National Secondary Roads Needs Study: cycleways included

Iwannahurl

"The NRA is now proposing to focus its attention on addressing deficiencies in the NSR network. To that end, it commissioned the National Secondary Road Needs Study (NSRNS) to identify an optimal future NSR network, which offers value for money."

The reporting of the network options for the National Secondary Roads Needs Study is divided into five regions: North, East, South East, South West and West.

Where appropriate, potential cycleways have been included in the study, in keeping with the Smarter Travel policy.

"In the majority of locations, the design option likely to offer best value for money was considered to be a two-way footpath and cycleway on one side of the carriageway and separated from it by a grass verge."

Also worth looking at (not sure of date): http://www.nra.ie/NetworkManagement/ProjectAppraisalGuidelines/Unit130WalkingandCyclingfacilities/

chakattack

If you are going for cycle lanes, an on-road painted cycle track (one on each side of the road) would be much better for cyclists.

Off road tracks parallel to the road lead to tricky changes at junctions and introduces a specific risk with cars turning left across you. Cyclists will also have to yield unnecessarily to traffic turning on to the road and traffic entering/exiting road side houses will have to cross the track.

Not to mention problems with on coming cyclists in the wrong lane or a group of cyclists two abreast having to single out everytime they meet a cyclist in the other direction. Then you have pedestrians walking on the cycletracks as if it's a footpath.

Many threads on this forum (and a website somewhere) showing examples of these problems with cycle lanes around dublin and elsewhere.

Fast cyclists will stick to the road for the above safety reasons but be left with less space for cars to overtake.

Iwannahurl

AFAIK, the Dutch, Danes, Swedes and others have dealt with the junction problem on their segregated routes.

Many, probably most, cyclists in Ireland would prefer complete segregation if they were offered a real choice.

In a better world the NRA ought to be giving us what's on offer below. However, I suspect that the option ultimately taken (if it ever happens at all) will be cheap, nasty, tokenistic and piecemeal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmG9fi3d1sw

chakattack

Are you involved with the study Iwannahurl?

Two junctions crossing the cycle track in the first 15 seconds! Unfortunately dutch drivers are much more mindful of cyclists when turning.

The lane forces you to cross the road at 1:57 which is a pain.

The on-road setup at 1:44 is much better all round.

I take your point about what many people would prefer to feel safe but the majority of cyclists doing anything sort of distance, i.e. between towns on N roads would prefer to cruise along an on-road track with the same right of way as other traffic at side road junctions.

This works well and as documented here the canals are a good example compared to how they used to be with no cycle lane.

Chips Lovell

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Many, probably most, cyclists in Ireland would prefer complete segregation if they were offered a real choice.

I certainly wouldn't.

Doctor Bob

Those of you with an allergic reaction to cycling infrastructure will obviously be delighted to spot that they're talking about cycleways, not cycle tracks or cycle lanes.

studiorat

That would be a nice commute every morning methinks...

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't.

+1. At least until the mandatory use legislation is clearly and publicly put down.

Last Thursday up around Ongar/Clonee a coach pulled alongside me as I was cycling in the bus lane, opened it's side doors, and some assistant bus wench bawled at me "use the cycle lane" before the driver executed a close overtake. I was in the bus lane and there was a wide lane to the right completely clear of traffic (four lane road).

Last thing we need is to encourage these monkeys with more junk off-road infrastructure, although it would be nice for kids to be able to get around in the country without having to share road space with 80kph+ traffic.

petethedrummer

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Those of you with an allergic reaction to cycling infrastructure

An allergic reaction to Irish cycling infrastructure.

HivemindXX

petethedrummer wrote: »

An allergic reaction to Irish bad cycling infrastructure.

Fixed that for you. Although in a lot of cases they are one and the same.

Junctions are an issue for all off road cycle lanes but in my opinion they are much worse with the two directional variety.

Removing the legal requirement to use them no matter how bad won't stop malicious bus drivers deliberately endangering your life to bully you off the road when they think you should be on the footpath. Clearly people like that don't care about the law at all.

