Dublin may see contra-flow cyclists

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.

Lumen

Victor wrote: »

One-way streets causing long detours are a problem.

Only in the same way that it's a "problem" that my house isn't across the street from my workplace, and that neither are located in the Alps. I don't expect anyone to solve those problems for me either.

I go where traffic goes. I am traffic.

markpb

Lumen wrote: »

I go where traffic goes. I am traffic.

That's fine for you but with a city whose aim is to encourage cyclists, putting obstacles in their way isn't going to help.

Lumen

markpb wrote: »

That's fine for you but with a city whose aim is to encourage cyclists, putting obstacles in their way isn't going to help.

One-way streets are not obstacles to cyclists, they're part of the way traffic is routed round the city.

But FWIW, I couldn't care less about encouraging lazy people to cycle. It's oxymoronic.

Doctor Bob

Few streets were ever one-way to begin with- they were made so in the 1970s for the express purpose of facilitating motorised traffic and increasing capacity on the city's roads (the image below is from the early 1970s Travers Morgan study of Dublin traffic; see also the Inner Tangent, etc.). It could be argued that this is simply returning them to their former state, though for nominated modes only.

I am entirely comfortable with positive discrimination of this sort.

markpb

Lumen wrote: »

One-way streets are not obstacles to cyclists, they're part of the way traffic is routed round the city.

I find Merrion Row between SSG-N and Baggot st and big obstacle. I can't cycle east on it and the footpaths are too narrow (and full of clutter) to walk my bike. I find cycling a long way around a one way system very frustrating.

But FWIW, I couldn't care less about encouraging lazy people to cycle. It's oxymoronic.

Plenty of previously lazy people cycle on DBs every day, people who haven never cycled in Dublin before. They're not powering across the city, they're not commuting 23k each way, they're not even taking part in the commuter race, they're just getting from A to B on a bike. That's worth encouraging.

Telling someone who wants to cycle from O'Connell St to the Luas at SSG that they have to take this crazy route. Even worse is this route from the DB stand on Fitzwilliam Sq North to Busaras.

iregk

I'm just waiting for the first head on colision when a cyclist has to move out into oncoming traffic to go around a car parked in the bike lane.

doozerie

markpb wrote: »

Telling someone who wants to cycle from O'Connell St to the Luas at SSG that they have to take this crazy route.

Alternatively, they could take this route with just a brief walk for the last leg (the pedestrianised bit). Their outrage at the enormity of the task will fuel them nicely for the walking stretch.

Lumen

markpb wrote: »

Plenty of previously lazy people cycle on DBs every day, people who haven never cycled in Dublin before. They're not powering across the city, they're not commuting 23k each way, they're not even taking part in the commuter race, they're just getting from A to B on a bike. That's worth encouraging.

The DB scheme is hugely popular with the existing arrangement of one-way streets. So all those people are currently managing fine.

markpb wrote: »

Telling someone who wants to cycle from O'Connell St to the Luas at SSG that they have to take this crazy route. Even worse is this route from the DB stand on Fitzwilliam Sq North to Busaras.

It's the same for cars. I don't see the problem.

I work on Baggot St. There are some local routes that are circuitous on a bike due to one way systems. So I walk, or enjoy the longer cycle.

I don't see that there is a problem to fix, except the usual fine-tuning of routes for traffic in general.

This idea just smacks of legalising salmoning, and encourages cyclists to see themselves as different or special. We need exactly the opposite approach. Rip up the off-road cycle tracks, paint over the cycle lanes, and get everyone sharing the same space.

Attempts to provide cyclist-specific road space further alienate us from other road users.

Pandering to the lazy and incompetent may be a worthy cause for some, but I don't care for it.

blorg

Due to the dimensions of a bicycle it is entirely possible to allow them to cycle down one way streets where it would not be so practical with motor vehicles.

This is very common in continental Europe where it is often done without any additional lane. Works better on streets with low traffic speeds obviously- the 30km/h limit would help facilitate this.

There isn't really any downside.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

Due to the dimensions of a bicycle it is entirely possible to allow them to cycle down one way streets where it would not be so practical with motor vehicles.

Motorbikes too then?

If it's a strict width limitation I'd like to see it restricted to drop-bar bikes only (and those mad courier fixies with barely enough room for your knuckles).