Worst cycle facilities in Ireland

Bunnyhopper

That DCC response is depressingly patronising. I wonder does whoever wrote it ever cycle around Dublin. I can only take it as an indication that they haven't got a clue about the situations they're actually putting people in on the ground, and as long as it looks nice in the manuals and runs smoothly in the simulations then that'll do just fine.

tomasrojo

A quick google shows that this design does not conform to best practice (duh):
http://www.labreform.org/blunders/b5.html

This intersection essentially violates recommendations in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [4], which says (page 9C-4): A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane. The MUTCD also says: An optional through-right turn lane next to a right turn only lane should not be used where there is a through bicycle lane. If a capacity analysis indicates the need for an optional through-right turn lane, the bicycle lane should be discontinued at the intersection approach.

MUTCD = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 9 Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities.
(Since it's the USA, substitute left for right)

This is highly relevant too:

Hiding Behind Standards

Standards can not replace competence and knowledge by those who design bicycle facilities. This is especially critical when the standards have dangerous flaws such as the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities [3]. Engineers are expected to do professional work as experts in their field [9]. However, we often see planners and engineers hide negligent bicycle facilities work behind weak standards.

Gavin

From reading the reply, the DCC person seems semi-illiterate and is probably replying on their own initiative, without consulting anyone who actually has some facts.

Shockingly poorly written response.

tomasrojo

And the DCC (or their minion who might be off on a solo run with this) obviously is not in accord with the Department of Transport, who DO see a problem with facilities like that:

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smartertravel.ie%2Fdownload%2F1%2F0902%252002%2520EnglishNS1274%2520Dept.%2520of%2520Transport_National_Cycle_Policy_v4.pdf&rct=j&q=department+of+transport+cycling+transport+document&ei=R3rgSoKvCMyhjAeI-LWlBg&usg=AFQjCNEDRN_MmDRDmwY6cGhKyJZ8kzBVUg

We will revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists
to use cycle tracks where they are provided - Road Traffic
(Traffic and Parking) Amendment Regulations, S.I. No. 274 (1998).
This regulation is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:
(i) it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed
to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained, and
cyclists are required to use it;
(ii) it can force cyclists to be on cycle tracks and (when they are planning
on continuing straight ahead) to be on the inside of left-turning
vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;
(iii) if a group of cyclists (on a weekend cycle for example) is using a road
with an off-road cycle-track alongside it, then they are required to use
it – which is not practicable.

tomasrojo

This farce is on Doughiska Road in Galway city.

Opposition to this one was stiff, right from the planning stages, and I assume it's obvious to everyone why.

The blocking of one lane by a sign selling 10kg of something or other is a temporary feature, I'm sure.

It seems that every avenue to stop this was explored, including lodging formal fitness-to-practice complaints against the engineers who carried out the road safety audit (one of whom had previously worked on Sustrans routes in Scotland). However, both individuals were cleared by their respective professional bodies. It's bizarre that anyone with any expertise in this area could give their approval to a design associated with greatly elevated risk of collision.

Galway City Council has refused three freedom-of-information requests seeking the qualifications of the engineers who designed this, on the grounds that it's personal information.

So, once local authorities and city councils take it into their heads to build counter-productive, slow, hazardous and insulting facilities, it seems that you can't stop them, or even get any insight into who did the design and why.

Block (8

Looking at that pic I really wouldn't really know how to cycle in those lanes!

And if I have to stop every couple of feet I'll probably fall off my bike knowing my luck with cleats :rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

And if you didn't fall off you'd have to dismount and walk the section where the cycle lane disappears beside the bus stop, that or cycle on the footpad.

Is there signage up making that a mandatory cycle lane?

I suppose that the risk and convenience in any given cycle facility design may be counterintuitive - so it might look counter-productive, slow, hazardous and insulting but in fact be protecting and helping us all without our even knowing it. We should probably accept that the local authorities are wise and benevolent beyond our understanding.*





*This comment was produced in a facility where sarcasm is present and cannot be guaranteed to be free of sarcasm or bitter cynicism. If you have a sarcasm allergy then we really care, we really really do.

Harrybelafonte

tomasrojo wrote: »

I just realised what junction you're talking about; it's going south on Drumcondra road, passing the face of Clonliffe Road?

I would never, never, place myself any further left than the centre of the leftmost traffic lane.

I think one of the other problems with that lane is that there's a bus stop as it opens so some cars swerve quite suddenly into it after passing a bus. You're spot on about centering yourself in the lane, but as per above and my own example some cars are going to be parallel and trying to turn.

As for the DCC response, it does sound very unprofessional, there's almost an irate tone to it. I'd personally write back and make that point. Did you get a name? Maybe take all the references made here about best practice and send them back.

The example given from Galway makes me think of some child somewhere saying "Well they wanted there cycle lanes, so we gave them to them. I hope there happy" *stamps feet*

tomasrojo

I did a quick bit of research on the Doughiska Road facillity. Overall, cyclists are required to stop and yield to turning motorists at eighteen junctions on a 1.4km stretch of road. There are also 41 private driveways crossing the facility.

