Documenting Ireland's cycle lanes

monument

Good to see people adding photos.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Does anyone want to compile some of this stuff into a word document or PDF and send it to TDs or Councillors. Or even send them a link to this thread or the flickr group?

Its no use preaching to the choir here on the cycling forum.

I'm hoping some of my photos will be used elsewhere soon. Will let you know.

But beside that, it may be of use to do what you're suggesting. And remember many people are usually are watching boards.ie in general without posting.

petethedrummer

monument wrote: »

But beside that, it may be of use to do what you're suggesting. And remember many people are usually are watching boards.ie in general without posting.

I just think an actual physical report landed on someone's desk may have more of an impact than a stream of online photos. Sure if anyone's interested send me a PM, it's not something I'd have the motivation to do on my own.

BostonB

Seems obvious to me that the people making these design decisions are not referencing any source that has real life cycling experience. No one who cycles would agree to any of this madness. I used to think they did it to be seen to be doing something, but in fairness I think theres a genuine will (in some places) to improve things for cycling, but their lack of cycling experience/knowledge fails them.

If all the information was complied into a website, or a report by the cycling community, as concise suggestions, perhaps it would have some weight.

DirkVoodoo

BostonB wrote: »

Seems obvious to me that the people making these design decisions are not referencing any source that has real life cycling experience. No one who cycles would agree to any of this madness. I used to think they did it to be seen to be doing something, but in fairness I think theres a genuine will (in some places) to improve things for cycling, but their lack of cycling experience/knowledge fails them.

I think that's possibly backed up by the "why do you cycle on the road when there is a perfectly good cycle path over there" attitude a lot of people have. I was certainly the same, I mean it always looked fine and surely bikes would want to be isolated from traffic. Then I started cycling and I was soon on the road where possible.

BostonB

That another problem with cycle lanes off road, to add to the list. They enforce the mindset in drivers, that cyclists shouldn't be on the road. Compulsory lanes don't help either.

monument

Somebody who cycles may not always know the best designs and they may not be given the space or be allowed to put in the best designs. Or indeed, they may think their designs are just fine.

-Chris-

Here's my trip from Church Road in Killiney to the Taxi rank at St. Stephen's Green.

Pics

Again, the same things occur:
-Lanes start and stop without reason or warning (and in the case of this route there's a surprising number of lanes that are probably only 20m long for some reason)
-You're regularly sent down the inside of left-turning vehicles
-In this instance there's a pattern where, when the road is nice and wide and safe there's a cycle lane, and when the road is narrow and dangerous for overtaking etc. the cycle lane is noticably absent
-Because a lot of the cycle lanes are on-road, the surface is actually better than the off-road lanes. There aren't driveways to cross and kerbs to hop up and down. On the other hand, in a good few cases they just painted a line on the road without re-drawing any of the other lines. An example of this is the road at Booterstown
-I don't know why there's no cycle lane on the Rock Road or at Tara Towers, they're prime contenders
-I finally got to see the infamous cone (pic 51)
-I don't know why there's a cycle lane on some of Mount Street, but not on other parts of it. Nothing else changes


Apologies that some of them are at weird angles, I dunno what happened there...
Also, I only took pics on the way it. It got a little damp by the time I hit the Green. :P:D


If anybody wants any/all of these pics for a Flickr group or anything, let me know.

Blowfish

-Chris- wrote: »

-I finally got to see the infamous cone (pic 51)

Sadly that's actually an improvement on what it was. While they were actually working on that bit, the pile of cement/whatever it is stuck out further into the cycle lane and they didn't even have the cone to warn you of it.

It's a pity they have road works and a temporary surface on strand/beach road, otherwise you could use it as a comparison of a route that actually doesn't have a cycle lane. Inevitably, the road surface is better, there are very few traffic lights and you aren't forced into stupid road positions.

tomasrojo

I was cycling up to Dublin Airport via the Swords Road today. Some bad cycle lanes there. Mostly because of really high kerbs meaning you have to slow right down to get onto the cycle track, but also quite a few that left you on the left of left-turning traffic.

