Sharing space with cyclists

Frank Spencer

I received my motor tax renewal today and this was included along with it from the Department of Transport.

Seems to be mostly common sense.

Cookie_Monster

Good idea, hopefully people will take note of it and not just fire it in the bin.

Particularly the one about the stop and advance stop line.

Shane732

Yay cyclists rant!!!

The posters make sense, specially the 2nd comment -

"Cyclists can be vulnerable when they interact with cars...."

So in other words don't interact with the car and you'll be fine!!

The one thing I really hate is when there is a cycle lane and the cyclist is stuck out in the middle of the road like a complete idiot. I would regard this as interacting with me and as the poster say cyclists are vulnerable when they interact with cars. Stay in the bloody cycle lane!!!!

Shane732

Shane732 wrote: »

Yay cyclists rant!!!

The posters make sense, specially the 2nd comment -

"Cyclists can be vulnerable when they interact with cars...."

So in other words don't interact with the car and you'll be fine!!

The one thing I really hate is when there is a cycle lane and the cyclist is stuck out in the middle of the road like a complete idiot. I would regard this as interacting with me and as the poster say cyclists are vulnerable when they interact with cars. Stay in the bloody cycle lane!!!!

They don't avoid cycle lanes for fun, try cycling in some of those lanes and you'll see why many avoid them. Badly designed, not maintained at all and often more dangerous than riding on the road. Have a look here for some examples of unusable cycle lanes.

ironclaw

I'm very cyclist and motorbike aware but some of the risks / attitude of a rare minority of cyclists is extremely annoying.

Using roads, when there is a cycle lane, cutting through traffic (again when there is a cycle lane), cutting onto the path to get a green light and then back onto the road, Cycling on the road in bad conditions when there is an empty, safer, path to cycle on. I know cycling on the path is incorrect (illegal if I'm not mistaken) but on a clear path, why not just move in. Safer for driver and cyclist.

Jumpy

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm very cyclist and motorbike aware but some of the risks / attitude of a rare minority of cyclists is extremely annoying.

Using roads, when there is a cycle lane, cutting through traffic (again when there is a cycle lane), cutting onto the path to get a green light and then back onto the road, Cycling on the road in bad conditions when there is an empty, safer, path to cycle on. I know cycling on the path is incorrect (illegal if I'm not mistaken) but on a clear path, why not just move in. Safer for driver and cyclist.

I cycle a road bike, it has no suspension and very thin wheels that can take forward motion but not side impacts or kerb dropping.
I never use cycle lanes. They are a death trap for road bikes.

dearg lady

Shane732 wrote: »

Yay cyclists rant!!!

The posters make sense, specially the 2nd comment -

"Cyclists can be vulnerable when they interact with cars...."

So in other words don't interact with the car and you'll be fine!!

The one thing I really hate is when there is a cycle lane and the cyclist is stuck out in the middle of the road like a complete idiot. I would regard this as interacting with me and as the poster say cyclists are vulnerable when they interact with cars. Stay in the bloody cycle lane!!!!

Wow, way to completely miss the point.

As the leaflet says, cars and cyclists SHARE the road, therefore they are constantly interracting with each other.

cantdecide

As a motorcyclist, I can never understand why it seems like MOST cyclists on the open road seem to think the rules are all one-sided and that their safety is my responsibility.

Arrogance is the word I most often use.

Cookie_Monster

cantdecide wrote: »

As a motorcyclist, I can never understand why it seems like MOST cyclists on the open road seem to think the rules are all one-sided and that their safety is my responsibility.

I'm totally like that...

Hooch

cantdecide wrote: »

As a motorcyclist, I can never understand why it seems like MOST cyclists on the open road seem to think the rules are all one-sided and that their safety is my responsibility.

Arrogance is the word I most often use.

Im a car driver and motorbike rider as a profession.....however some time ago I did the Garda mountain bike course. During the weeks training (where we just wore hi vis vests unmarked and no uniform.....we were nearly killed on several occasions from motorists trying their best to overtake us!!! One guy stayed behind us and hooted until we stopped!!! We were in single file, 5 bikes.

After this I cycled in uniform when detailed for it.....never a hoot.....never people impatient....suprise suprise!!

I now have a new found respect for cyclists and the dangers awaiting them on the roads. Cyclists have as much right over the road as a car......if car drivers cycled every now and again they would understand!!

