Documenting Ireland's cycle lanes

markpb

monument wrote: »

On April 9, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council told me their transportation department "have completed road safety audits up to Stage Three (i.e. post-construction) on the Sandyford to Drummartin Link Road Scheme (now known as Benildus Avenue), which includes for the cycle lane infrastructure at the junction of Benildus Avenue and Drummartin Road. The report is not yet finalised and therefore not available to distribute at this time."

I didn't get a chance to reply to that yet, will be asking how long it is due to take.

I poked them again last week (after I started using the cycle lane again) and got this

As it stands today the consultants who designed this junction are exploring options to amend/improve it. We have received comments in relation to this junction not only from the cyclist viewpoint but from a pedestrian viewpoint as well.

Once the report outlining the options is received a decision will be made on how to amend the junction to best serve all concerned.

kev23f

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Wow, just wow!

Went on the new section of cycle lane on the luas extension works in Sandyford. If you are heading away from the existing Luas terminus, it's a small stretch of cycle lane up to the lights at the entrance to Sandyford Industrial estate. I really should have got a photo!

Basically I saw it was open, went onto it and was dodging the large, unswept chippings and avoiding the manhole covers in case any happened to be open (wouldn't surprise me). Anyway, suddenly the track just ended, I'm on concrete and then what I can only describe as meditteranean villa style roofing tiles laid in a checkerboard pattern at 90 degrees to each other. This was mad, I'm amazed my wheel didn't catch and throw me off.

Anyway, after getting through that minefield I was left on more concrete. I looked ahead and the concrete was narrowing into a wedge at the traffic lights. To my left I saw more tarmac cycle lane on the opposite side of the tracks, so I can only guess that they will be putting in a crossing on the tracks? I was left to bunny hop off the kerb at an odd angle (not enough space on the wedge) onto a road where traffic regularly speeds over 60 km/hr.

Mad! Who designs this crap? While the luas works were going on I have been quite happily using the road without incident.

Dirkvoodoo - i know exactly the place you are describing, several people in work here have ranted about it also - i'll try and grab a picture of it this evening on the way home.

The way the cycle lanes have been designed around the new Firhouse M50 exit are comical/lethal also, must stick some photos up on the flickr site...

Chris Peak

kev23f wrote: »

Dirkvoodoo - i know exactly the place you are describing, several people in work here have ranted about it also - i'll try and grab a picture of it this evening on the way home.

The way the cycle lanes have been designed around the new Firhouse M50 exit are comical/lethal also, must stick some photos up on the flickr site...

I have some of the M50 Tallaght I must put up later.

Kev: I have the name of the guy in SDCC dealing with the roads in that area and he wants cyclists to contact him, so he can improve things.

monument

Some house keeping updates to this thread...

N4 cycle lanes (28-05-2010) FLICKR

Finglas Road cycle lanes 01/04/2010 -- THREAD | FLICKR

Swords to Dublin cycle route (28-01-2010) THREAD | FLICKR

And some, of more, weird designs around Swords, at / off the Dynam Road:

SerialComplaint

Can anyone explain the purpose of this apparent cycle lane in Ballinteer? (See attached photos).

What is the purpose of the white line on the pavement? The section to the right of the white line is no use to anyone, but I've never seen a segrated section of a path like this before. Please tell me that they're not suggesting that the narrow section of the path to the right is for bikes?

monument

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Can anyone explain the purpose of this apparent cycle lane in Ballinteer? (See attached photos).

What is the purpose of the white line on the pavement? The section to the right of the white line is no use to anyone, but I've never seen a segrated section of a path like this before. Please tell me that they're not suggesting that the narrow section of the path to the right is for bikes?

They are not suggesting to cycle in the narrow section. They want you to cycle on the footpath.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

They are not suggesting to cycle in the narrow section. They want you to cycle on the footpath.

Yeah, it's a UK sign, with no meaning in Irish law, but it's supposed to mean pedestrians and cyclists share the space with no segregation.

It's fascinating that the very narrow footpath on St. John's Road West (running down from the Chapelizod bypass to Heuston Station) also sports this sign, on both sides of the road.

