Dublin may see contra-flow cyclists

Stark

doozerie wrote: »

As regards applauding cycling the wrong way up one-way streets, Stark seems to advocate just that.

Did I now? I said it was easier to go against the one-way system for 50m on Exchequer street than to find an alternative route (which I searched for and spent about 15 mins cycling round in circles before ending up on Exchequer street again). Perhaps you can tell me the easiest way to get onto George's street after picking up a bike at the Dublin bikes stand that would eliminate the desirability of having a contra-flow there. Given the numbers of people who are going to be picking up and dropping off bikes here, you're going to end up with a de facto contra-flow regardless.

As for cycling vs walking, it was easier to sit on top of it rather than wheel it along next to me as a matter of fact. Shoot me.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

I believe there are better uses right now for the money that would be spent on contra-flow lanes

Doesn't take much money to simply stick "Except Cyclists" under the no-entry sign, which is all that is done in many European cities. Others as in Monument's example employ some cursory marking on the road or separation at the junction, which, again, doesn't seem that expensive. Certainly no more expensive than any other cycle track.

As regards applauding cycling the wrong way up one-way streets, Stark seems to advocate just that.

No-one applauded anything,* the question was simply whether it was easier. You suggested it was just as easy to walk a bike up a one way street which is clearly not the case.

The current legality of what he did has no bearing on this discussion which is whether it should be legal- whether it makes his journey easier does have bearing.

Out of interest, do you ever cycle on the road where a cycle track is provided?

*Indeed I condemned Stark unreservedly for his transgression, I thought then we could move on...

doozerie

blorg wrote:

Doesn't take much money to simply stick "Except Cyclists" under the no-entry sign, which is all that is done in many European cities. Others as in Monument's example employ some cursory marking on the road or separation at the junction, which, again, doesn't seem that expensive. Certainly no more expensive than any other cycle track.

I don't assume that it'll be that straight-forward, as I already discussed in a previous post:

doozerie wrote:

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.

blorg wrote:

Out of interest, do you ever cycle on the road where a cycle track is provided?

Yes, I do, where I believe the cycle track is unsafe (e.g. brings me up the inside of a left-only lane when I am heading straight on; where it brings me down a side road where I can't see turning traffic at the point I have to cross, etc.).

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, I do, where I believe the cycle track is unsafe (e.g. brings me up the inside of a left-only lane when I am heading straight on; where it brings me down a side road where I can't see turning traffic at the point I have to cross, etc.).

You know you are breaking the law by doing that, don't you?

niceonetom

I denounce and reject doozerie's lawlessness.

CramCycle

I thought that where there are legitimate Health and safety concerns you can leave a track, the same way a car can move out of the left hand lane if it feels that it provides a significant risk to the driver, other road users, or pedestrians to use it. I can't remember the law but I'm sure this came up in my driving test and I would assume it applies to cyclists as well as motor vehicles. I could be wrong though, just my understanding.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

You know you are breaking the law by doing that, don't you?

Yup, I am joining moving traffic as if I were traffic myself. I'll live with that risk as long as I am the only one that I put at risk. I also don't have a bell on any bike that I own, 'cos I like to live dangerously.

Stark

CramCycle wrote:

I thought that where there are legitimate Health and safety concerns you can leave a track, the same way a car can move out of the left hand lane if it feels that it provides a significant risk to the driver, other road users, or pedestrians to use it.

Not as the law stands at present. There are proposals to change that law alright. (cue "but you can't do that, it's illegal!")

blorg

Legally, no, you cannot leave a cycle track bounded by a continuous white line for any reason. If there is a broken white line you can leave the track for three reasons only, detailed below in the legislation.

S.I. No. 274/1998: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1998 wrote:

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track.

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,

(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or

(ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or

(iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.

You can of course leave the track to get around obstacles, or avoid riding on an unsafe track, by dismounting from your bicycle and wheeling it. I would have to ask Doozerie, wouldn't it be easier for you to dismount and wheel your bicycle along the footpath to avoid cycle lanes you consider to be unsafe?

doozerie

blorg wrote:

I would have to ask Doozerie, wouldn't it be easier for you to dismount and wheel your bicycle along the footpath to avoid cycle lanes you consider to be unsafe?

No, it's easier to merge with traffic and proceed as traffic. Personally I also find that safer although the presence of cycle tracks does tend to make some drivers annoyed at finding a cyclist sharing "their" road space regardless of the usability or otherwise of the cycle track, which is one of the reasons that I dislike cycle tracks.

blorg

I can't believe you advocate such law breaking. Do you think the law should be changed to allow you leave the cycle lane and make your journey easier?

doozerie

blorg wrote:

I can't believe you advocate such law breaking. Do you think the law should be changed to allow you leave the cycle lane and make your journey easier?

I couldn't possibly comment as this thread is apparently about discussing the legality of contra-flow lanes and nothing else.

Stark

doozerie wrote: »

I couldn't possibly comment as this thread is apparently about discussing the legality of contra-flow lanes and nothing else.

Contra-flow cycle lanes are legal.

kmick

We already have them - they are called couriers!!:D

CramCycle

Legally, no, you cannot leave a cycle track bounded by a continuous white line for any reason.

In the case of mandatory lanes, if a car is parked on the cycle track and on the pavement, happens alot on Nutgrove Avenue, I have to just stand there like a muppet for eternity? Or dismount and walk into traffic? I know I'm being pedantic but it is expected that drivers have common sense, in a situation like this? Or is it just too bad for me?

blorg

CramCycle wrote: »

In the case of mandatory lanes, if a car is parked on the cycle track and on the pavement, happens alot on Nutgrove Avenue, I have to just stand there like a muppet for eternity? Or dismount and walk into traffic? I know I'm being pedantic but it is expected that drivers have common sense, in a situation like this? Or is it just too bad for me?