SerialComplaint

tomasrojo wrote: »

This farce is on Doughiska Road in Galway city.

Opposition to this one was stiff, right from the planning stages, and I assume it's obvious to everyone why.

The blocking of one lane by a sign selling 10kg of something or other is a temporary feature, I'm sure.

It seems that every avenue to stop this was explored, including lodging formal fitness-to-practice complaints against the engineers who carried out the road safety audit (one of whom had previously worked on Sustrans routes in Scotland). However, both individuals were cleared by their respective professional bodies. It's bizarre that anyone with any expertise in this area could give their approval to a design associated with greatly elevated risk of collision.

Galway City Council has refused three freedom-of-information requests seeking the qualifications of the engineers who designed this, on the grounds that it's personal information.

So, once local authorities and city councils take it into their heads to build counter-productive, slow, hazardous and insulting facilities, it seems that you can't stop them, or even get any insight into who did the design and why.

That's a beaut - have you considered trying to get any councillors involved in trying to get it sorted?

tomasrojo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

That's a beaut - have you considered trying to get any councillors involved in trying to get it sorted?

Hi @SerialComplaint. It's not really my jurisdiction; I live in Dublin, so it doesn't affect me directly. But the Galway Cycling Campagin fought it tooth and nail from the planning stage all the way until it was finally built. The council just pushed it through. They are unlikely to want to amelilorate it, thereby admitting that they were wrong all along and the GCC was right.

IM0

Im confused all bikepaths in and around Dublin are a shambles arent they?
certainly Ive seen, and most are illegal too.

stopped_clock

tomasrojo wrote: »

This farce is on Doughiska Road in Galway city....

Thanks a lot for posting that tomosrojo: I've been meaning to for a while.

That thing is ridiculous. For those not familiar with the area, it's basically a residential road in suburban Galway with a lot of new housing estates off it.

I don't know how obvious it is from the pic, but the on-path cycle lanes tend to end abruptly, leaving you either cycling on the footpath or dropping off a high enough kerb on to the road. (I've only ever driven past, while shaking my head.) The cycle-path goes up and down past driveways and through bus stops. I've never seen anyone cycling on it, but have seen lots of people walking in it (I don't blame them for this - in my view it's a footpad!).

Also, cars are regularly parked on the footpath/cycle path because there's no space to park them on the road. Had they just installed a wider road, it would have been ideal for cycling!

It's a pain in the head to drive on as well. There's so much going on visually that there's a sense of information overload.

What's most galling about that stretch of road is that it's obvious that a lot of effort has been expended in providing cycling facilities which are really really awful.

tomasrojo

@stopped_clock, is it legally a cycle track (i.e. you can't legally use the road next to it)?

Does it have this sign?

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

This farce is on Doughiska Road in Galway city. ... Overall, cyclists are required to stop and yield to turning motorists at eighteen junctions on a 1.4km stretch of road. There are also 41 private driveways crossing the facility.

That one is just incredible. Utterly disgraceful that the flaws were pointed out clearly by a cycling group before construction but they just pressed ahead anyway.

tomasrojo

me@ucd wrote: »

Im confused all bikepaths in and around Dublin are a shambles arent they?
certainly Ive seen, and most are illegal too.

Certainly, most require you to pass on the left, which may be illegal in certain scenarios, if the cycle track isn't legally a separate lane. The whole issue of legality and illegallity in terms of cycle tracks seems to be extremely ill-defined.

There are no binding national standards anyway, and the original handbook of design used by local authorities was just a list of every possible design tried anywhere (pretty much).

tomasrojo

blorg wrote: »

That one is just incredible. Utterly disgraceful that the flaws were pointed out clearly by a cycling group before construction but they just pressed ahead anyway.

It's a strong contender for Worst Facility, I think, especially as its many shortcomings were known long before it was built.

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a strong contender for Worst Facility, I think, especially as its many shortcomings were known long before it was built.

Agreed. I was laughing out loud when I saw that one.

tomasrojo

I also have found out that the designer had in mind that cyclists should stop at the pedestrian lights (visible in the photo) when pedestrians were waiting to cross (as the pedestrian would be standing on the cycle track) and then proceed once the pedestrians had cleared the facility. So that would mean stopping when the traffic lights were green for traffic and then proceeding once they'd turned red.

I need to lie down.

petethedrummer

Oh my god. Thats amazing. You should frame that photo and send it to the roads department of Galway County(?) Council, with a big hearty note of congratulations.

adamshred

Its just unbelievable cycling in Dublin city. It's completely obvious that no one in DCC cares about our cyclists.

There are tons of examples of this littered throughout Dublin.

* When cycling by the Burlington Hotel the cycle track closely passes a long taxi rank which is pretty damn dangerous when the drivers decide not to look when getting out of their car.

* The N11 is a JOKE in terms of cycle tracks. The bus stop at the bridge in front of UCD has a cycle track that looks like its just fresh from Baghdad.