SerialComplaint

monument wrote: »

They are not suggesting to cycle in the narrow section. They want you to cycle on the footpath.

So what is the purpose of the white line on the path?

monument

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So what is the purpose of the white line on the path?

Oh, that's like asking what's the meaning to life. It's a mystery.

Maybe by painting these lines on footpaths they feel like they are designing something and not just putting cyclists in with pedestrians on footpaths not designed for cyclists where it makes little or no sense to do so.

It's done on the Samuel Beckett Bridge, see here.

Doctor Bob

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So what is the purpose of the white line on the path?

I realise that, in the context of these mystery signs, discussion of the law might seem a bit pointless, but the white line is presumably something to do with this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html wrote:

9. The following shall be subsitituted for article 26 of the Principal Regulations:—


"26. (1) Traffic sign number RRM 022 or traffic sign number RRM 023 shall indicate the right hand edge or the right and left hand edges of a cycle track.


(2) Traffic sign number RRM 022 shall consist of a continuous white line approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide.


(3) Traffic sign number RRM 023 shall consist of a broken white line consisting of segments not less than 100 millimetres and not more than 150 millimetres wide, approximately 750 millimetres long and spaced approximately 750 millimetres apart.".

Interestingly (perhaps...), article 26 in the 1997 version read as follows:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0181.html wrote:

Cycle Track.

26. (1) Traffic sign number RRM 022 shall—


(a) indicate the right hand edge of a cycle track where it forms part of a roadway, and


(b) consist of a continuous white line approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide.


(2) Traffic sign number RRM 023 shall—


(a) indicate the right and left hand edges of a cycle track where it forms part of a footway, and


(b) consist of continuous white lines approximately 100 millimetres or 150 millimetres wide and spaced approximately 1 metre apart.

So RRM 023 used to be a pair of parallel continuous (unbroken) white lines, but it's now a single broken line (that can be used in pairs ).

I trust that this clarifies matters!

monument

Does anybody know who is responsible for starting to use the two main signs which have no legal backing? (ie the normal flow bus lane one without a bicycle and the pedestrian / cyclists one)

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Does anybody know who is responsible for starting to use the two main signs which have no legal backing? (ie the normal flow bus lane one without a bicycle and the pedestrian / cyclists one)

I think the pedstrian/cyclist one is one from the UK. Maybe they saw them on a junket to the UK and ordered a batch of them.

SerialComplaint

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Can anyone explain the purpose of this apparent cycle lane in Ballinteer? (See attached photos).

What is the purpose of the white line on the pavement? The section to the right of the white line is no use to anyone, but I've never seen a segrated section of a path like this before. Please tell me that they're not suggesting that the narrow section of the path to the right is for bikes?

So is [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/120641/115430.jpg[/url] legally binding? Is this lane optional or mandatory?

Bunnyhopper

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So is [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/120641/115430.jpg[/url] legally binding? Is this lane optional or mandatory?

That's the pedestrian/cyclist one they're talking about. AFAIK, there's no mention of it in Irish statutes so it doesn't really have any legal force.

A mandatory cycle track has to have one or other of the upright signs RUS 009 or RUS 009A as well as either the RRM 022 or the RRM 023 surface markings. From what I can gather they are a blue sign with a white bicycle on it (RUS 009), or a white sign with a black bicycle on it with a red border (RUS 009A). That pedestrian/cyclist sign is neither of those so my (warning: unprofessional opinion ahead) reading of it is that it can't be a mandatory cycle track.

Have a look here for all the references:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57778733&postcount=21

monument

Recent discussion with images here: Cycle lanes- compulsary to use?

Doctor Bob

monument wrote: »

Does anybody know who is responsible for starting to use the two main signs which have no legal backing? (ie the normal flow bus lane one without a bicycle and the pedestrian / cyclists one)

An educated guess would suggest that the Quality Bus Network Project Office, as the agency responsible for the development of QBCs, was responsible for the bus lane sign with the bike symbol removed.

