Dublin may see contra-flow cyclists

tomasrojo

Dublin City Council is to draw up plans for "contra flow lanes" for cyclists, allowing them to travel in either direction on streets that are restricted to one-way for motor vehicles.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0225/breaking74.html

tomasrojo

But Fine Gael councillor Edie Wynne said the move would have to be given some thought. She said at 3 per cent cyclists were not very representative of modal choice in Dublin. "Ninety-seven per cent are choosing another way", she said.

Fellow Fine Gael councillor Gerry Breen said he would urge caution, remarking that numbers of cyclists in the city were one third of those who chose to walk. He said councillors should remember the 34 per cent of people who made a modal choice to use their car, or those who used rail, bus "or the 9 per cent of people who chose to walk".

I really wish Fine Gael was the smallest party in the Dail.

FG as a party are really making it hard for me to give them any vote in the next election. Anything to do with cycling they seem to be completely negative.

Ignoring FG, I still think the recent initiatives for Dublin are incredibly refreshing.

Anyways, this should be interesting to see what happens. Would be interesting to hear how the contra-flow lanes meet up with the existing routes as always.

BeerNut

It really does seem, on first reading, that FG are a complete shower of reactionary c**ts working to an agenda to make things worse for everyone for no good reason. But I'm sure that's not the case...

Anyway: great common-sense idea, let's have it.

oflahero

There's a contraflow bike lane already in use along Andrew St if I remember right, so that bikes coming from Suffolk St can continue on up to Sth William St instead of having to turn off for College Green with all other traffic. Seems to be working rather well so far, boo yah sucks Fine Gael.

HonalD

Back on the topic - I think the idea that contra flow cyclists would be permitted to cycle against traffic in a one way street. It works on the continent (doesn't everything!) on the basis that the onus is on the driver to watch out for cyclists, contraversal or what!?! Requires legislation etc. etc. etc. :rolleyes:

tomasrojo

But Fine Gael councillor Edie Wynne [...] said at 3 per cent cyclists were not very representative of modal choice in Dublin. "Ninety-seven per cent are choosing another way", she said.

Next time FG kick up a fuss about the 30 zone and the rights of motorists, it should be pointed out to them that "sixty-six percent are choosing another way." (Source of data: Fine Gael cyclist botherer, Gerry Breen)

irishmotorist

I'm usually not a fan of off road cycle lanes, but for this kind of thing I think it would be better to have the lane at least 'kerbed' off from the rest of the road. There's enough difficulty presented by drivers when they're going the same direction as you and have time to see you and behave accordingly, but if you were to be approaching towards them then I don't think we can trust our lives to the hands of typical cycle lane observance.

BeerNut

irishmotorist wrote: »

There's enough difficulty presented by drivers when they're going the same direction as you and have time to see you and behave accordingly, but if you were to be approaching towards them then I don't think we can trust our lives to the hands of typical cycle lane observance.

I'm a regular user of the Bolton Street/Parnell Street one (with its cute upside-down bicycles), and have used the Andrew Street one plenty of times, and I've never had a problem with oncoming traffic. If someone's going to be barrelling down the road at you they'll probably be over the kerb anyway.

hardCopy

Why am I not surprised that Gerry Breen is the first person to complain?

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

I really wish Fine Gael was the smallest party in the Dail.

Dónal wrote: »

FG as a party are really making it hard for me to give them any vote in the next election.

BeerNut wrote: »

It really does seem, on first reading, that FG are a complete shower of reactionary c**ts

Would you vote for this Fred?

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

Would you vote for this Fred?

I just had an almighty judder when I saw that. Christ, he makes Lampre man look positively Euro.
Hell he even has Lance type socks on.

sexpot

That picture makes me feel a bit sick

Doctor Bob

Dónal wrote: »

FG as a party are really making it hard for me to give them any vote in the next election. Anything to do with cycling they seem to be completely negative.

The one exception to this would be DCC Cllr Eoghan Murphy, who seems to have a good grasp of some of the issues. Pity he's with a party I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. (And pity he's now decided his support for the 30 km/h zone may have been 'naive' on his part- but I've said my piece on that subject already.)

On topic, similar schemes have been run elsewhere - most recently in Westminster area of London, afaik - with varying degrees of success. Have a look around the 4 minute mark in this video from Paris:
http://www.wat.tv/video/parcours-quotidien-cycliste-1ztzr_1qciv_.html

Designs like this can work, but I fear they'd need a level of enforcement that's somewhat beyond the scope of the relevant authorities in this country.

Re St Andrew's Street- 9 times out of 10 when I use it or pass by it there's someone parked in it- usually an An Post van. Actually!- given An Post's support for cycling in the country recently (for which, hats off), maybe now's the time to bring the matter to its attention.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

On topic, similar schemes have been run elsewhere - most recently in Westminster area of London, afaik - with varying degrees of success. Have a look around the 4 minute mark in this video from Paris:
http://www.wat.tv/video/parcours-quotidien-cycliste-1ztzr_1qciv_.html

That Parisian contraflow looks a bit of a squeeze!

Victor

Aside from the city centre, there are a few "No entry except cyclists" signs in Terenure to discourage rat running from Terneure Road West to Terenure Road North.