Anyway....this has been done to death!!:)

preilly79

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm very cyclist and motorbike aware of all road users but some of the risks / attitude of a rare minority not insignificant number of cyclistsroad users is extremely annoying.

the point is we all share the road, we all have eaqual responsibility and there's idiots in both camps.

hohojojo

i am a cyclist and i drive but i can't understand why cyclist don't need to have a licence to be on the road and why there is not a specific set of the rules of the road sent out to every house for cyclists as i can tell you now the amount of people who don't know the rules isout of this world on irish roads

and i will say one other thing i do believe if you have a bike you should have to pay road tax (small amount when buying the bike or maybe 10 euro a year to help subsidise) and that money should be inputted in to putting in and maintaining the cycle lanes as most are a joke cycle through rathfarnam and you'll see

Ferris

I am a keen driver who has recently started cycling again.

Honestly I am shocked at how aggressive irish motorists are to cyclists on the open road. For all the delay it causes to be patient behind a cyclist until an overtaking opportunity presents itself most drivers would rather run you into the ditch. Cyclists have no protection in a crash - we are actually talking about peoples lives here.

On the cycle lanes, they are more likely to be filled with potholes and parked cars than bikes. Most are lethal.

On not paying motor tax i'd say most adult cyclists have a car anyway.

I know that I am probably preaching to the converted here but we can all spread the word here. Think of it like this, how would we want our children treated on the road while they're on bikes (oh won't someone think of the children ).

Andrew33

The council have now marked the Greenhills road for cycle lanes which in places makes the remainder of the road dangerously narrow for motorists who will subconsciously hug the crown of the road to stay out of the cycle lane. Once again in this bloody country the majority (the motorist who are actually PAYING for this crap) have to bend over for the minority (the loony greens who want us all on bicycles).

Turbulent Bill

hohojojo wrote: »

i am a cyclist and i drive but i can't understand why cyclist don't need to have a licence to be on the road and why there is not a specific set of the rules of the road sent out to every house for cyclists as i can tell you now the amount of people who don't know the rules isout of this world on irish roads

and i will say one other thing i do believe if you have a bike you should have to pay road tax (small amount when buying the bike or maybe 10 euro a year to help subsidise) and that money should be inputted in to putting in and maintaining the cycle lanes as most are a joke cycle through rathfarnam and you'll see

The current Rules of the Road cover both motorists and cyclists; there's no need for anything specific. There are serious issues both with cycle lanes and enforcement of road law with cyclists. Look on the Cycling forum, you'll find the vast majority of cyclists share the same concerns.

For maybe the millionth time, nobody pays road tax - check the disc on your car to see why. The tax you pay for your car each year goes to the general tax pool, not specifically to roads or anything else. As a motorist and cyclist I pay more than enough tax each year.

muckwarrior

There's asshole motorists and asshole cyclists. The big difference though is that the asshole cyclist isn't likely to get anyone but themselves killed.

In general I'd say it's safe to say that the asshole motorists are people who never cycle, and that the opposite is also true. Equally, I'd say it's safe to assume that the asshole pedestrians who walk in cycle lanes and step in front of oncoming traffic aren't regular cyclists or motorists.

I'm not sure what my point is, but anyway... :pac:

Cookie_Monster

Andrew33 wrote: »

The council have now marked the Greenhills road for cycle lanes which in places makes the remainder of the road dangerously narrow for motorists who will subconsciously hug the crown of the road to stay out of the cycle lane. Once again in this bloody country the majority (the motorist who are actually PAYING for this crap) have to bend over for the minority (the loony greens who want us all on bicycles).

but if its a broken line cycle lane then motorists can and will drive in it.

Cyclists are only in the minority due to the useless gov policies over the last several decades. You just have to look at somewhere like Amsterdam to see what could be done properly. most car commuters in Dublin could cycle but won't due to the perception of cyclists and cycling held in this country

kasper

thread here last week about a cyclist on the m4 motorway , just dont forget to keep an eye out for him

Mr Benevolent

Stupid question maybe, but is it legal for cyclists to cycle on the footpath? It's arrogant and dangerous to pedestrians when they do imo.

BostonB

Andrew33 wrote: »

The council have now marked the Greenhills road for cycle lanes which in places makes the remainder of the road dangerously narrow for motorists who will subconsciously hug the crown of the road to stay out of the cycle lane. Once again in this bloody country the majority (the motorist who are actually PAYING for this crap) have to bend over for the minority (the loony greens who want us all on bicycles).