The first place I ever saw the shared pedestrian-cyclist sign was on the stretch of the N11 between the Stillorgan Park Hotel and St John of God's, i.e. a section with no dedicated footpath adjacent to the cycle track. It was, in effect, an attempt at 'regularising' common practice. It may have appeared elsewhere before then. This was in the early 2000s or so, I think.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

An educated guess would suggest that the Quality Bus Network Project Office, as the agency responsible for the development of QBCs, was responsible for the bus lane sign with the bike symbol removed.

What is it, though, that makes minor public bodies here think that they can just make signs up? There are supposed to be standards and laws governing these things.

Honestly! :rolleyes:

monument

Doctor Bob wrote: »

An educated guess would suggest that the Quality Bus Network Project Office, as the agency responsible for the development of QBCs, was responsible for the bus lane sign with the bike symbol removed.

The first place I ever saw the shared pedestrian-cyclist sign was on the stretch of the N11 between the Stillorgan Park Hotel and St John of God's, i.e. a section with no dedicated footpath adjacent to the cycle track. It was, in effect, an attempt at 'regularising' common practice. It may have appeared elsewhere before then. This was in the early 2000s or so, I think.

I was thinking the same.

Last year, I asked them -- among other things -- the legal bases for their use of the signs. They replied replied saying they would reply, but even after another request there was no reply.

It's time to follow that up. Here's where the Access to Information on the Environment legislation comes in handy (it's like FOI but requests at least are free). I'm told using it is a way to lose friends and alienate people, but asking something like the legal bases of costly signs which affect people can only be seen as a reasonable request.

markpb

monument wrote: »

Last year, I asked them -- among other things -- the legal bases for their use of the signs. They replied replied saying they would reply, but even after another request there was no reply.

I mailed DCC about those signs several times and never got a reply. I've sent an email to my local councilor (who sits on the Transport SPC) to see if he can find anything out.

monument

That's the great thing about Access to Information on the Environment -- they must deal with my request within a month.

If they deny the request (which would be bizarre given the type question I'm asking), reasons must be given and the legislation only allows limited reasons to be valid. Then I can asked for a free internal review which has to be undertaken by somebody other than the person who denied the request. After that, if I have €150, I can request that the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (aka the Information Commissioner) reviews the denial.

DirkVoodoo

@Monument, would love your opinion on this. This is the new cycle lane from the Sandyford Luas, runs for about 100m, totally pointless but more importantly a complete after thought. I mentioned it before but there was some confusion as to why I was annoyed by the odd (and unseen before) traffic calming).

Anyway, start of cycle lane starts on road and quickly brings you off-road with quite a high kerb. You can't see where the track ends until it appears from around the corner, at which point you are stuck Note the junk swept into the cycle lane:



Continuing on you reach these red "mediterranean villa roof tiles" on the ground. You can see that after this, the marked cycle path simply disappears. I crossed these things on a wet evening and it was lethal (700x23 tyres). The only thing on me, aside from my phone, was an inhaler which I used for scale (suitably dorky for boards!). These are quite raised, running in a checkerboard pattern, fine for a mountain bike, not fun on narrower tyres. What it is meant to achieve except possibly causing accidents is unclear:





After navigating this, you reach the end of Takeshi's castle, I mean cycle path. Literally. It narrows off, also tilting off camber towards the road, ending at a traffic light positioned in the middle of more cobbles. I waited for about 2-3 minutes for a gap in traffic before wheeling my bike onto the road and resuming my cycle:





It might look like the kerb is flush with the road in that photo, believe me it's not.

I've seen some bad designs in my time, but this takes the biscuit. It would be fine if it were "unfinished" but they removed the cones they had blocking it some time ago and it hasn't changed in this time. I was happily using the road with no issue, but the very presence of this sends some drivers into a blind rage, they now like to go closer and beep, with much pointing at the lane. Can this be reported to someone?

Chips Lovell

That one really takes the biscuit. It's up there with that crazy one in Galway someone posted a while back.

Bluefoam

If you wanted to keep cyclists off a particular pathway, that would be the correct surface to use!!! Holy shit

k123456

Amazing stuff re cycle lanes.

The sad thing is we have paid for this junk thru our taxes, both road and general tax.