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=swjgdsgg8jh5&scene=29509163&lvl=2&sty=o

irishmotorist

BeerNut wrote: »

I'm a regular user of the Bolton Street/Parnell Street one (with its cute upside-down bicycles), and have used the Andrew Street one plenty of times, and I've never had a problem with oncoming traffic. If someone's going to be barrelling down the road at you they'll probably be over the kerb anyway.

I've never used either of these myself. WRT Andrew St, it's a short run so I can't imagine there being much of a problem there as cars are just after turning onto it and will be turning off within 100m so I'd imagine observation to be slightly higher than somebody following another car in a stream of cars for ~1km (e.g. Pearse St.) I'm not sure what the Bolton St./Parnell St. one is like.

Like I said, I haven't seen these existing ones - my concern is just a kind of pre-emptive caution.

BeerNut

Motorists generally tend to keep left, even in one-way traffic. When a cycle track is to their right they're not likely to drive in it unless they're squeezed. I agree with Doctor Bob on parked vehicles, though -- that's going to be the real bitch, when you can't merge to get round them.

markpb

BeerNut wrote: »

have used the Andrew Street one plenty of times, and I've never had a problem with oncoming traffic.

My problem with the Andrew St one is the constant problem of parked cars and delivery vans leaving you nowhere to go except the wrong way down a one way street I definitely think they should be kerbed off - my only concern is that the street cleaners wouldn't be able to or or wouldn't bother cleaning them.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

That Parisian contraflow looks a bit of a squeeze!

The whole video is quite frightening, but then again, I suspect the guy who made it was trying to prove a particular point. Other parts of Paris aren't so bad (though it's a while since I was last there).

Having read the article (as opposed to last night, when I was going by the posts on here only ) I now see that it's not just talking about the type in the video where there's no infrastructure installed. The list covers options that just couldn't happen without full segregation. Contra-flow lanes can work in just about any type of road, but somewhere like Pearse Street needs a high kerb (and maybe bollards, though they bring their own problems), not just a white line.

There should be no possibility for cars to park, regular maintenance (sufficient width to allow a narrow road-sweeper van down the track would do the job- some vans are <2m. wide), careful design, especially at junctions, and enforcement.

If possible, DCC should also look at contra-flow cycling in relation to the locations of the DB stands- many of them are badly sited on one-way streets, encouraging salmoning by quite a few of the users.

Alternatively, take out all multi-lane one-way streets in the city. Then all that's left is the low speed, low volume access streets, which need no infrastructure at all.

Edit: I've just thought- instead of calling the streets 'One way except cyclists' they should call them 'Two way except motorised vehicles'- a subtle but important difference.

seamus

Yeah, kind of messy. Within the city, they would have to be kerbed off otherwise you'll end up with people parking in them and no way to get around with oncoming traffic.

My other concern is cyclists themselves. There's a contra-flow cycle lane on Memorial Rd that allows you to turn left after the custom house and go up Amiens St. In theory, it's quicker and safer to go this way than to go around the back of the custom house.
I used it for a good while but I was constantly encountering other cyclists going the wrong way - i.e. with traffic - down the contra-flow lane. In their defence there's no signage to indicate that it's contra-flow, but I can see this kind of thing occuring a lot.

Ideally they would be two-way lanes, segregated from both traffic and pedestrians by way of kerbs.

doozerie

From the article:

Council staff have drawn up a list of 11 areas where they have suggested "solutions" for cyclists. These include Leinster Street South and Nassau Street; Baggot Street lower and Merrion Row; Parnell Square; Moss Street; Camden Street by the Bleeding Horse pub; the Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street area; St Stephen's Green; Leeson Street Upper; Watling Street; Steven's Lane and the Clarendon Street area.

I find it hard to picture how a contra-flow lane could be safely put in between Baggot Street Lower and Merrion Row - it would have to cut across that horrible turn onto Pembroke Street Lower where traffic coming from opposite directions are already encouraged to mash each other by being given green lights at the same time to turn onto the same stretch of road (with no signs to indicate merging traffic). This makes me wonder whether this proposal has been properly thought through at all and therefore whether it will be yet another poorly planned and poorly implemented effort intended to do nothing more than tick a box on a sheet somewhere (the box that says "We cater really well for cyclists, and other road users, in Dublin. Do we bleedin' rock, or wha'!", which should be located just before the box that says "Sick of hearing from that moany prat Breen").

For a start I wish that they'd push the gardai to do something about the idiots on bikes that already use many one way streets and cycle lanes as their own personal contra-flow routes.

oflahero

doozerie wrote: »

From the article:
For a start I wish that they'd push the gardai to do something about the idiots on bikes that already use many one way streets and cycle lanes as their own personal contra-flow routes.

+1: I'm sick of crossing as a ped around Baggot St Lower & Merrion Row, having half-stepped into the road after checking the traffic, only to have a smug courier twat glide by in the opposite direction in front of my face, arse half out of the saddle ready to take evasive action onto the path if a suit in a jeep tries to 'teach him a lesson'.