If you think driving down it is dangerous. Cycle down it, at night.

Actually the motorist isn't solely paying for it. Every tax payer is.

BostonB

Confab wrote: »

Stupid question maybe, but is it legal for cyclists to cycle on the footpath? It's arrogant and dangerous to pedestrians when they do imo.

Depends on the footpath. Might be signposted for bikes aswell. I hate cycle lanes on path they are usually dire. Adults should not be on the pavement. But what about kids?

I don't agree with it. But how dangerous is it though. Its not like every week you see someone killed/injured by a cyclist on a footpath. What is it one death per year. Per decade? How does it rate compared to other death statistics?

Cookie_Monster

Confab wrote: »

Stupid question maybe, but is it legal for cyclists to cycle on the footpath? It's arrogant and dangerous to pedestrians when they do imo.

no its not, ever.

Combined footpath and cycle lanes exist but these are always flagged as such. There are also footpath level cycle lanes but again these are clearly divided from footpaths.

bazza1

Attention cyclists in Dublin 14, 16, 24

PLEASE USE THE CYCLE LANES PROVIDED (at great cost!)

On Weekends, cycling clubs heading out for your spins, please remember to ride no more than two abreast!

Most Sat and Sun mornings I have to try to overtake big groups who think they are in the Tour De France peloton, bless 'em.

Some groups are very organised and are obviously form good clubs etc in fairness.

Shane732

dearg lady wrote: »

Wow, way to completely miss the point.

As the leaflet says, cars and cyclists SHARE the road, therefore they are constantly interracting with each other.

I didn't miss the point at all.....

Shane732

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't avoid cycle lanes for fun, try cycling in some of those lanes and you'll see why many avoid them. Badly designed, not maintained at all and often more dangerous than riding on the road. Have a look here for some examples of unusable cycle lanes.

Have you seen some of the roads that some people drive on??

coolbeans

There's a difference between unsuitable and unusable cycle lanes and bad roads. If I cycle into a pothole on a cycle track I find myself in a pretty dangerous position where I risk falling in front of traffic with obvious consequences. If I drive into a pothole in my Focus the consequences may be expensive but it's not dangerous in the same sense.

danbohan

Frank Spencer wrote: »

I received my motor tax renewal today and this was included along with it from the Department of Transport.

Seems to be mostly common sense.

very good , i hope the cyclists get a motor version with their cycle tax renewal !!!

Cookie_Monster

bazza1 wrote: »

On Weekends, cycling clubs heading out for your spins, please remember to ride no more than two abreast!

it's 3 wide where there is a broken white line and two otherwise isin't it?

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's 3 wide where there is a broken white line and two otherwise isin't it?

No the most allowed is 2 abreast with an exeption for a cyclist overtaking a pair of cyclists 2 abreast, in which case they would be briefly 3 abreast.

Shane732

Shane732 wrote: »

Have you seen some of the roads that some people drive on??

If there was a really dangerous, twisty, narrow, potholed road with a nice safe dual carriageway next to it which would you use?

Cycle lanes, in particular the off road variety have been shown in every single study done anywhere in the world to dramatically decrease the safety of cyclists at junctions, which is where the vast majority of accidents happen. Here is a diagram showin the most common types of collision and how much more frequent they are when a cyclist rides on an off road cycle lane versus on the road.

DirkVoodoo

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm very cyclist and motorbike aware but some of the risks / attitude of a rare minority of cyclists is extremely annoying.

This is unfortunately true for all road users, it's not a cyclist exclusive issue.

YourName

I got my tax renewal form in the post today too, and this was in it too, good idea the way they are sending these warnings directly to drivers where they are definitely going to see it.

I am not saying that the cyclists information is useless as it is good, but I would have much rathered seeing a note on how to use the M50 lanes properly, or even for some people an extra leaflet on how to drive in general, but thats too much to ask I guess ! ! ! ! !

glic71rods46t0

Deleted User wrote: »

If there was a really dangerous, twisty, narrow, potholed road with a nice safe dual carriageway next to it which would you use?

Cycle lanes, in particular the off road variety have been shown in every single study done anywhere in the world to dramatically decrease the safety of cyclists at junctions, which is where the vast majority of accidents happen. Here is a diagram showin the most common types of collision and how much more frequent they are when a cyclist rides on an off road cycle lane versus on the road.