It is frighting to think how many injuries may have resulted from these badly designed lanes

It would be interesting to see who much these have cost, how many consultants were involved and how many all expenses "fact finding" trips abroad were required !

Mr. Grieves

DirkVoodoo, at the point where that cycle lane stops abruptly, another one begins on the footpath on the far side of the tracks. There may be a plan to create a level-crossing style concrete section to allow cycling accross the tracks. As it is now, it's impossible to cross without dismounting, and fairly akward even if you do. The cycle lane on theother side of the tracks continues for another few hundred metres, before stopping at the corner and becoming footpath again.

I cycle past there every day, but I don't imagine I'll ever use that cycle path. The road surface has improved alot recently, so I don't mind.

DirkVoodoo

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

DirkVoodoo, at the point where that cycle lane stops abruptly, another one begins on the footpath on the far side of the tracks. There may be a plan to create a level-crossing style concrete section to allow cycling accross the tracks. As it is now, it's impossible to cross without dismounting, and fairly akward even if you do. The cycle lane on theother side of the tracks continues for another few hundred metres, before stopping at the corner and becoming footpath again.

I cycle past there every day, but I don't imagine I'll ever use that cycle path. The road surface has improved alot recently, so I don't mind.

In that case they should close it off until it is fully functional. Does the new section go as far as the roundabout?

I agree, I won't be using it either way, awful thing and mixing it with Luas and passengers is not my cup of tea.

tomasrojo

It seems that, despite the positive noises of the last two years or so, the local authorities will never desist from making life more difficult for cyclists.

The obvious and easy route -- building roads with wider kerb lanes and leaving it at that -- would be too easy for them; they have to "innovate" with crap like this. It's almost as if they have a commercial arrangement with a company that makes "Cyclists Dismount" signs.

monument

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

DirkVoodoo, at the point where that cycle lane stops abruptly, another one begins on the footpath on the far side of the tracks. There may be a plan to create a level-crossing style concrete section to allow cycling accross the tracks. As it is now, it's impossible to cross without dismounting, and fairly akward even if you do. The cycle lane on theother side of the tracks continues for another few hundred metres, before stopping at the corner and becoming footpath again.

Yeah, that's what is happening here.

The Environmental Impact Statement for this new section of track says:

Cyclists
The proposed alignment through the junction of Blackthorn Avenue/Burton Hall Road would mean cyclists exiting Blackthorn Avenue on to Burton Hall Road having to cross the track at a shallow angle. A signposted cycle route will be provided in this area in association with the road authority to encourage cyclists to cross the Luas alignment at a greater angle.

The DLR Co Co Cycle Review warns that substandard off road cycle paths like this will only lead to many cyclists continuing to use the road. It also notes about cycle lanes designed which does not understand the needs of cyclists.

But, yeah, this example really does take the biscuit. How is it even ok for pedestrians and disabled people?

It's worth noting that the other end of Blackthorn Avenue is near to this wonderful bit of design as mentioned earlier in the thread:

DirkVoodoo

monument wrote: »

It's worth noting that the other end of Blackthorn Avenue is near to this wonderful bit of design as mentioned earlier in the thread:

I have purposely altered my route from Dundrum to use that lane now, the on road portion is very nice to use. Only problem is the "funnel" effect of that road (off to the left in your photo), either nasty headwind or delightful tailwind, no inbetween.

Piercemeear

I spent this morning doddling around every kind of road in southeast Kildare, having a delightful time and magically avoiding all the rain promised. Had to get my bike up to Dublin from Naas this evening so I set off around half-eight, again magically avoiding the rain and feeling very happy with myself and all the miles I was managing. I passed through the lights at Newlands Cross and saw that cycle lane that goes up on the left beside the separated bus-lane and, it being the first cycle lane I'd met in forty-five miles done today, I figured I might as well get on it. A piece of wire hidden in the mud pooled around the bottom of the ramp obliterated my back tube, and probably my tire. I haven't had the will to examine it yet. I had no spare tube/pump. It was a long howevermany miles walk into Ranelagh. I'm aware of my own culpability in this but damn and blast the cycle lanes of this city.