Victor

doozerie wrote: »

I find it hard to picture how a contra-flow lane could be safely put in between Baggot Street Lower and Merrion Row - it would have to cut across that horrible turn onto Pembroke Street Lower where traffic coming from opposite directions are already encouraged to mash each other by being given green lights at the same time to turn onto the same stretch of road (with no signs to indicate merging traffic). This makes me wonder whether this proposal has been properly thought through at all and therefore whether it will be yet another poorly planned and poorly implemented effort

Will you let them design it first?

For a start I wish that they'd push the gardai to do something about the idiots on bikes that already use many one way streets and cycle lanes as their own personal contra-flow routes.

Sure, the law needs to be enforced, but the law and its implementation (one-way street with no consideration for cyclists - there are no west bound routes between Leeson Street and Pearse Street) also need to change.

oflahero wrote: »

+1: I'm sick of crossing as a ped around Baggot St Lower & Merrion Row, having half-stepped into the road after checking the traffic, only to have a smug courier twat glide by in the opposite direction in front of my face, arse half out of the saddle ready to take evasive action onto the path if a suit in a jeep tries to 'teach him a lesson'.

Then would it be better for the street to be redesigned so that such things don't happen?

doozerie

Victor wrote: »

Will you let them design it first?

The particular stretch I mention is, on the face of it, going to be extremely difficult to safely incorporate a contra-flow cycle lane into. Part of the reason it'll be so difficult is that the junction at Pembroke Street Lower, as it currently stands, is already a mess. Personally, I find it a danger to both cyclists and car drivers. Unless they resolve the mess that is already there, it seems stupid to me to consider complicating it even further by adding a contra-flow cycle lane into the mix.

So, maybe they do have some very clever design in mind that will result in a safe junction for both cars and cyclists, or maybe they'll just slap in something in addition to what is currently there that is totally inappropriate for cyclists. I hope for the former, but their track record with cycle tracks (such as the cycle tracks along the N11) have often tended to fall firmly into the latter type of solution which doesn't inspire confidence.

Victor wrote:

Sure, the law needs to be enforced, but the law and its implementation (one-way street with no consideration for cyclists - there are no west bound routes between Leeson Street and Pearse Street) also need to change.

There are many instances of roads, junctions, cycle tracks, etc., that seem to have been put in with no consideration for cyclists and perhaps even with a desire to discourage people from cycling on/through them. However, there is also a tendency for some people to consider certain design decisions to be anti-cyclist where that view seems completely misguided. One-way streets are one example of where such a bias can come out. One-way streets are, typically, an inconvenience to all road users and therefore everyone may be able to reasonably argue that they should be allowed to use them both ways.

Whether you are on a bike or in a car, there are probably always going to be situations where a one-way street could save you time and hassle if it allowed traffic the other way. If you are in a car, then (legally) you have no choice but to follow the one-way system - at least on a bike you can walk up the one-way street if you want to. Personally, I don't think that as cyclists we should feel that we are entitled to any greater privileges than car drivers or buses when it comes to one-way streets, in the same way as we shouldn't feel any more entitled to break red lights, travel on the footpaths, etc. We can already use (most) bus lanes which gives us great advantages over cars in some areas. As cyclists, looking for the right to go the wrong way up one-way streets strikes me as being a bit like those people who argue that driving their child the half mile route to and from school is necessary because the alternatives are simply too inconvenient.

Personally, I'd rather see the existing examples of poor road, cycle track, and junction, design improved before any money goes into contra-flow cycle tracks. Some of the existing stuff is just plain stupid and dangerous, adding contra-flow cycle tracks without addressing that just seems dumb to me. But then, I'm not really a fan of cycle tracks anyway, as I believe that in many cases it is safer to share the roads with other traffic.

loyatemu

doozerie wrote: »

Personally, I don't think that as cyclists we should feel that we are entitled to any greater privileges than car drivers or buses when it comes to one-way streets, in the same way as we shouldn't feel any more entitled to break red lights, travel on the footpaths, etc.

I don't agree with this at all. One-ways systems, traffic lights, roundabouts etc are all designed to facilitate the efficient flow of large motorised vehicles - they do nothing whatsoever for cyclists and pedestrians and anything that mitigates the inconvenience caused to cyclists and peds by these features is a good thing.

radia

I tend not to like cycle lanes that are physically separated from the road (whether by a kerb or because they're on the pavement). It's more difficult to pass if someone slow is in front of you, and broken glass remains there for ages, whereas on the road it's powdered by heavy traffic such as buses that stray into on-road cycle lanes, or cleared by street sweepers.

However, I agree with some posters above that for safety contra-flow cycle lanes might be best separated from motorised traffic in a highly visible manner, and in a way that doesn't allow them to be used for parking. A cheap and simple solution might be to use the posts that separate the contraflow bus lane from regular traffic on St Stephen's Green. They definitely need to be wide enough to permit a street sweeper to enter, and regular sweeping should be scheduled. This width would also permit them to be two-way for cyclists, and the two lanes should actually be marked out and labelled.