As an aside I've been cycling along the N2 from Phibsboro to Finglas for work these days and that off road cycle track is actually pretty good. It has some problems (they coated in in red gravel at some point in the past and now big sections are leprous lumps, there's been a broken bottle on it outside Glasnevin for three weeks, there is no exit point from the path at the Finglas end) but at each junction you rejoin the road well beforehand and you have a little build out to force drivers to move out at that point. It's interesting that this old cycle lane is basically fine to use, but the brand new one around Charlestown shopping center is a disaster with no proper way to go straight ahead at junctions if you are a cyclist.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

assistant bus wench

LOL

studiorat

I think one or two people are forgetting that cycle ways or cycle lanes are made for the majority of cyclists. The majority being those who aren't doing 30kmph and upwards and don't mind slowing down for a junction. Those people and their children I think would prefer dedicated cycle-ways.

Lumen

studiorat wrote: »

Could the bus not get past? Did you move over to let it past?

There was a whole lane to my right, completely empty. Plus 2/3 of the lane I was in.

Iwannahurl

chakattack wrote: »

Are you involved with the study Iwannahurl?

Two junctions crossing the cycle track in the first 15 seconds! Unfortunately dutch drivers are much more mindful of cyclists when turning.

The lane forces you to cross the road at 1:57 which is a pain.

The on-road setup at 1:44 is much better all round.

I take your point about what many people would prefer to feel safe but the majority of cyclists doing anything sort of distance, i.e. between towns on N roads would prefer to cruise along an on-road track with the same right of way as other traffic at side road junctions.

This works well and as documented here the canals are a good example compared to how they used to be with no cycle lane.

No, I have no direct or indirect involvement with the NRA or any of its projects.

Have you cycled much in the Netherlands? There is little or no pain involved, I assure you. In fact, pedestrians have a harder life! For a variety of reasons, such road-cycleway junctions work smoothly and safely. It's undeniable that cyclists are prioritised in the Netherlands (and conversely that we have been treated as second-class citizens in this country, despite all the official rhetoric).

The commentary by Markenlei in the above video clearly refers to an 80 kph speed limit on the road with the painted cycle lanes, but that there is "no real need" to cycle on it because there is a more direct segregated route elsewhere alongside a rural road with a 60 kph limit. The preferred route is obvious.

Dutch and Danish cyclists are not clamouring to share the road space with cars, whether on painted lanes or not. They have sought, and achieved, segregation on high-quality cycle thoroughfares. That's what makes cycling in the Netherlands convenient, efficient, enjoyable and safe.

It's one thing to oppose segregation in Ireland, on practical grounds, where the level of service for cyclists is routinely abysmal. Opposing separation of cyclists from motorised traffic purely on ideological grounds, as a few cyclists do, is neither rational nor sustainable. And it's probably counter-productive. Just a thought.

CheGuedara

There is one of these "two-way footpath and cycleway on one side of the carriageway and separated from it by a grass verge" facilities on the new Castleisland Bypass over which my club regularly trains (the bypass as opposed to the cycleway).

If it is a typical example of what this type of construction is I'm afraid their usefulness is going to be limited to primarily to walkers and joggers (and perhaps slow recreational cyclists/cycle commuters travelling individually).

As a design it is too narrow to be widely used by mixed bike/ped traffic -

• occasions seeing foot or bike traffic coming against each other causes a bottleneck
• the difference in speed between pedestrians and cyclists (and especially sport cyclists) poses a danger to both
• the surface is not suitable for cycling due to stones and detritus from the road,
• road noise means pedestrians are unable to hear cyclists approaching from behind
• the entrance to and exit from the path to the road is IMHO far from ideal (it is bookended by roundabouts).

We don't use it; the road is safer so we use one of the two lanes keeping the group compact until differing climbing ability results in riders forming into single file until the climb is finished. Given some motorists seem to treat the road as a motorway it's not ideal, we would be on the hard shoulder had one been incorporated in the road design, but it is still the better of the options available.

IMHO the best option to suit all users in the Irish context is an off road footpath for pedestrian use paired with a continuous on road hard shoulder with dual designation as a cycle facility (or whatever term suits best).

Cycling on the road is not dangerous despite what would appear to be a push to create this perception recently - proposing segregating cycling from the road is IMHO entirely based on ideological grounds and is completely unnecessary.

petethedrummer

They might build a lovely cycling highway but inevitably they will put boulders on it to prevent halting sites or kissing gates every 50 yards to stop the occasional hoodlum on a moped going bananas. Rendering it all useless.

