a bus lane then, unless you were on a bus, he was unlikely to be in your way.

Remarks about road tax and the like are generally irrelevant. (Incidentally, I agree with daymobrew's point about \m/_(>_<)_\m/, who seems to me to be making little in the way of a useful contribution to the discussion.) With very few exceptions (motorways, for example) cyclists are no more or less entitled under the law to use the public highway than motorists are. In this particular case, the only complication might be that old chestnut of compulsory use, but as I understand it that would only apply if the cycleway has been declared as such by the local authority under the terms of the Roads Act 1993. Does anyone know what the status of this particular cycle lane is?

Bunnyhopper

breadmonkey wrote:

I've cycled it, it's fine. I knew I wouldn't get anywhere here.

So, why do you think that that cyclist chose to use the bus lane rather than the cycle lane? I can imagine that you might be tempted simply to answer along the lines of, "Because he's an idiot," but I'd hope for something a bit more productive than that

rubadub

breadmonkey wrote:

The specific portion of cycle lane I am referring to is between Foxrock church and White's Cross. And yes, I do cycle it occasionally. You can go down there and inspect it yourself if you refuse to believe me.

That cycle track is terrible, I am on it every day. Once had to do it on a roadbike but had to slow to a snails pace. Even on a MTB it is very harsh. Littered with glass. In the morning cops pull cars in and have them park on it. Cars pull up onto it to let kids out, or pull into the bus lane and have doors fly open onto the cycletrack. I only tolerate it since the manic bus men have endangered my life one too many times. I know the "route" I must take on it by now, constantly swerving in and out avoiding the potholes and kerbs. It is full of wandering pedestrians (why do they not use the perfectly good path which is in far better condition?). Bus drivers pull in anywhere they want and let people off buses who wander straight onto the lane oblivious. The new bus shelters have these ridges begging for accidents unless you can go perfectly straight through the ridge. Cars are always parked on it, or pull in and have to wait to open the gates to their house.

Oh and to top it all it is illegal to cycle on a lot of it so maybe he is obeying the law as I suggested earlier. It is technically a footpath for most of the way and is used as such too...

The fact he has the helmet and high viz jacket suggest he is safety concious, sensible and probably law abiding.

rubadub

breadmonkey wrote:

I've cycled it, it's fine. I knew I wouldn't get anywhere here.
__________________
I am looking for Xmas work
I am a 3rd year Civil Engineering student looking for short term work from around 21st Dec to 21st January in the South Dublin area

If you think it is fine as a Civil engineer I can only pray you don't end up working in the county council!;:D

kincsem

breadmonkey wrote:

The specific portion of cycle lane I am referring to is between Foxrock church and White's Cross. And yes, I do cycle it occasionally. You can go down there and inspect it yourself if you refuse to believe me.

The stretch of "cycle-lane" :rolleyes: just past Foxrock Church going south is like those rippled tracks car manufacturers build to test suspensions to destruction. If that is the stretch you are talking about then that cyclist was trying to avoid getting his wheels and himself shaken to bits. The "cycle-lane" :rolleyes: has a one inch drop, then a one inch rise, at every house entrance. I estimate at least twenty crunches to man and machine in that section.
I either cycle on the road in the bus lane, or cycle on the six inch wide kerb at the edge of the road to avoid the drops and rises.

daymobrew

rubadub wrote:

That cycle track is terrible, I am on it every day.

This cycle track comes up frequently here. Has anyone nagged the local authority about the state of it? They probably won't fix the rollercoaster aspect but they can make an effort to clear up the glass.

blorg

I cycled along that way at lunchtime. Normally I avoid that lane entirely by going through Foxrock, it's just that bad. But in the interests of science...



(1) Bus parked in bus stop makes getting on to lane difficult in the first place (note: he was parked, not stopped, there is no driver in the bus.) (2) the Foxrock church bus stop; not so bad now (although the fallen leaves aren't great) but awful in the morning with lots of pedestrians. Note roadworks on cycle lane ahead and van blocking. (3) Pine Avenue crossing. Car blocking cyclist path (note stop line behind him.) This is the notorious kerb; in fairness it has just been replaced by the roadworks for one that is NOT so bad. Note roadworks on lane just beyond the car. (4) A van was parked here on the lane and was completely blocking it with an open door. Note car blocking lane in distance much like previous one. (5) General condition coming up to Leopardstown Road. (6) Quick look on the other side, yes, there's a van parked there. Believe it or not there was a car parked _right beside_ this van half in the lane half in the bus lane but I didn't get a photo on time. (7) No way for cyclists to continue on N11, you are swept around onto Leopardstown Road. (8) Closer view of surface.