The mistake on your graphic is that Irish cycle tracks have "yield" symbols at each junction. If the cyclist obeys this and yields to other traffic at junctions then there shouldnt be many accidents at junctions. In fact, I'd say collisions at junctions might have something to do with cyclists ignoring their obligation to yield to other traffic as well as jumping red lights.

Cookie_Monster

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

The mistake on your graphic is that Irish cycle tracks have "yield" symbols at each junction. If the cyclist obeys this and yields to other traffic at junctions then there shouldnt be many accidents at junctions. In fact, I'd say collisions at junctions might have something to do with cyclists ignoring their obligation to yield to other traffic as well as jumping red lights.

they don't by any means always have a yield. an example I come across every day is the turnoffs on the N11 between cherrywood and cabinteely northbound. Cycle lane is grade seperated from the roadway but cyclists have no need to yield at any of the 5-6 turnoffs there (two are garage entry/exit) the stop lines on the turns are all behind the cycle lane

Example

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they don't by any means always have a yield. an example I come across every day is the turnoffs on the N11 between cherrywood and cabinteely northbound. Cycle lane is grade seperated from the roadway but cyclists have no need to yield at any of the 5-6 turnoffs there (two are garage entry/exit) the stop lines on the turns are all behind the cycle lane

Example

doesnt look like any of the "turnoffs" are "junctions" i.e. the meeting point of 2 public roads - in general, you will see yield signs painted on the cycle track at such junctions

DirkVoodoo

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

doesnt look like any of the "turnoffs" are "junctions" i.e. the meeting point of 2 public roads - in general, you will see yield signs painted on the cycle track at such junctions

A lot of cycle tracks that intersect junctions with left turns put cyclists in an awkward position with regards yielding. I'm thinking specifically of the junction of the N11 and Kill ave (by Foxrock church) heading southbound.

I'm not sure of the legality on it, but I would have thought that the dashed line painted on the route indicating a cycle lane means motorists have to yield, as they are the ones who are crossing a lane.

Given the time it can take for a stopped bike to start moving again, depending on the level of competence, coupled with the speed of the motorised traffic, I think having cyclists yield, then attempt to move off and perhaps misjudging the speed of a car (or a car exceeding the speed limit), this would create far more accidents than it avoids.

Anyway, when I drive I have no problem yielding to cyclists, seeing as there are far more cars than bikes it's not like you are ever really held up turning left because of a cyclist traffic jam, is it?

Jumpy

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

The mistake on your graphic is that Irish cycle tracks have "yield" symbols at each junction. If the cyclist obeys this and yields to other traffic at junctions then there shouldnt be many accidents at junctions. In fact, I'd say collisions at junctions might have something to do with cyclists ignoring their obligation to yield to other traffic as well as jumping red lights.

They dont but even if they did you have provided another reason not to use them.
If I used the road instead of the cycle lane, then you would be required to yield to me, meaning I neither have to stop nor unclip.

Cookie_Monster

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

doesnt look like any of the "turnoffs" are "junctions" i.e. the meeting point of 2 public roads - in general, you will see yield signs painted on the cycle track at such junctions

at least ome of them is exactly as the above quoted image, and cyclists have right of way

glic71rods46t0

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

A lot of cycle tracks that intersect junctions with left turns put cyclists in an awkward position with regards yielding. I'm thinking specifically of the junction of the N11 and Kill ave (by Foxrock church) heading southbound.

I'm not sure of the legality on it, but I would have thought that the dashed line painted on the route indicating a cycle lane means motorists have to yield, as they are the ones who are crossing a lane.

Given the time it can take for a stopped bike to start moving again, depending on the level of competence, coupled with the speed of the motorised traffic, I think having cyclists yield, then attempt to move off and perhaps misjudging the speed of a car (or a car exceeding the speed limit), this would create far more accidents than it avoids.

Anyway, when I drive I have no problem yielding to cyclists, seeing as there are far more cars than bikes it's not like you are ever really held up turning left because of a cyclist traffic jam, is it?

I agree, its unlikely that one will meet a cyclist traffic jam. I think that the danger of yielding to a cyclist at the type of junction you describe is the likelihood of being rear-ended by another vehicle by exhibiting road behaviour not expected by fellow motorists

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

at least ome of them is exactly as the above quoted image, and cyclists have right of way

as I said, in general the cyclist must yield. I dont know every junction in the country so I didnt make an absolute statement. Road design favours yielding cycle tracks and that is where the image previously posted was misleading - that was the main point I was making - its a bit pointless trying to point out a possible (rare?) exception to this general rule to discredit a perfectly legitimate point

concussion

In this situation, a cycle path following a road and crossing a minor road, both traffic on the main road and pedestrians have priority over traffic approaching from the minor road (if there are no traffic lights). Why should cyclists have to yield to the same traffic on the minor road?