The new Grand canal cycle path is on my way to work. I had such high hopes for it. But to use it I have to go through 10 gates (sometimes 11), so I don't bother. It was better when it was crummy strip of pot-holed tarmac half covered in grass. I actually used it then.

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

They might build a lovely cycling highway but inevitably they will put boulders on it to prevent halting sites or kissing gates every 50 yards to stop the occasional hoodlum on a moped going bananas. Rendering it all useless.

I remember being constantly harrassed by passing motorists on the R113 in Lucan to "use the cycle lane". It was, just as you say, completely blocked by boulders to stop Travellers encamping there. The passing motorists might as well have exhorted me to fly over the road.

I certainly don't think that adult cyclists really need much more than a wide nearside lane to travel safely. On the other hand, it does seem to me that many people would feel a lot safer segregated. Turning to my third hand, I have had people tell me that they'd cycle to work, if only there was a cycle lane. I point out that there is one to them. "Ah yes, well, ah, the weather."

If we want children to cycle more and be more independent, we might need more than just a wide nearside lane. The Netherlands seems to be one of the few places where a very large proportion of children cycle to school, and sometimes cycle back home for lunch during the day. And, unlike our poor offspring, think very little of cycling ten kilometres to a friend's house. Or so I'm told.

Of course, segregated infrastructure that makes children more at risk than using the road is completely unacceptable. And what we generally get.

chakattack

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No, I have no direct or indirect involvement with the NRA or any of its projects.

Have you cycled much in the Netherlands? There is little or no pain involved, I assure you. In fact, pedestrians have a harder life! For a variety of reasons, such road-cycleway junctions work smoothly and safely. It's undeniable that cyclists are prioritised in the Netherlands (and conversely that we have been treated as second-class citizens in this country, despite all the official rhetoric).

The commentary by Markenlei in the above video clearly refers to an 80 kph speed limit on the road with the painted cycle lanes, but that there is "no real need" to cycle on it because there is a more direct segregated route elsewhere alongside a rural road with a 60 kph limit. The preferred route is obvious.

Dutch and Danish cyclists are not clamouring to share the road space with cars, whether on painted lanes or not. They have sought, and achieved, segregation on high-quality cycle thoroughfares. That's what makes cycling in the Netherlands convenient, efficient, enjoyable and safe.

It's one thing to oppose segregation in Ireland, on practical grounds, where the level of service for cyclists is routinely abysmal. Opposing separation of cyclists from motorised traffic purely on ideological grounds, as a few cyclists do, is neither rational nor sustainable. And it's probably counter-productive. Just a thought.

I don't think many cyclists would prefer to mix with cars and buses on a purely ideological basis if given a safe and traffic free option.

Unfortunately such an option will always be idealistic and where you have junctions crossing a cycleway/track/lane you will have accidents that could be avoided by an on-road lane.

Again segregated lanes are fine for people wobbling about with their kids in tow but my point is that these people rarely if ever venture long distances between towns and the facilities should be designed to suit the typical users - the rapidly growing number of leisure and sport cyclists who can hold their own on the road with a little common sense.

What's the point of making facilities slightly safer for small numbers of inexperienced and nervous cyclists if you make it more hazardous for experienced cyclists who statistically use the roads more in the process?

Doctor Bob

el tonto wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't.

Lumen wrote: »

+1. At least until the mandatory use legislation is clearly and publicly put down.

So you wouldn't use completely segregated infrastructure while the mandatory use provision is in place, but following the removal of that provision you would use it?

Now you're out-contrarying even the natives!

***

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's one thing to oppose segregation in Ireland, on practical grounds, where the level of service for cyclists is routinely abysmal. Opposing separation of cyclists from motorised traffic purely on ideological grounds, as a few cyclists do, is neither rational nor sustainable. And it's probably counter-productive. Just a thought.

This is precisely the point I was making in my previous post- there are people who have such a knee-jerk reaction to any cycling infrastructure that they automatically oppose it in principle.

But if they were to lift the veil from their eyes for half a second they'd see that the original post mentions cycleways, not cycle lanes or cycle tracks, so every subsequent post which references - directly, or tacitly - the 'mandatory use' provision, is effectively attacking a straw man.

Part of me wonders why the ‘elite’ aren’t campaigning more vociferously in favour of cycleways. :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

chakattack wrote: »

I don't think many cyclists would prefer to mix with cars and buses on a purely ideological basis if given a safe and traffic free option.