* There is one part of the road where PEOPLE GET OFF THE BUS, ONTO THE CYCLE TRACK. I might be cycling quite quickly only to be confronted by hordes of people getting off a bus onto the track . . christ!

* Further on up the road there is a cycle track which wouldn't be too bad, If not for the LARGE, DEEP drains that appear in 3 - 4 metre intervals directly in the centre of the CYCLE TRACK. Great for flatting road tyres.

* Just after the Burlington near the left turn for Waterloo road, the cycle track is so thin, that if there are any cars stopped at the lights, the cyclist must move into a wedge shaped slanted piece of the road. This is very slippery and I have seen people slip out here in wet weather.

* Coming back down the N11 towards town there are a few of those turns where cars turn left into the path of the cyclist. Seriously dangerous.

I've been commuting this route to Dun Laoighre for around 2 months now and have already had 2 flat tyres which is a lot for me considering that prior to this I had only usually had 1 flat every 1 or 2 years on my last commute. This is due to the ridiculous amount of glass which is spread all along the N11.

I will bring a camera out tomorrow on my journey tomorrow and try to illustrate these different dangers.

All of these different dangerous cycle tracks, combined with idiotic motorists and pedestrians with no respect for cyclists just ruin it for us.

petethedrummer

adamshred wrote: »

All of these different dangerous cycle tracks, combined with idiotic motorists and pedestrians with no respect for cyclists just ruin it for us.

Plenty of idiotic cyclists out there too.

adamshred

petethedrummer wrote: »

Plenty of idiotic cyclists out there too.

but generally the people who converse about it on this site aren't idiots and those are the ones i'm speaking to.

petethedrummer

adamshred wrote: »

but generally the people who converse about it on this site aren't idiots and those are the ones i'm speaking to.

I'm an idiot. only messing, I get your point.

seamus

I actually got annoyed about this for the first time yesterday - approaching the new roadworks at the Firhouse/M50 coming from Knocklyon, there's a huge metal sign blocking the cycle track saying, "Cyclists Dismount Use Footpath", and I just found myself saying loudly, "F*ck off!". Imagine blocking the whole road with a sign saying, "Drivers park up. Continue on foot".

If I wanted to walk, I would walk. That's the fundamental problem with county/city councils and the government in their treatment of bicycles - they treat them like faster-moving pedestrians instead of as road traffic like they should be treated.

Bunnyhopper

tomasrojo wrote: »

I also have found out that the designer had in mind that cyclists should stop at the pedestrian lights (visible in the photo) when pedestrians were waiting to cross (as the pedestrian would be standing on the cycle track) and then proceed once the pedestrians had cleared the facility. So that would mean stopping when the traffic lights were green for traffic and then proceeding once they'd turned red.

I need to lie down.

But..but...oh, I feel unwell in the head now.

Still, I'd love to see the public service announcement ad explaining that one.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I actually got annoyed about this for the first time yesterday - approaching the new roadworks at the Firhouse/M50 coming from Knocklyon, there's a huge metal sign blocking the cycle track saying, "Cyclists Dismount Use Footpath", and I just found myself saying loudly, "F*ck off!". Imagine blocking the whole road with a sign saying, "Drivers park up. Continue on foot".

If I wanted to walk, I would walk. That's the fundamental problem with county/city councils and the government in their treatment of bicycles - they treat them like faster-moving pedestrians instead of as road traffic like they should be treated.

I remember reading before how temporary traffic works that (paraphrasing) if existing cycle lanes are blocked by works, the company in charge of traffic management has to cone off space for cycle lanes. I've never seen this happen though. But I assume that the use of the 'cyclist dismount' signs are against this.

Think it was in the Traffic Signs Manual, come to think of it.

oflahero

seamus wrote: »

I actually got annoyed about this for the first time yesterday - approaching the new roadworks at the Firhouse/M50 coming from Knocklyon, there's a huge metal sign blocking the cycle track saying, "Cyclists Dismount Use Footpath", and I just found myself saying loudly, "F*ck off!". Imagine blocking the whole road with a sign saying, "Drivers park up. Continue on foot".

If I wanted to walk, I would walk. That's the fundamental problem with county/city councils and the government in their treatment of bicycles - they treat them like faster-moving pedestrians instead of as road traffic like they should be treated.

On the whole I love that section of cycle track, especially from just over the M50 as far as the Old Bawn. It's a pretty good job in both directions with a minimum of 'bump-bump, bump-BUMP' bits where it passes entrances to estates.

Bunnyhopper

Dónal wrote: »

I remember reading before how temporary traffic works that (paraphrasing) if existing cycle lanes are blocked by works, the company in charge of traffic management has to cone off space for cycle lanes. I've never seen this happen though. But I assume that the use of the 'cyclist dismount' signs are against this.

Think it was in the Traffic Signs Manual, come to think of it.

Standard practice seems to be that the cycle lane is the recommended place to put the "Roadworks Ahead" sign - you know, so it's not in the way of traffic... :rolleyes:

tomasrojo

The signs should really say: Cyclists Use the Road. But I suppose they're afraid of being sued. I don't imagine many cyclists ever dismount when they see those signs. Why would they?