DirkVoodoo

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

I agree, its unlikely that one will meet a cyclist traffic jam. I think that the danger of yielding to a cyclist at the type of junction you describe is the likelihood of being rear-ended by another vehicle by exhibiting road behaviour not expected by fellow motorists

That's completely true, it's generally why I avoid those cycle lanes. The junctions are a bit too like Russian roulette for my liking. If you are in the bus lane then cars can see you, pass in front and take the turn quickly, those behind aren't really held up (downhill there without pedalling ~45-50 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone) for more than a second or two.

The alernative would be little cycling overpasses or underpasses, a bit like the roads they have in Brussels, but that is way too complicated (and yes, ridiculous) a solution.

Anan1

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

I agree, its unlikely that one will meet a cyclist traffic jam. I think that the danger of yielding to a cyclist at the type of junction you describe is the likelihood of being rear-ended by another vehicle by exhibiting road behaviour not expected by fellow motorists

Although not ideal, this has to be better than the alternative.

glic71rods46t0

concussion wrote: »

In this situation, a cycle path following a road and crossing a minor road, both traffic on the main road and pedestrians have priority over traffic approaching from the minor road (if there are no traffic lights). Why should cyclists have to yield to the same traffic on the minor road?

because thats the way the tracks are designed - so, regardless of whether you agree with "have to" yield - if the yield symbol is there then you must yield

glic71rods46t0

Anan1 wrote: »

Although not ideal, this has to be better than the alternative.

I disagree, being rear ended might puush your vehicle into the passing cyclist - worst of both worlds. In general its best to behave as other motorists expect you to behave. Human nature involves anticipation. When you behave in a manner not anticipated by fellow motorists, you risk a collision!

DirkVoodoo

Well, I think the leaflet is a good idea, the more awareness the better. I certainly find that attitudes are improving, but there are still dickhead drivers and dickhead cyclists who make it harder for everyone else. I can't police everyone and make people indicate on roundabouts, drive through red lights anymore than I can stop people cycling without lights or cycling through red lights.

The fact remains, no matter who is right or wrong, that if a car hits a bike, the bike will come off worse. And I don't think anyone wants that on their conscience. If I pass a bike I go wide around them, you never know if they might hit a pothole that might send them sideways under your wheel. Bikes are more vulnerable, that is why they deserve priority, not because of some weird green conspiracy to take over the world and remove cars from the roads.

concussion

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

because thats the way the tracks are designed - so, regardless of whether you agree with "have to" yield - if the yield symbol is there then you must yield

Of course, if the sign is there. I have, however, never seen Yield signs at intersections and have had some very bad experiences with traffic while using cycle paths of this design. So much so that I refuse to use them. That's right, I have no moral high ground here as I refuse to use a system that would work if if wasn't for the terrible driving of *some* motorists. (Well, I can legally avoid most of them as they are usually incorrectly signed and thus, not actually cycle paths.)

concussion

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

I agree, its unlikely that one will meet a cyclist traffic jam. I think that the danger of yielding to a cyclist at the type of junction you describe is the likelihood of being rear-ended by another vehicle by exhibiting road behaviour not expected by fellow motorists

Substitute a pedestrian for the cyclist and what do you do?

Jumpy

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

because thats the way the tracks are designed - so, regardless of whether you agree with "have to" yield - if the yield symbol is there then you must yield

But Tim, there isnt actually any yield symbols. Maybe in the big schmoke, but none out here in the little cities.

Anan1

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

I disagree, being rear ended might puush your vehicle into the passing cyclist - worst of both worlds. In general its best to behave as other motorists expect you to behave. Human nature involves anticipation. When you behave in a manner not anticipated by fellow motorists, you risk a collision!

Any motorist who doesn't expect me to yield for a cyclist crossing my path can sort it out with my insurance company.

glic71rods46t0

Anan1 wrote: »

Any motorist who doesn't expect me to yield for a cyclist crossing my path can sort it out with my insurance company.

ok, though we were talking about the least worst outcome. I choose no collision and no injuries over letting the insurance companies sort it out:cool: