Sharing space with cyclists

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:

glic71rods46t0

Jumpy wrote: »

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

the ones I've seen have them
And the design of cycle tracks throughout the country appear to follow the same logic - cyclists yield at junctions of public roads - "on road" traffic is given priority. I don't make the rules - I'm just commenting!

Anan1

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

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:

Me too - my point was that being rear-ended by another car is better than hitting a cyclist!

Cookie_Monster

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

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

in general I've found its the exact opposite, only a minority of junctions have any form of indication, including a yield. But thats just in my 8 years experience cycling in and around Dublin...

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

in general I've found its the exact opposite, only a minority of junctions have any form of indication, including a yield. But thats just in my 8 years experience cycling in and around Dublin...

Wow, thats truly frightening that a cyclist with 8 years experience in Dublin doesn't know that the inverted triangle painted on the cycle tracks all over Dublin means "yield". Perhaps some of the rule breaking is down to ignorance instead of anarchy:eek:

SleepDoc

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

Wow, thats truly frightening that a cyclist with 8 years experience in Dublin doesn't know that the inverted triangle painted on the cycle tracks all over Dublin means "yield". Perhaps some of the rule breaking is down to ignorance instead of anarchy:eek:

What's truly frightening is how the shape shifter Tim Allen pops up to troll whenever the equal rights of road users is brought up.

Cookie_Monster

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

Wow, thats truly frightening that a cyclist with 8 years experience in Dublin doesn't know that the inverted triangle painted on the cycle tracks all over Dublin means "yield". Perhaps some of the rule breaking is down to ignorance instead of anarchy:eek:

:rolleyes:

of course I know what it means, there just aren't that many of them. certainly they are not everywhere as you seem to think for some bizarre reason.

kv4dw0oujg9n3z

kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »

Wow, thats truly frightening that a cyclist with 8 years experience in Dublin doesn't know that the inverted triangle painted on the cycle tracks all over Dublin means "yield". Perhaps some of the rule breaking is down to ignorance instead of anarchy:eek:

Tim, he just said that the majority of cycle lanes do not have any yield signs painted on at the junctions. Who would know more about Dublin's cycle lanes, Cookie Monster, with 8 years experience cycling in the city, or you, with (I'm guessing) considerably less.

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:

of course I know what it means, there just aren't that many of them. certainly they are not everywhere as you seem to think for some bizarre reason.

The design of our roads requires them and they are used in all tracks created by Fingal, City, South and Dun Laoighaire- Rathdown councils - bizarre? I think not!

glic71rods46t0

Deleted User wrote: »

Tim, he just said that the majority of cycle lanes do not have any yield signs painted on at the junctions. Who would know more about Dublin's cycle lanes, Cookie Monster, with 8 years experience cycling in the city, or you, with (I'm guessing) considerably less.

Guess away - buts its more than 8. I disagree with his opinion - most tracks have the yield symbol and I've seen quite a few in my time

Sacred_git

Excellent to see this, as both a car and cyclist enthusiast,people neeed to be wide to cyclists, i know some of them can be annoying but learn to put up with it believe me the cyclists have to put up with a whole lot more. I am very conscious of cyclists when driving i dont think drivers realise if they were unfortunate enough(for both parties) to clip a cyclist and the cylist goes bump - they have very little say and will be forced to pay the cyclist damages if the cyclist pursues it, i know a guy who on a motorbike ran into a cyclist(broke his arm), his insurance company ended up paying the cyclist 22k but the guy said the cyclist just swerved out in front of him, same with pedestrians, if you hit one in a car .....you have very little say, quite unfair really