Also, monument, I saw another non-standard Bus Lane sign on the Swords Road (the sign with the cyclist painted out or covered over in some way). Not sure whether that was on your original list.

BostonB

monument wrote: »

Somebody who cycles may not always know the best designs and they may not be given the space or be allowed to put in the best designs. Or indeed, they may think their designs are just fine.

While true I think I prefer the odds of experience being better than no experience.

SerialComplaint

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed, though typically enough the hours are rarely enforced so cycle lanes with this restriction are quite often useless as cars just park in them regardless.

If you find this happening in Dublin, call the clampers hotline (01) 602 2500, and they'll put manners on them pretty quick.

radia

I cycled out to Ikea yesterday, and all around Ballymun they have a (deliberate for a change!) tactile surface at junctions. I didn't have a camera with me, but the stuff has been posted before on this thread from other locations (thanks SerialComplaint, Chris, DirkVoodoo). It's the yellow paving with flat rectangular bars on it.


In this area the cycle path is at the same level as the footpath, and at the junctions the ridged paving is orientated differently on the footpath and the cycle path: On the cycle path it's positioned so the bike is effectively travelling along the grooves, whereas it's perpendicular to that on the pedestrian area, like in this photo from the N11:


The fact that it has consistently been positioned in this way suggests it's policy, and it does make for a smoother ride moving in parallel to the ridges. But in wintry conditions (when you're not always going to get the angle exactly right and will glance off the sides of the ridges or slip from being on top of one down into the groove) would that not be more dangerous than cycling perpendicular to them (in a rumble strip manner)? Or maybe I'm completely wrong?

SerialComplaint

radia wrote: »

The fact that it has consistently been positioned in this way suggests it's policy, and it does make for a smoother ride moving in parallel to the ridges. But in wintry conditions (when you're not always going to get the angle exactly right and will glance off the sides of the ridges or slip from being on top of one down into the groove) would that not be more dangerous than cycling perpendicular to them (in a rumble strip manner)? Or maybe I'm completely wrong?

This non-binding guideline publication gives some details of the usage of corduroy tactile paving - doesn't mention anything specifically about junctions with cycle paths.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note: Disussion on whether lobby groups should be subsidised has been moved to a separate thread.

poochiem

-Chris- wrote: »

-I finally got to see the infamous cone (pic 51)

haha, that cone marks the end of the favourite part of my commute. I think they should bring those in at every junction, perfect height for clipless riders to hold onto.

galwaycyclist

BostonB wrote: »

Seems obvious to me that the people making these design decisions are not referencing any source that has real life cycling experience. No one who cycles would agree to any of this madness. I used to think they did it to be seen to be doing something, but in fairness I think theres a genuine will (in some places) to improve things for cycling, but their lack of cycling experience/knowledge fails them.

If all the information was complied into a website, or a report by the cycling community, as concise suggestions, perhaps it would have some weight.

To get back to the original topic the Galway Cycling Campaign's old Web site had infomation sheets on some of these issues. But maintaining these has exceeded available volunteer time.

The first two of these deal with accident patterns at junctions

Irish Junction design practice
http://www.oocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/irish_junctions.html

Multilane roundabouts
http://www.oocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/roundabouts.html

If you understand these issues, the underlying patterns, then you will understand why, in urban areas, roadside cycle tracks should tend to be more dangerous for cyclists than sharing the same surface with the other vehicles.

Urban cycle Tracks
http://www.oocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/cycle_tracks.html

Some of this research subsequently fed into the Cyclist.ie 2008 position doc
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7v8_RA4nxWrM2E4MjdjNGUtYzJkYS00OTdhLWJjMTUtODA0MjY2NmVmY2I2&hl=en

However it would be a mistake to assume that current designs result from ignorance or that designers are acting out of a genuine will to improve cycling conditions. The DCC has been raising these issues with the Dublin QBN Office fairly consistently with little sign of change. To take the Seamus Quirke Road in Galway.



This happened after nearly ten years of submissions from the Galway Cycling Campaign pointing out that such designs are dangerous and inappropriate. Including submissions on two city development plans, evidence to an Oral hearing by An Bord Pleanala, various planning permission observations, formal presentations to the council's Strategic Policy Committee and similar position papers from other groups. At the council meeting that adopted this scheme, the engineers and official responsible were accused of conducting a vendetta against cyclists by one councillor. However, without going into the other politics involved the scheme still got adopted - after the officials played the "delay" card.

Unfortunately it may valid to assume that malice rather than incompetence may be the motivating factor in some cycle lane schemes. Therefore it would be foolish to assume that it is enough to merely point out bad practice to designers, each scheme should be treated as an independent political campaign.

tomasrojo

If there were censure and penalties for creating hazardous facilities, we'd probably see a lot fewer of them. But, as far as I know, there is none.

BostonB

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...
Unfortunately it may valid to assume that malice rather than incompetence may be the motivating factor in some cycle lane schemes. Therefore it would be foolish to assume that it is enough to merely point out bad practice to designers, each scheme should be treated as an independent political campaign.

Thats a pity to hear that. it would explain some of the nutty things they do.

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Unfortunately it may valid to assume that malice rather than incompetence may be the motivating factor in some cycle lane schemes. Therefore it would be foolish to assume that it is enough to merely point out bad practice to designers, each scheme should be treated as an independent political campaign.

'Valid'? How so? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Or am I just being naïve again?

(Oh, right- 'With respect.')

HivemindXX

Take the Seamus Quirke Road. Incompetence (meaning gross ignorance of the job you are supposed to be doing) might explain the design.

However there were objections made showing how the design was terrible for cyclists. It's hard to believe that whoever was in charge still didn't accept it was a bad design. It seems much more likely that they recognised this is a bad design that increases the danger to cyclists but they didn't care. Hence the conclusion of malice.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

'Valid'? How so? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Or am I just being naïve again?

(Oh, right- 'With respect.')

Yes I should have used the word "reasonable" - nobody's perfect

Doctor Bob

HivemindXX wrote: »

Take the Seamus Quirke Road. Incompetence (meaning gross ignorance of the job you are supposed to be doing) might explain the design.

However there were objections made showing how the design was terrible for cyclists. It's hard to believe that whoever was in charge still didn't accept it was a bad design. It seems much more likely that they recognised this is a bad design that increases the danger to cyclists but they didn't care. Hence the conclusion of malice.

Thanks for the definition of 'incompetence'. :rolleyes:

Are you familiar with the role of An Bord Pleanála in the design of the Seamus Quirke Road? (That's not the SQR in the pic above, as I understand it. I believe the SQR has not yet been constructed, but I'm open to correction on that.) The Board laid down conditions - which are legally binding, as I'm sure you are aware (though, imho, the Board was operating ultra vires, but that's a story for another day) - which to a large extent tied the hands of Galway City Council regarding the degree of freedom it had in the design of the route.

I would agree that the design of the SQR is not perfect, but 'terrible' is stretching the truth beyond breaking point.

I still don't believe any evidence has been put forward in this thread that supports the accusations of malice. ('Reasonable' is certainly a better word, as it lacks the specificity of 'valid', but it is still a groundless accusation.)

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I still don't believe any evidence has been put forward in this thread that supports the accusations of malice. ('Reasonable' is certainly a better word, as it lacks the specificity of 'valid', but it is still a groundless accusation.)

Gee - where do we go with this? OK I would argue that this thread, by its very existence, implies that those responsible for some of the devices discussed, or those who circulated the design guidance on which they are based, are open to accusations of at best incompetence and at worst malice. In my view, your position that accusations of malice are "groundless" is not supportable. (Please note that at this point I myself have made no direct accusations of malice.)

It is my view that any independent observer, being appraised of the facts surrounding some of these schemes would form the conclusion that, if we are able to exclude incompetence, then malice offers itself as an explanation for what has been going on.

The facts are very simple, we have a series of devices, i.e. roadside cycle paths and cycle lanes, that in certain applications, are repeatedly reported in the published literature as being associated with increased risk of injury to those cyclists who use them. Claims of benefit made for these devices are hotly disputed, particularly in situations where they explicitly impose increased inconvenience and discomfort along with increased risk. Some of these devices are being constructed on behalf of persons who can be shown to have been repeatedly made aware the associated injury risks in written correspondence.

Even if we leave aside the issue of injury, the wilful singling out of cyclists for the imposition of delay and inconvenience of itself invites accusations of malice.

Morally, in my view, I cannot see how it is any different to a manufacturer continuing to release a product with known defects or toxic side effects long after they were made aware of the issues.

And even if we can never know what the motives of those responsible are, it is still my view that a concerned cyclist reviewing such schemes would be foolish to assume that those responsible had our best interests at heart. Otherwise why do they keep building this stuff?

BostonB

Maybe theres a lot of money in making as many stop start yield cycling signs?

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Please note that at this point I myself have made no direct accusations of malice.

Ahem...

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Unfortunately it may valid to assume that malice rather than incompetence may be the motivating factor in some cycle lane schemes.

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

Ahem...

Yes just because you take something to be supportable working hypthesis based on a given set of facts it does not imply that you automatically assert it to be true in a particular scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_hypothesis

If you cannot establish the full facts then there are additional systems for determining likely explanations.

See occams razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Chips Lovell

I'm quite entertained that you're using Occam's razor to justify floating (in quite a weaselly way, I might add) accusations of malice when you've presented absolutely no grounds for such an allegation.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Are you familiar with the role of An Bord Pleanála in the design of the Seamus Quirke Road? (That's not the SQR in the pic above, as I understand it. I believe the SQR has not yet been constructed, but I'm open to correction on that.) The Board laid down conditions - which are legally binding, as I'm sure you are aware (though, imho, the Board was operating ultra vires, but that's a story for another day) - which to a large extent tied the hands of Galway City Council regarding the degree of freedom it had in the design of the route.

Hmmm I think we need a history lesson here. Yes, the SQR has not yet been reconstructed. The stated design goal of the original Seamus Quirke Scheme (2002) was that cyclists would be required to "dismount and become pedestrians" at every junction when the road was finished. In my view, an outside observer would be entitled to the view that this suggests an attitude of contempt for cyclists and cycling, if not outright malice. This objective of making us "get off and walk" was one of the factors that lead eventually to An Bord Pleanala holding an oral hearing into the scheme. The board eventually made a determination - one stipulation of which - was that the cyclists should be on-road at the junctions.

However, the current redesign proposal, retains the "get off and walk" design assumption at two of the junctions. The reason given is that the designers deem these junctions to be outside the remit of the boards decision. Thus rather than the flaws in the current design being imposed on the unfortunate engineers by the pesky old planning board, it would appear that the same attitudes that informed the 2002 design also inform the current proposals.

In any case if the design team had a problem with the planning board's determination they could have resubmitted it to the planning process at any point during the last 7 years.

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In any case if the design team had a problem with the planning board's determination they could have resubmitted it to the planning process at any point during the last 7 years.

...and in the process lose the funding for the scheme, which, it shold be noted, is not a cycling scheme- it is a bus and cycling scheme which, in due course, is likely to be upgraded to a full Bus Rapid Transit route. And no planner/engineer worth their salt would recommend mixing cycling with BRT. But unfortunately some commentators can't or won't acknowledge such things as a bigger picture.

I have 1000 words drafted as to why I don't think Irish cycle campaigns represent me, in response to monument's recent thread, but I'm beginning to think I can't be arsed posting it in the spirit of constructive criticism as you have displayed a signal unwillingness to entertain any viewpoint other than your own- which, come to think of it, is a key part of my argument. I guess I'll leave it there.

I wish you all the best trying to attract new members.

Doctor Bob

Actually, maybe I spoke too soon. I never like departing on a sour note- far better to leave with a smile on one's face, right?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my view, your position that accusations of malice are "groundless" is not supportable.

Maybe it's the philosophy graduate in me, but logical fallacies always put a dirty big grin on my face. Thanks!