This example of a contraflow cycle lane (kerbed) was posted over on politics.ie recently in this thread (where they complain about the Fine Gaelers too!), and although I don't like kerbed lanes in general, I have to say I was pretty impressed.

johnf&#225 wrote: »

Here is a one way street in central London and an example of what a proper contraflow cycle lane should look like. Let it load until it switches to street view.

tavistock square london - Google Maps

radia

I also love the report (on the same politics.ie thread) that in NYC they're ripping out and recycling parking meters into bike racks. Nice design and great idea!

soulsearcher on politics.ie wrote:

In New York they're currently transforming several hundred parking meters into bike racks. With any luck this is what we'll be doing here in dublin. More info here:

NYC to Slash Parking Meters to Make Bike Racks | Inhabitat

doozerie

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't agree with this at all. One-ways systems, traffic lights, roundabouts etc are all designed to facilitate the efficient flow of large motorised vehicles - they do nothing whatsoever for cyclists and pedestrians and anything that mitigates the inconvenience caused to cyclists and peds by these features is a good thing.

I am certainly aware of some roundabouts, usually large multi-lane ones, that are dangerous to use as a cyclist. I am also aware of some junctions with traffic lights that make life difficult as a cyclist too. However, it's a huge leap from there to say that as a rule they, and other traffic control measures, do nothing whatsoever for cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists are traffic so fundamentally we suffer/benefit from traffic control measures as much as other road users.

As regards traffic lights in particular, I have no love for the numerous and slow (in some cases) traffic lights on my commute for example, but despite the way that many people seem to routinely ignore them, if they were not there at all at the various junctions I suspect I'd have been squashed a long time ago. Are they an inconvenience? Yes they are, when I am cycling or driving. Do they do a useful job for me as a cyclist? Absolutely.

monument

A few points:

The percentage cycling figure quoted seems to be the national figure. Dublin is higher (will look for the percentage when I get to my laptop on Monday) and, numbers of cyclists entering the canals at the morning peek has grown 75% in the last four years. This is nothing new as national figures are quoted by anti-public transport groups too. Anyway this is about future cyclists as much as it is about today's cyclists.

Map on Irish Times article here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0227/1224265276561.html

It is city and national level policy to promote cycling, walking, and public transport over other modes of transport.

The issue of law enforcment and constructing new lanes have little to do with each other.

Comparing breaking traffic lights and wanting contra-flow is nonsence. One is breaking the law, and one is not. Contra-flow is more like being allow to turn on a red light as works in the US.



Traffic flow mesures -- such as one-way streets, bans on left or right turns, etc -- have little to do with cyclists and no benfit for cyclists. Other traffic flow mesures -- such as slip roads/turns -- increase the level of danger for cyclists. Also roundabouts in genral -- bar very low speed ones -- increase the level of danger for cyclists. And diffrent road traffic controls affect or effect diffrent road users in diffrent ways or levels, far from each just as much as the next type of user.

Victor

monument wrote: »

The percentage cycling figure quoted seems to be the national figure. Dublin is higher (will look for the percentage when I get to my laptop on Monday) and, numbers of cyclists entering the canals at the morning peek has grown 75% in the last four years. This is nothing new as national figures are quoted by anti-public transport groups too.

Data from Census 2006 www.cso.ie

Note colour scales vary between maps.

Victor

Last of set.

tomasrojo

So FG are using national figures to make the numbers of cyclists in Dublin look smaller. So they're either dishonest or bad with numbers. Either way, they're not getting my vote.

Victor

I would need to check, but more than just Dublin residents work in the city centre, so I'm not sure about the percent of people travelling in the city centre are cyclists. However, it is certain that it is those who are living further out are imposing on city dwellers - congestion, noise, pollution and casualties.

electrogrimey

A contra flow up Parnell Square would be amazing for me. I'm currently crossing as a pedestrian and going right down Parnell Street and up towards Denmark Street. One up Camden Street is also a great idea. Another one somewhere off Pearse Street to stop you having to go down Tara Street and Tara Street bridge would also be great.

I'm surprised they didn't upgrade any of the cycling facilities with the introduction of Dublin Bikes, I thought that was going to be part of the deal. :mad:

doozerie

monument wrote: »

The issue of law enforcment and constructing new lanes have little to do with each other.

I disagree. There is little point in installing new lanes for cyclists, be it contra-flow lanes or regular cycle lanes, if they are regularly abused by being driven in, parked in, etc. Particularly in the case of contra-flow lanes, if drivers choose to ignore the lane and just use it as an extension of their own lane then it will pose serious risks to oncoming cyclists using them. There seems to be little will there to enforce rules applying to existing cycle lanes right now and unless drivers perceive that this attitude on the part of the gardai has changed when it comes to contra-flow lanes, then I think the current bad situation could be made far worse.

monument wrote:

Comparing breaking traffic lights and wanting contra-flow is nonsence. One is breaking the law, and one is not. Contra-flow is more like being allow to turn on a red light as works in the US.

I gave both as examples of what seems to be a common mindset amongst some cyclists that cyclists are somehow entitled to greater rights than other road users. I don't share this view. As a cyclist, I consider myself as traffic and as such I adhere to the same rules of the road that all traffic are supposed to adhere to. There have already been many attempts to segregate cyclists from motorised traffic in and around Dublin city centre and I think this is ultimately a bad direction for things to go in from a cyclists perspective - there will always be points where cyclists and motorised traffic merge and these are inevitably the most dangerous parts of any route.