Legally you should wait for the obstacle to clear or dismount and walk around it. Of course this is absurd and you are never going to be done for cycling around it. But I must by the standards of this thread condemn you unreservedly for doing so. Or for thinking of doing so. I hope my internet brethren will join in the condemnation lest we be seen as applauding such thoughts of lawbreaking. Stop thinking such immoral thoughts.

oflahero

This thread reminds me of the bit at the start of this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01sHrDku2rE

CramCycle

Ha, awesome, seen this before, maybe the Gardaí will think I'm a car and ignore me and I'll have to start turning without indicating, not use my left rear view mirror (although I wouldn't have one, so same difference), ignore the road and start texting people, pollute the planet, run over small animals I could have easily avoided, beep my horn (ring my bell) at people who are doing nothing wrong when I myself am breaking the law, become increasingly unfit, drive to the gym in an unnoticed but ironic statement about getting fit, even if it is only a few minutes walk away, etc, etc. At least I wouldn't have to deal with discussions about contra flow lanes that seem to go in circles (or in a straight line, the wrong way) :rolleyes:

NamelessPhil

blorg wrote: »

Legally you should wait for the obstacle to clear or dismount and walk around it. Of course this is absurd and you are never going to be done for cycling around it.

The same SI 274/1998 also states that:

"5. (1) These Regulations shall apply save where compliance is not possible as a result of an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or because of an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated."

So you can leave a cycle track to get around an obstruction.

blorg

NamelessPhil wrote: »

The same SI 274/1998 also states that:

"5. (1) These Regulations shall apply save where compliance is not possible as a result of an obstruction to traffic or pedestrians or because of an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated."

So you can leave a cycle track to get around an obstruction.

Fair enough. The lawbreaker refuses to cycle on a cycle track for reasons that would not come under that though.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

Fair enough. The lawbreaker refuses to cycle on a cycle track for reasons that would not come under that though.

I take it that "The lawbreaker" is me, in which case I am touched that you've thought to give me a nickname. It's very sweet, but you're making me blush though.

Incidentally, from your earlier post:

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,

(i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention,

...it would appear that I am not breaking the law by moving out of a cycle lane which either turns onto a side road or which essentially follows traffic in a left-only lane, as in both of these cases I am changing direction by traveling straight ahead.

blorg

doozerie wrote: »

...it would appear that I am not breaking the law by moving out of a cycle lane which either turns onto a side road or which essentially follows traffic in a left-only lane, as in both of these cases I am changing direction by traveling straight ahead.

That only allows you to move out if it is a dashed line track (RRM 023.) Those exceptions don't apply to a track with a solid line (RRM 022,) you have to stay in that.

tomasrojo

blorg wrote: »

That only allows you to move out if it is a dashed line track (RRM 023.) Those exceptions don't apply to a track with a solid line (RRM 022,) you have to stay in that.

That's my understanding too. It's another reason to repeal SI 274/1998; it's completely unworkable as it stands. Written by Bobby Molloy of the PDs back when he was Minister for the Environment. The PDs liked cyclists about as much as FG do.

tomasrojo

I remember reading the SIs and coming to the conclusion that, on balance (though it's hard to tell definitely until someone is prosecuted for flouting 274/1998), you can't turn right on a road with a mandatory cycle track, unless they introduce dashed lines at the point where you'd want to leave the cycle track to get into the position for a right turn.

So remember; stay within the law, and never turn right from such a road. Left turns only. Got it?

monument

Hmm... I'm a bit late getting back to this, but it's a current issue I guess... I posted the following here, so may as well re-post it:

The numbers of commuter cycling in the Dublin City Council area was, according to the 2006 census, 5.4%.

Cllr Edie Wynne represents Pembroke / Rathmines areas of Dublin. According to the 2006 census, in Pembroke cyclists accounted for 5.6% of commuters, and in Rathmines the figure jumps to 9.4%. In Cllr Gerry Breen’s area of Clontarf, cycling was at 6.5% of commuters. Cycling in Dublin has — according to the Canal Cordon Count — grown by a large amount since the census, there was a 74% increase in the last four years.


Gerry Breen should also note that in his area, almost 18% of commuters simply walked. The Dublin City Council area was even higher at 27.5%. And for Pembroke / Rathmines walking accounted for 26.4% / 30.6%.


I've also emailed the two councillor with their local and the Dublin City figures so they don't get confused again.

tomasrojo

Saw this just now and thought it probably belonged here.

http://dublincycling.com/node/613

Contra-flow cycling introduced

In France, you can, from July 1st, legally cycle the 'wrong way' up a one-way street that's within a 30km/h zone.

After trials in Sevres and Ill-kirch-Graffenstaden (Bas-Rhin),a town of 25,000 near Strasbourg, which produced good safety results, the whole of France will be affected by the measure this Summer. At the end of the street, an 'except bikes' sign will be added to the 'no entry' sign, and at the start, a small blue sign will remind road users to expect cyclists.

serendip

Contra-flow? Breaking red lights? No problem:

http://www.xayni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bicyclist_close_crash.gif

Lumen

serendip wrote: »

Contra-flow? Breaking red lights? No problem:

http://www.xayni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bicyclist_close_crash.gif

Is that DFD*?

* Decimetres From Death

SerialComplaint

serendip wrote: »

Contra-flow? Breaking red lights? No problem:

http://www.xayni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bicyclist_close_crash.gif

What lotto numbers did that cyclist pick? He's one lucky guy...

tomasrojo

serendip wrote: »

Contra-flow? Breaking red lights? No problem:

http://www.xayni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bicyclist_close_crash.gif

Amazing footage. But it doesn't look as if the cyclist is either going the wrong way or breaking a light.