Was also swiped by a car who went past in the bus lane and turned sharply into Kilgobbin Lane (or whatever it's called) in front of me. The continuation into Leopardstown is worse:



Yes, cycle path goes up an absurd embankment (complete with oncoming cyclist), then there is a car parked right in the middle of it, and then it just twists around and terminates suddenly. Further on it goes into bumpy driveway mode with a vengance.

breadmonkey- why did you post a question here if you are not willing to listen to polite and considered replies from people trying to actually explain why cyclists don't use certain lanes? The lane may be suitable for _you_ as an occasional cyclist but it is not for people whose bike is their main mode of transport. A very simple rule of thumb: if you wouldn't expect someone to drive on it, don't expect someone to cycle on it.

blorg

By the way probably worth adding that I saw roadwork cones in the lane over the other side of the road also.

Bunnyhopper

@blorg: Nice post. Thanks.

Trojan

Great posts both of you, blorg and bunnyhopper.

hunnymonster

great pictures BLorg. I didn't know that part of town so didn't feel qualidied to make a comment but those photo's show a path I wouldn't use. It's not safe.

blorg

Yeah, and this is actually a _really_ short bit of lane, maybe 1-1.5km at most out of a 30km spin. I regularly do this at lunchtime, Sandyford to Eniskerry and then back along the N11 from the base of the Sugar Loaf. I am able to use the cycle track all the way where there is one except for that section (which I avoid by going through Foxrock.) It's truly terrible.

breadmonkey- you might consider how many cyclists you see cycling out of the cycle lane when it's actually a seperate lane _on_ the road. Few, I would imagine (excepting here the bit between Nutley Lane and UCD as it is full of holes and debris.)

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

well then if they are no good and cyclists don't use them.... get rid of them.

Probably meant as a troll but this is actually a _very_ good suggestion. Research shows that cyclists are safer integrated with road traffic _on_ the road and that cycle lanes actually increase injuries. Off-road tracks are the most dangerous, primarily due to the problems for cyclists rejoining the road at junctions.

Getting rid of off-road cycle tracks entirely and widening an adjoining bus lane to the left-hand side of the previous off-road cycle track would leave you with a _very_ wide bus lane indeed. This would give cyclists plenty of room in a lane relatively empty most of the time while also giving buses plenty of room to safely overtake them.

Removing the cycle lane is doubly a good idea here as then presumably motorists (and bus drivers) will no longer be able to display the same anger towards cyclists for "not using the f***ing bike lane" and everyone can try to get along with consideration and courtesy.

Cycle lanes are an invention by motorists and for motorists to keep cyclists off the road and out of the way. They are not designed to benefit cyclists.

daymobrew

blorg wrote:

Getting rid of off-road cycle tracks entirely and widening an adjoining bus lane to the left-hand side of the previous off-road cycle track would leave you with a _very_ wide bus lane indeed. This would give cyclists plenty of room in a lane relatively empty most of the time while also giving buses plenty of room to safely overtake them.

In that situation they could copy how it is on the eastbound Navan Road between Ashtown and Cabra: on-road cycle track, bus lane and then regular lane.
It's my favourite part of my commute because of the nice distance between me and the cars (the surface is good and the road is flat). Obviously there are often cars using the bus lane or cars parked half on path/half on cycle track, but it is mostly quite clear and fast.

PS having a marked cycle track on the _very_ wide bus lane, makes it clear to bus drivers where they should and shouldn't drive (unlike the tailgater this morning who was encroaching the cycle track).

RedPlanet

Sounds like the OP was trolling.
He never really responded to any of the valid points people raised.
And he's a Civil Engineer?
I suppose things like this cycle lane are exactly what other motorist-centric Civil Engineers have designed.

Go figure.

cast_iron

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Yeah, I openly refuse to cycle down the teeth-shattering, crotch-thumping stretch of cycle lane on the N11 just past the Esso station in black rock. They paved the bits between driveways so that you have this kind of sinusoidal stretch of cycle track that is both uncomfortable and dangerous to cycle on.

Yes, that stretch is nothing short of a disgrace.
It was only done about 2 years ago - by Sierra Communications, i think.

I blame no one but the council for letting them away with it.

blorg

daymobrew wrote:

In that situation they could copy how it is on the eastbound Navan Road between Ashtown and Cabra: on-road cycle track, bus lane and then regular lane.
It's my favourite part of my commute because of the nice distance between me and the cars (the surface is good and the road is flat). Obviously there are often cars using the bus lane or cars parked half on path/half on cycle track, but it is mostly quite clear and fast.

PS having a marked cycle track on the _very_ wide bus lane, makes it clear to bus drivers where they should and shouldn't drive (unlike the tailgater this morning who was encroaching the cycle track).

I'm in two minds about this, I guess my idea is that if the bus lane is wide enough it shouldn't _need_ a seperately marked cycle lane.

On the one hand, it _does_ demarcate a clear 'bit for the cyclist' that I feel somewhat safe as long as I stay in.

On the other hand that bit tends to be far too narrow and forces the cyclist to stick far closer to the kerb (where all the debris etc is) than they might do had they the legal use of the full wide buslane.

I have also had plenty of experiences in such lanes where a bus flies past me at a high speed with two wheels on the cycle lane line; I feel it tends to encourage overtaking far faster and closer than might otherwise occur.

DirkVoodoo

blorg wrote:

Ah ok, yes, well that part has several problems. Downhill towards Foxrock church it is of the kerby variety - bounces up and down driveways continually. Utterly uncyclable on at any reasonable speed. On the other side it has some truly awful features - the way it weaves around the bus stop opposite Foxrock church is very dangerous and the path around there is littered with pedestrians. Immediately after this bus stop it crosses a road (Pine Avenue?) which has a really nasty hard kerb in the middle which will take out your rim if you are going at any speed. Further on it is again kerby, up and down the driveways, has at least one more dangerous intersection and bus stop before sweeping a cyclist around onto Leopardstown road even if they want to continue straight along the N11.

Incidentally that very same cycle path was actually closed recently as roadworks were being carried out, although they are now finished. Once you are off it is difficult to get back on easily.

The path is designed for, and suitable for, slow moving weekend cyclists and children. A mountain bike is essential. It is utterly unsuitable for commuters/fast moving cyclists on road bikes or indeed hybrids.

I honestly hope the above helps explain the situation to you breadmonkey; you might note that cyclists are actually more likely to use paths other than this particular one, which is one of the worst in Dublin.

Too true, this is on my main route so i can attest to its danger. There is a massive pot hole when heading from whites cross to foxorck church, not to mention that at the traffic lights for loretto/springfield, they have placed two poles ridiculously close together. Since you are travelling at speed and over an uneven surface, it can be tough to steer between the two without clipping either one. You could slow down, but that would defeat the purpose of cycling downhill

DirkVoodoo

rubadub wrote:

It is full of wandering pedestrians (why do they not use the perfectly good path which is in far better condition?).

Also, this really grinds my gears (no pun intended)...why do ppl wander in and out of cycle lanes. I was headin down past foxrock church and this guy was doing that "walking aimlessly while engaged on the phone" routine. I couldnt tell where his next step was gonna be and ended up pretty close to him as i went past.

You wouldnt expect someone to have a wander around the middle of the road while waiting for a bus, so why do ppl insist on doing it in cycle lanes?

ALSO: cast_iron, are sierra the guys who are doing the road works along the foxorck-whites cross stretch that dont seem to be making any progress over the past month, rarely have ppl working on them and like to park on the cycle lanes? Ok, Rant over...apologies if i offended anyone.

Trojan

You wouldnt expect someone to have a wander around the middle of the road while waiting for a bus, so why do ppl insist on doing it in cycle lanes?

I'm getting tempted to get an AirZound

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote:

You wouldnt expect someone to have a wander around the middle of the road while waiting for a bus, so why do ppl insist on doing it in cycle lanes?

It's because they are effectively footpaths. If you design something that looks like a footpath, is on the same level as a footpath, or is even just a set of lines painted on a footpath, people are going to walk in it, end of story. Cyclists belong on the roads, not on the footpath.

Trojan

Sounds like breadmonkey, faced with fact and logic, has scarpered. I wonder if he still thinks he didn't "get anywhere here"

daymobrew

blorg wrote:

Cyclists belong on the roads, not on the footpath.

I used to think this but I have been influenced by the Fingal Safe Cycling Action Group. Ken feels that off-road cycle tracks are needed for younger cyclists, who are not experienced and/or confident enough to be on the road. I now feel that there is room for both types, though when only one type is present, it should not be compulsory to use.

ednwireland

cycle lane best pracice in the uk !
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3774

i was a student in nottingham and cycled everywhere
is there a set of bike triggered traffic lights anywhere in ireland ?
i actually feel sorry for commuting cyclists here i wouldnt think of it on the country roads round me someone would definitley take me out.

blorg

daymobrew, I completely agree with you, off-road lanes are indeed valuable for children cycling, I thought of adding that as an addendum to my post. They are also valuable for the occasional adult cyclist, basically anyone who is happy to trundle along relatively slowly. But they are quite unsuitable for anyone using a bike for actual transport and who is going at speed, it's dangerous not just for the cyclist but also pedestrians.

The dangerous junction design is a big problem, and more needs to be done to encourage pedestrians to keep off them. But even more serious is that the effect that the very presence of a cycle lane has on motorists. I am not sure that a simple change in the law would actually help motorist attitudes here; cycle lanes are _not_ compulsory in the UK but there are still plenty of stories of motorists demonstrating their feeling that cyclists should be in them (and even a conviction of a cyclist who was not using one.)

A few, like the Clontarf-Sutton one, are actually useful for all cyclists, mainly due to the length that path goes without junctions. It might be somewhat beneficial though to change the colour of the cycle section, include a slightly raised ridge between it and the pedestrian section, and post signs reminding pedestrians/joggers etc. to stay off though. Again this is purely from a safety point of view.

jman0

I agree with blorg, cyclists belong on the road.
Having said that, children belong on footpaths.
Regardless if they are on foot or on a bike.
We don't need dedicated off-road cycle tracks at all.
We just need footpaths for pedestrians and children on bikes.