While contra-flow lanes might be convenient, I see them as another example of cyclists being distinguished from other road users, and any such move can tend to harden the "us versus them(/motorists)" divide. I don't see this as a good thing. The motorist lobby already displays a lot of animosity towards cyclists in their reactions to other supposedly cycle-friendly initiatives (e.g. comments by Thingy Breen about the speed limit, etc.), I think it is important to bring these two groups together and not drive them further apart. We are always going to have to share road space, we might as well just get along for the benefit of all of us.

monument wrote:

Traffic flow mesures -- such as one-way streets, bans on left or right turns, etc -- have little to do with cyclists and no benfit for cyclists. Other traffic flow mesures -- such as slip roads/turns -- increase the level of danger for cyclists. Also roundabouts in genral -- bar very low speed ones -- increase the level of danger for cyclists. And diffrent road traffic controls affect or effect diffrent road users in diffrent ways or levels, far from each just as much as the next type of user.

Should every junction layout be changed then to accommodate cyclists? Are traffic lights not adequate? Are there real alternatives to slip roads or roundabouts? Junctions and turns are always dangerous whether they be controlled by traffic lights, roundabouts, or by the supposed consideration and judgement of road users. Short of having a separate road network dedicated entirely to cyclists, which is simply not feasible regardless of how undesirable (in my view) it is, we will always have to share space with other road users. In my opinion the focus should be on improving what we have, which is badly in need of improvement in many places, rather than pursuing further segregation.

RachPie

Isn't it about bloody time?!

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

Should every junction layout be changed then to accommodate cyclists? Are traffic lights not adequate? Are there real alternatives to slip roads or roundabouts? Junctions and turns are always dangerous whether they be controlled by traffic lights, roundabouts, or by the supposed consideration and judgement of road users. Short of having a separate road network dedicated entirely to cyclists, which is simply not feasible regardless of how undesirable (in my view) it is, we will always have to share space with other road users.

Surely at the sliproads a mandatory cycle lane is necessary to remind cars that we might be there so they use their rear-view mirror, or look to their blind spot, or out their passenger window, or slightly ahead of themselves, hell, even just indicate (these points only relate to a small portion of drivers I am sure but still, these are the ones who'll get people killed). As for roundabouts, I love them but I can see why others would be scared to death

That said I don't like cycle lanes either, well in Dublin anyway but I think that's due to a negative image I have taken on board due to the fact that their purpose seems to be to destroy my bike through their sheer inadequate quality.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

I gave both as examples of what seems to be a common mindset amongst some cyclists that cyclists are somehow entitled to greater rights than other road users. I don't share this view. ...

While contra-flow lanes might be convenient, I see them as another example of cyclists being distinguished from other road users, and any such move can tend to harden the "us versus them(/motorists)" divide.

Too right, while they are it it they should get rid of all the bus lanes. Why should buses be allowed special lanes that cars are not allowed use? And don't get me started about not being able to drive on Luas tracks. Equal rights for all I say.

CramCycle

blorg wrote: »

Too right, while they are it it they should get rid of all the bus lanes. Why should buses be allowed special lanes that cars are not allowed use? And don't get me started about not being able to drive on Luas tracks. Equal rights for all I say.

Finally a bit of sense, while we're in the spirit of fairness and all that, we could lose a lot of the traffic in town by getting rid of the footpaths/pavements and creating one to two new traffic lanes, imagine how awesome this world of equals regardless of situations would be.

Bunnyhopper

blorg wrote: »

Too right, while they are it it they should get rid of all the bus lanes. Why should buses be allowed special lanes that cars are not allowed use? And don't get me started about not being able to drive on Luas tracks. Equal rights for all I say.

And motorways.

delta_bravo

electrogrimey wrote: »

One up Camden Street is also a great idea.

Is Camden Street not a 2 way street?

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

Too right, while they are it it they should get rid of all the bus lanes. Why should buses be allowed special lanes that cars are not allowed use? And don't get me started about not being able to drive on Luas tracks. Equal rights for all I say.

Yeah, 'cos that is obviously what I was trying to say but was somehow unable to put into my own words. Applying the same kind of interpretation to your post I take it then that in your view cyclists should be allowed to use motorways, possibly via contra-flow lanes, pedestrian bridges should be turned into bike-only bridges, etc.?

electrogrimey

I wonder what the chances are of (in the long term) cross-country (for want of a better word) cyclepaths being intoduced, like this in Bremen. Cyclepaths down the canals'd be an easy place to start.

seamus

delta_bravo wrote: »

Is Camden Street not a 2 way street?

I think he's referring to the small stretch at the Bleeding Horse. Too many junctions there though I think to put in a contra-flow cycle lane.

doozerie

CramCycle wrote: »

Surely at the sliproads a mandatory cycle lane is necessary to remind cars that we might be there so they use their rear-view mirror, or look to their blind spot, or out their passenger window, or slightly ahead of themselves, hell, even just indicate (these points only relate to a small portion of drivers I am sure but still, these are the ones who'll get people killed). As for roundabouts, I love them but I can see why others would be scared to death

That said I don't like cycle lanes either, well in Dublin anyway but I think that's due to a negative image I have taken on board due to the fact that their purpose seems to be to destroy my bike through their sheer inadequate quality.

Drivers are obliged to show due care on roads already, many simply can't be bothered. In my view the presence of a mandatory cycle lane would do little to change that behaviour. Existing mandatory cycle lanes are already abused by cars with seemingly little or no fear of incurring any penalty for doing so, so for those drivers that really don't care about anyone else there isn't even the fear of punishment for ignoring such lanes at sliproads.

Also, the more mandatory cycle lanes that are installed it seems the less accepting drivers are in general to cyclists sharing their road space. It seems to reinforce in the mind of idiots that cyclists are not valid users of shared road space. Mandatory cycle lanes are a double edged sword for this reason amongst others.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

I disagree. There is little point in installing new lanes for cyclists, be it contra-flow lanes or regular cycle lanes, if they are regularly abused by being driven in, parked in, etc. Particularly in the case of contra-flow lanes, if drivers choose to ignore the lane and just use it as an extension of their own lane then it will pose serious risks to oncoming cyclists using them. There seems to be little will there to enforce rules applying to existing cycle lanes right now and unless drivers perceive that this attitude on the part of the gardai has changed when it comes to contra-flow lanes, then I think the current bad situation could be made far worse.

By this measure we should not have improved any roads in the last 10 or 20 years unless we first got a better level of enforcement.

I gave both as examples of what seems to be a common mindset amongst some cyclists that cyclists are somehow entitled to greater rights than other road users. I don't share this view. As a cyclist, I consider myself as traffic and as such I adhere to the same rules of the road that all traffic are supposed to adhere to.

Cyclists breaking red lights is just breaking the law. Just the same as motorists breaking the law. It has nothing to do with what cyclists are or are not entitled to, it's just law breaking. Why do you on one hand say cyclists should be treated the same as other traffic, but then you view cyclists breaking the law differently then motorists breaking the law?

And nobody is doing this for you. Also, nobody will make you use these contra-flow lanes. And, it's not just about current cyclists, it's about making cycling more attractive to those who don't cycle. Making journeys shorter and easier.

Lastly your point about adhering to the same traffic as all traffic is a mute one given that there are different rules for different road users.

There have already been many attempts to segregate cyclists from motorised traffic in and around Dublin city centre and I think this is ultimately a bad direction for things to go in from a cyclists perspective - there will always be points where cyclists and motorised traffic merge and these are inevitably the most dangerous parts of any route.

Poor local examples of segregate cycling lanes to-date is not a reason to dismiss them altogether.

While contra-flow lanes might be convenient, I see them as another example of cyclists being distinguished from other road users, and any such move can tend to harden the "us versus them(/motorists)" divide. I don't see this as a good thing. The motorist lobby already displays a lot of animosity towards cyclists in their reactions to other supposedly cycle-friendly initiatives (e.g. comments by Thingy Breen about the speed limit, etc.), I think it is important to bring these two groups together and not drive them further apart. We are always going to have to share road space, we might as well just get along for the benefit of all of us.

Cyclists are distinguished from other users. Cyclists and motorists are not the same. You can't cycle on a motorway and generally drivers can't drive in bus lanes, cyclists can. By law, a bicycle can be parked on a footpath where there is room, a car on the other hand is never allowed to park on a footpath. A cyclist can be in an advance stopping space, a motorist should never be. Cars can go much faster than bikes. etc

Policy -- at a national and local level -- is aimed at promoting cycling. Cycling is different. Pretending otherwise just to try to make the motor lobby happy is not going to work. It will not make them happy and it will not help to promote cycling.

Should every junction layout be changed then to accommodate cyclists?

No all should be. But there are some which should be. Again, this is in the context of policy to promote cycling. Never mind policy to make roads safer for all road users.

Are there real alternatives to slip roads or roundabouts?

Yes there are. Roundabouts are more common here then many countries, same goes for same goes for slip roads on urban junctions which are only there to speed up traffic flow.

Junctions and turns are always dangerous whether they be controlled by traffic lights, roundabouts, or by the supposed consideration and judgement of road users.

Sorry, but this is too simplistic. While I agree there will always be danger, different designs can effect the level of danger. And designs can be dangerous to a level that road users cannot be fully to blame. For example, drivers can reasonable often think that X design is safe because those in the know designed it, while the reality is there are better designs out there and the design is not up to scratch.

Furthermore, the reality is that Irish drivers are not always good at considering the road conditions.

Short of having a separate road network entirely to cyclists, which is simply not feasible regardless of how undesirable (in my view) it is, we will always have to share space with other road users. In my opinion the focus should be on improving what we have, which is badly in need of improvement in many places, rather than pursuing further segregation.

Segregation or not is a different argument. I can see why cyclist are against segregation because it can affect them, but as I said already, nobody will or can force you to use a contra-flow lane. You can ignore it and cycle the long way around. It's up to you.

doozerie

monument wrote:

Why do you on one hand say cyclists should be treated the same as other traffic, but then you view cyclists breaking the law differently then motorists breaking the law?

I don't view cyclist breaking the law differently, I believe that cyclists breaking the law should be subjected to penalties just as much as motorists should be. Judging by the antics of cyclists that I see daily though, and the response of some people here to discussions of red lights in particular, quite a few people seem to view certain behaviour as a cyclist to be acceptable which they would deem dangerous by car drivers, and breaking red lights is one example. There seems to be a mindset that cyclists are not subject to the common rules of the road, a mindset which has arisen out of self-serving interests without any consideration for the implications for others (be they motorised vehicles, cyclists, or pedestrians). It's pretty much the same mindset that the motorist lobby applies to contentious topics like the new 30kph speed limit i.e. "it hinders us therefore it should not be applied" - we rightly complain about it when that lobby applies it, we should equally complain if equally blinkered cycling initiatives are proposed. Contra-flow bus lanes are not the best example of that, admittedly, but personally I'd rather see the money spent on resolving some glaring problems that currently exist. Right now there is an easy alternative to contra-flow cycle lanes, which is to walk those stretches with a bike, so I don't see a pressing need to put them in place when there are other worthy candidates for whatever limited budgets exist.

As regards my being too simplistic regarding the dangers posed by junctions, this was in response to arguments in this thread that traffic lights and roundabouts are essentially anti-cyclist. It is difficult to respond to simplistic arguments like that without being simplistic in return.

Oh, and I didn't suggest making the motorist lobby happy. The hardliners amongst them will never be happy until the entire country is paved, and every other car but their own is eliminated, so that they can live out their dream of driving on deserted routes as the car advertisements invariably show. I suggested that we find common ground which allows us all to use the same road space more safely without finding ourselves at each others' throats - that requires education amongst both parties, good quality road markings to eliminate crazy last-second manouevres at junctions when people find themselves in the wrong lane, enforcement of the laws by the gardai, etc., etc. Cycle tracks reinforce the divide, in my view, and while you might consider cycle tracks as a means of promoting cycling and making it safer, I see them as often doing little more than pushing cyclists off the roads entirely while also increasing the dangers for cyclists at the inevitable merge points.

Victor

electrogrimey wrote: »

Another one somewhere off Pearse Street to stop you having to go down Tara Street and Tara Street bridge would also be great.

I don't get this one, where are you coming from / going to?

delta_bravo wrote: »

Is Camden Street not a 2 way street?

Not Camden Street upper from Charlotte Way to Harrington Street. There are currently three lanes (plus parking) at Harrington Street, two narrow lanes into Charlotte Way and an overly wide lane that pretends to be two lanes heading for Camden Street Lower. All this results in a lot of weaving, especially by motorised traffic. Putting a 2m wide cycle track at the Bleeding Horse would improve lane discipline and make it much easier for cyclists to get from Camden Street Lower to the junction of Harrington Street, whether heading south or west.

doozerie wrote: »

Drivers are obliged to show due care on roads already, many simply can't be bothered. In my view the presence of a mandatory cycle lane would do little to change that behaviour. Existing mandatory cycle lanes are already abused by cars with seemingly little or no fear of incurring any penalty for doing so, so for those drivers that really don't care about anyone else there isn't even the fear of punishment for ignoring such lanes at sliproads.

Also, the more mandatory cycle lanes that are installed it seems the less accepting drivers are in general to cyclists sharing their road space. It seems to reinforce in the mind of idiots that cyclists are not valid users of shared road space. Mandatory cycle lanes are a double edged sword for this reason amongst others.

I think with contraflow lanes some sort of physical barrier will be needed. While often some paint and flexible bollards will do, a the Rotunda something more robust is needed due to buses swinging wide as they come around from O'Connell Street.

Victor

doozerie wrote: »

Judging by the antics of cyclists that I see daily though, and the response of some people here to discussions of red lights in particular, quite a few people seem to view certain behaviour as a cyclist to be acceptable

Not acceptable, understandable. One-way streets and traffic lights (and other traffic measures) were put in place to assist motorised traffic. However, their adverse effects primarily affect pedestrians and cyclists.

breaking red lights is one example.

Then why don't we ask ourselves "Why do people (whatever their choice of transport) break red lights? What can we do to change the (a) enforcement (b) education (c) engineering to stop them doing this?" Its the classic three Es. The law can be changed to allow people to turn left on red lights in certain defined circumstances. People can be educated to the dangers and nuisances involved and road layouts and signalling can be tweaked to allow movements where they don't cause a nuisance or danger to others.

There seems to be a mindset that cyclists are not subject to the common rules of the road, a mindset which has arisen out of self-serving interests without any consideration for the implications for others (be they motorised vehicles, cyclists, or pedestrians).

Some of the law is ignorant (you can't be breathalysed for drunken cycling), some road users are ignorant and indeed, many road users are inconsiderate. However, respect is a two-way thing. For it to be received, it must also be given.

It's pretty much the same mindset that the motorist lobby applies to contentious topics like the new 30kph speed limit i.e. "it hinders us therefore it should not be applied"

Such thinking is short sighted. "It hinders us, but is there any way that it can be maximised, while minimising the effect on us?" would be much smarter - classic value engineering.

- we rightly complain about it when that lobby applies it, we should equally complain if equally blinkered cycling initiatives are proposed. Contra-flow bus lanes are not the best example of that, admittedly, but personally I'd rather see the money spent on resolving some glaring problems that currently exist. Right now there is an easy alternative to contra-flow cycle lanes, which is to walk those stretches with a bike,

Would you advocate the same for motorists? "One-way street ahead, with 2km detour. Get out of vehicle and push." Sure I'm being a bit facetious, but there is also a bit of truth. Cycling works best with a constant flow. Stop and starting breaks up that flow and if you need to speed up again its down to your blood sweat and tears, not a gentle tap of the accelerator.

so I don't see a pressing need to put them in place when there are other worthy candidates for whatever limited budgets exist.

But theses are relatively cheap measures. If the lot of them came to much more than €100,000 I would be surprised.

Cycle tracks reinforce the divide, in my view, and while you might consider cycle tracks as a means of promoting cycling and making it safer, I see them as often doing little more than pushing cyclists off the roads entirely while also increasing the dangers for cyclists at the inevitable merge points.

I think that is a separate argument. Yes, most cycle lanes create the idea in some people's minds that "Oh, the cyclists will be over there, so I will never have to interact with them" which leads to complacency. There is a strong argument that cycle tracks related to a road (ignoring those through parks and the like) should only be put in where there is a demonstrated problem. One-way streets causing long detours are a problem.

doozerie

Victor wrote:

Not acceptable, understandable. One-way streets and traffic lights (and other traffic measures) were put in place to assist motorised traffic. However, their adverse effects primarily affect pedestrians and cyclists.

Do you really mean to say here that breaking the traffic laws is understandable? I would agree that feeling aggrieved over aspects of the road infrastructure design is understandable, but I certainly wouldn't agree that this justifies completely selfish behaviour on a bike. On a daily basis I see cyclists ignoring red lights on my commute, frequently resulting in them cleaving their way through pedestrians and sometimes other cyclists as they do so. That kind of behaviour is no more understandable to me than car drivers choosing to break red lights because they are running late, overtaking other road users where it is not safe to do so because they can't bear the thought of being delayed by a few more seconds, etc. It might not have been your intention to condone such actions by cyclists, but your argument certainly helps fuel those that do.

As regards one-way streets and traffic lights primarily affecting pedestrians and cyclists, I don't understand that view at all. Generally speaking, such traffic measures affect everyone. As an example, if I drive my commute route I am no less affected by any of the traffic lights on it than I am when I cycle (lane layout, however, is another matter entirely). At many of the junctions, without the existence of the traffic lights I'd be waiting a long time to get through as I am crossing a busy route with a constant stream of traffic - traffic lights provide at least some measure of safety here, not inconvenience. ...except when a cyclist comes through the junction from my right or left on a red light of course, at which point safety goes out the window for me as a cyclist.

As regards respect, I would be very curious to know the outcome of asking regular commuters in Dublin right now whether they respect cyclists. From what I see each day I find it hard to imagine many people answering yes to that question. I've been commuting by bike in Dublin for the best part of 20 years and although I am a very strong believer in the rights of cyclists, I have to admit that the attitude of more than half of the cycling commuters that I see each day these days is entirely obnoxious and selfish. Whether by conscious decision or not, a huge number of cyclists simply don't seem to believe that they should adhere to any of the rules of the road. Those people don't actually deserve respect, they haven't earned it, and they don't show any to anyone else. Worse still, by their actions each day they erode the respect hard earned by cyclists who do actually show consideration for others by choosing not to abuse traffic lights, etc.

As for one-way streets I'm not sure what point you are making when you refer to pushing cars up them. My point about cyclists being able to walk up them is simply that there is an easy way of availing of one-way streets right now without any expenditure being needed. Some people seem to see one-way streets as an affront to cyclists, I see them as an inconvenience that cyclists can work around very easily.

Which brings us to the potential cost of contra-flow lanes. To be honest I have no idea of how much they will cost, so I can't suggest either a high or a low figure. I do know that companies that carry out any work that involves closing off even some access to a Dublin city centre street have to pay a premium for the privilege - for busy streets such work can only take place at weekends and/or in the middle of the night, which obviously adds to the cost. Of course the costs will be determined by the amount of work involved, and the nature of that work. It would be easy to assume that the work will involve no more than "painting" a cycle lane on the stretch of one-way street, however I expect that it will involve a lot more than that. For cyclists turning left onto a contra-flow lane I'm not sure that any extra allowance needs to be made for them (unless the existing footpaths and traffic islands have been designed to block any such access right now from that direction), but for cyclists turning right onto a contra-flow lane some means of facilitating this right turn will be needed - maybe a right-turning lane will be needed (and some means of cyclists getting safely across to it), traffic lights might be required, etc. Any such things will not only add to the budget but might possibly add to the inconvience of other road users, which of course will affect other cyclists too. When you consider the practicalities involved, it might not actually be as cheap or as easy as it appears at first, and in the worst cases perhaps not even as effective.