Unfortunately such an option will always be idealistic and where you have junctions crossing a cycleway/track/lane you will have accidents that could be avoided by an on-road lane.

Again segregated lanes are fine for people wobbling about with their kids in tow but my point is that these people rarely if ever venture long distances between towns and the facilities should be designed to suit the typical users - the rapidly growing number of leisure cyclists who can hold their own on the road with a little common sense.

What's the point of making facilities slightly safer for small numbers of inexperienced and nervous cyclists if you make it more hazardous for experienced cyclists who statistically use the roads more in the process?

Safer roads for leisure cyclists and safer segregated facilities for commuter and child cyclists are not incompatible goals.

Separation of vulnerable road users from motorised traffic is generally safer, and when both engineering and the law are in the cyclists' favour the use of segregated facilities is safer.

The risks to cyclists of certain junction designs have been recognised for years and some pro-cycling countries have made a big effort to reduce or eliminate those risks.

It's all relative, isn't it? If you can design a dedicated cycleway that has even just the same level of risk as the road, then you're on to a winner. Why? Because perception of safety is hugely important. If you want to win people over from the private car to cycling then you must make using the bike easy and attractive. For many people that means not having to mix with motorised traffic.

Leisure cycling is all well and good, but if we want to have a real impact on transport sustainability and traffic congestion (and road safety) then we must introduce measures that bring about significant modal shift in commuter travel.

If the high standard of dedicated facilities for cyclists in the Netherlands and Denmark is due to ideology, then my response is "more of that here please".

This photo shows the bicycle traffic counter beside the segregated cycle facilities on the Norrebrogade in Copenhagen, one of the world's busiest cycling thoroughfares. A total of 3409 bicycle movements one way have been counted up to lunchtime, and well over fifty thousand in the year to date (16th June 2009).



The NRA and every other roads authority should be made to follow that example. I agree that sub-standard cycle infrastructure is not acceptable, and public funds should never be wasted on tokenistic "facilities" that actually make life harder for cyclists.

HivemindXX

Doctor Bob you have misinterpreted El Tontos post and Lumens approval of it.

El Tonto said he wouldn't prefer complete segregation and Lumen added that he certainly wouldn't prefer it while it was compulsory to use it. You intrepret this to mean they wouldn't use a facility if it was compulsory but would use it if it wasn't. Clearly they actually mean they are against segregated cycle tracks when they would be required to use them but are in favour when it would be their own choice whether to use them or not. Since we are plagued with cycle facilities that are worse than simply cycling in the road I think this is quite a sensible attitude.

Doctor Bob wrote:

This is precisely the point I was making in my previous post- there are people who have such a knee-jerk reaction to any cycling infrastructure that they automatically oppose it in principle.

But if they were to lift the veil from their eyes for half a second they'd see that the original post mentions cycleways, not cycle lanes or cycle tracks, so every subsequent post which references - directly, or tacitly - the 'mandatory use' provision, is effectively attacking a straw man.

Where are these people? I don't see anyone saying that if there was a cycle lane that was segregated from the road where there was no loss of priority at junctions, no issues with making right turns, no problems with pedestrians or debris they still wouldn't use it. This is the definition of a straw man. If people assume that a piece of cycle infrastructure will have a lot of problems it's not because of some weird idealogical bigotry it's because we have many many examples of new cycle facilities being put in which are worse for cyclists that simply using the road would be.

You seem to be picking nits in the naming of this. Cycleways are typically through parks and the likes. If this infrastructure is to be alongside the road it will be a cycle track and it's use will be compulsory.

AstraMonti

Doctor Bob wrote: »

But if they were to lift the veil from their eyes for half a second they'd see that the original post mentions cycleways, not cycle lanes or cycle tracks, so every subsequent post which references - directly, or tacitly - the 'mandatory use' provision, is effectively attacking a straw man.

Part of me wonders why the ‘elite’ aren’t campaigning more vociferously in favour of cycleways. :rolleyes:

These cycleways are inappropriate for: a) Any serious rider that goes fast b) For any group ride, unless they are at least 20kms in length each time and 6meters wide, which won't be.

Second part is maintenance, if they can't maintain a simple network of cyclelanes how are they going to keep up with maintaining a much much larger network?

Noone is against proper cycling infrastructure, though, we are road users and that's where we want to remain. Instead of spending money creating a separate network, spend them to widen the roads enough so we can all fit happily.

But that's just me.

Iwannahurl

AstraMonti wrote: »

These cycleways are inappropriate for: a) Any serious rider that goes fast b) For any group ride, unless they are at least 20kms in length each time and 6meters wide, which won't be.

Second part is maintenance, if they can't maintain a simple network of cyclelanes how are they going to keep up with maintaining a much much larger network?

Noone is against proper cycling infrastructure, though, we are road users and that's where we want to remain. Instead of spending money creating a separate network, spend them to widen the roads enough so we can all fit happily.

But that's just me.

I'm afraid sports/leisure cycling of this sort is something I know nothing about (in the present context). I don't know what the majority of such serious cyclists do in cycle-friendly countries like the Netherlands, but in Copenhagen I certainly saw a lot of individual sports cyclists using the urban dedicated facilities, and going at a fair clip too. On their way to the open road perhaps?

Agreed re maintenance and so on, but I still think that separate infrastructure will be required to bring about a decent modal shift. I would imagine that such a shift would be a virtuous cycle too -- the more cyclists come out, the more will be enticed to join them.

tomasrojo

I was wondering about maintenance, all right. Do local authorities even have annual allocations of funds for upkeep of cycling infrastructure?

petethedrummer

Doctor Bob wrote: »

But if they were to lift the veil from their eyes for half a second they'd see that the original post mentions cycleways, not cycle lanes or cycle tracks, so every subsequent post which references - directly, or tacitly - the 'mandatory use' provision, is effectively attacking a straw man.

I've had bus drivers shout out the door and then cut me up with the bus to use a (typically appalling) cycle lane nearby even though signposts indicated I could be in the bus lane. Until the mandatory law is lifted and everyone is aware of it, it is not a straw man.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Part of me wonders why the ‘elite’ aren’t campaigning more vociferously in favour of cycleways. :rolleyes:

I don't consider myself part of this elite you speak of but to pour more money into cycle lanes which aren't safe to use is madness. We won't get it right. There have been repeated promises of change and they're getting worse. There are hardly any examples of a decent 2 mile stretch of cycle path in the entire country.

tomasrojo

I quite like that bit of infrastructure on Charlemont Mall in Dublin. I found it quite easy to make a right turn to Ranelagh while heading east along the Grand Canal with a trailer. Always found that tricky before, since a right turn off Canal Road is illegal, and becoming a pedestrian is tricky with a trailer.

So, nice to know that all that money has helped me out. I'm in favour of large amounts of public money being spent on me personally.

chakattack

Again go back to the first 15 seconds of the dutch clip - there are two junctions across the track - a t-boning waiting to happen with Irish driver behaviour.

My view might be a bit elitist (but so what!). Why cater for the inexperienced at the expense of the experienced. Everyone was inexperienced at some point in their cycling careers but managed to figure it out easily enough, it's a short transistion.

The people who won't cycle because they think it's too dangerous are the same people who won't cycle because of the weather. It's just an excuse.

tomasrojo

chakattack wrote: »

Again go back to the first 15 seconds of the dutch clip - there are two junctions across the track - a t-boning waiting to happen with Irish driver behaviour.

I saw a clip of cycling in Copenhagen, and it was quite fascinating to watch how cars waited for cyclists who were attempting to go straight on from a position to the right of right-turning traffic (equivalent to a position to the left of left-turning traffic here). That's easily one of the most hazardous designs here, and yet there it seems to work quite well.

Though I heard something about American tourists who have rented cars knocking cyclists over in this scenario.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

I saw a clip of cycling in Copenhagen, and it was quite fascinating to watch how cars waited for cyclists who were attempting to go straight on from a position to the right of right-turning traffic (equivalent to a position to the left of left-turning traffic here).

Its quite unnerving being there and doing it for the first time. We wouldn't go because of our Irish upbringing. The cars wouldn't move because we had the right of way. After a few encouraging waves we got the hang of it.

I would love for there to be some cycling highways. I've always thought there should be one parallel to the rail way line from Dublin to Dundalk. But I am not convinced in the slightest that it would be done properly. Those gates on the grand canal have destroyed any hope I had that Ireland could get a piece of cycling infrastructre right.

studiorat

chakattack wrote: »

Again go back to the first 15 seconds of the dutch clip - there are two junctions across the track - a t-boning waiting to happen with Irish driver behaviour.

It's well marked out, and there's plenty of scope for everybody to see what's coming. No reason the cyclist shouldn't be prepared to stop as well.

chakattack wrote: »

My view might be a bit elitist (but so what!). Why cater for the inexperienced at the expense of the experienced. Everyone was inexperienced at some point in their cycling careers but managed to figure it out easily enough, it's a short transistion.

It is elitist, and it smacks of the attitude that some people think their knowledge of the road and cycling is somehow proportional to how much they choose to spend on their bicycle. Some people don't want to be as "experienced", they are happy enough to plod along if the mood takes them. The irony is that if there were cycle ways, these "hardcore" cyclists are the same people who wouldn't think twice about letting a roar at someone who was in their way, blocking the racing line as it were.

chakattack wrote: »

The people who won't cycle because they think it's too dangerous are the same people who won't cycle because of the weather. It's just an excuse.

What exactly is wrong with people not wanting to cycle because the weather is bad?

Chips Lovell

Elitist? Imagine the uproar if road infrastructure were built mainly with learner drivers in mind.

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

So you wouldn't use completely segregated infrastructure while the mandatory use provision is in place, but following the removal of that provision you would use it?

Now you're out-contrarying even the natives!

I probably wouldn't use completely segregated infrastructure regardless of the quality.

I don't want completely segregated infrastructure to be built until mandatory use is ditched, or else the new infrastructure will be used as an excuse to retain mandatory use.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

Elitist? Imagine the uproar if road infrastructure were built mainly with learner drivers in mind.

Like designating motorways as national roads in order that learners can use them, for instance?

That would never happen.

studiorat

el tonto wrote: »

Elitist? Imagine the uproar if road infrastructure were built mainly with learner drivers in mind.

But this is a cycle sport forum. Not your "average" cyclist either.

They weren't built with drivers trying for a personal best on every journey.

Lumen

studiorat wrote: »

But this is a cycle sport forum.

Not really. It exists under Sports for largely arbitrary reasons.

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

I probably wouldn't use completely segregated infrastructure regardless of the quality.

I don't want completely segregated infrastructure to be built until mandatory use is ditched, or else the new infrastructure will be used as an excuse to retain mandatory use.

Hypothetical question: if you were cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark would you refuse to use the dedicated facilities provided or perhaps even avoid cycling altogether?

I understand your point re mandatory use (a sore point in Germany, for example) but I am just referring to the practicalities.

petethedrummer

studiorat wrote: »

But this is a cycle sport forum. Not your "average" cyclist either.

It covers all types of cycling. I am mostly a commuting cyclist. And on my 18km commute all the cycle lanes have problems. The only time they are any good are the small stretches when the road is wide enough not to warrant a cycle lane.

studiorat wrote: »

They weren't built with drivers trying for a personal best on every journey.

I see less experienced (or maybe just ignorant of the danger) cyclists pull some seriously dodgy moves when adhering to these pathetic cycle lanes. Watching people sticking to the on road cycle lane by Fairview park fills me with terror. I don't want public money poured into these awful facilities. It is these timid cyclists, blindly sticking to dangerous cycle lanes that need to be catered for with proper cycle lanes(which won't happen) or no cycle lanes whereby they have to make an independent judgement on where they should be.

Now maybe the accident rates are low where the quality of the infrastrucure is to blame and we can justify continuing as we were with the poor facilities.

TinyExplosions

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Hypothetical question: if you were cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark would you refuse to use the dedicated facilities provided or perhaps even avoid cycling altogether?

I understand your point re mandatory use (a sore point in Germany, for example) but I am just referring to the practicalities.

IF I was on the road bike, then yes. If I was, for example engaging in some leisurely tourism, then I'd probably use them

petethedrummer

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Hypothetical question: if you were cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark would you refuse to use the dedicated facilities provided or perhaps even avoid cycling altogether?

They're good there. They're not here. How hard is that to understand?

TinyExplosions

petethedrummer wrote: »

They're good there. They're not here. How hard is that to understand?

They also have a history over there, and the culture is such that it supports it.

We have none of that here, and frankly, any plan put in place at the moment would most likely be done is a half arsed and shit manner, rendering any advances useless at best

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Hypothetical question: if you were cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark would you refuse to use the dedicated facilities provided or perhaps even avoid cycling altogether?

I would probably use them out of politeness as a foreigner.

In Ireland I act like a native, i.e. contrary and suspicious in the face of authority.

Chips Lovell

I've only encountered one bit of cycling infrastructure that I thought was in any way decent. That's in Spain and is a two way, off-road cycleway that runs alongside a dual carriage way. It works because there are only a handful of entrance/exit points off it and it isn't accessible to pedestrians. There are no intersections at junctions as it simply goes over them or under them. Having said that, it would be no skin off my nose to ride on the road. It's just that this cycleway is unusual in that is isn't more inconvenient than cycling on the road.

Having said that, Spain has decent roads and can afford to prioritise stuff like this. We don't. My main issue as a cyclist is road quality. Fix the bloody roads before worrying about cycling infrastructure.

petethedrummer

Lumen wrote: »

In Ireland I act like a native, i.e. contrary and suspicious in the face of authority.

Now you're getting it.:)

Doctor Bob

HivemindXX wrote: »

Doctor Bob you have misinterpreted El Tontos post and Lumens approval of it.

El Tonto said he wouldn't prefer complete segregation and Lumen added that he certainly wouldn't prefer it while it was compulsory to use it. You intrepret this to mean they wouldn't use a facility if it was compulsory but would use it if it wasn't. Clearly they actually mean they are against segregated cycle tracks when they would be required to use them but are in favour when it would be their own choice whether to use them or not. Since we are plagued with cycle facilities that are worse than simply cycling in the road I think this is quite a sensible attitude.

Well actually I was making a joke. (Hence the ':D'- though a strict reading of both posts does give my interpretation.)

HivemindXX wrote: »

Where are these people?

Well Lumen has already raised his hand, and there are other regular posters who would be in that bracket, for sure.

And, just to be clear, I am not defending the poxy ****e we have littered all over the country.

HivemindXX wrote: »

You seem to be picking nits in the naming of this. Cycleways are typically through parks and the likes. If this infrastructure is to be alongside the road it will be a cycle track and it's use will be compulsory.

It may be picking nits to you, but to anyone charged with interpreting the law, these nits are the very basis of their decisions.

In the interests of removing any ambiguity, I will post a third version of my input to this thread:

The 'mandatory use' provision applies to cycle tracks, whether they are on-road cycle tracks ('cycle lanes') or off-road cycle tracks ('cycle tracks').

Something which is designated a 'cycleway' is, by definition, not a cycle track, regardless of where it is located, i.e. near the road with a grass verge separating them or on a separate alignment entirely.

Therefore, almost every post in this thread is irrelevant and misses the point, which is this: Road cyclists have nothing to fear from cycleways as their use is not mandatory.

el tonto wrote: »

Elitist? Imagine the uproar if road infrastructure were built mainly with learner drivers in mind.

Indeed.

And imagine the uproar if road infrastructure were built with the needs of Formula 1/rally drivers or boy racers in mind.

Yet that seems to be the logic of experienced cyclists (viz. the opinions of chakattack, CheGuedara, etc., in this thread and elsewhere) as applied to providing for cycling.

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Therefore, almost every post in this thread is irrelevant and misses the point, which is this: Road cyclists have nothing to fear from cycleways as their use is not mandatory.

It's a question of minding the unintended consequences, not of missing the point.

The law is more easily mutable than the road infrastructure.

I therefore demand that non-mandatoryness is made part of the constitution.

Chips Lovell

You don't need to be a competitive cyclist to cycle competantly on the road. They are fairly different skill sets (and there are plenty of competitive cyclists who ride appallingly in traffic).

tomasrojo

Is it possible to turn a cycleway into a cycle track by adding a Cycle Track sign and a white line?

(What I mean is, the definition of a Cycle Track in the statutory instruments seems to be anything that has a Cycle Track sign. And a line of some kind, if I recall correctly.)

petethedrummer

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Therefore, almost every post in this thread is irrelevant and misses the point, which is this: Road cyclists have nothing to fear from cycleways as their use is not mandatory.

We do when bus drivers, taxi men and other irrate drivers, who don't differentiate between the two, insist with that we should be using them and then take it upon themselves with some 'gentle persuasion' to guide us across to them.

Iwannahurl

petethedrummer wrote: »

They're good there. They're not here. How hard is that to understand?

Not hard to understand at all. I've cycled in countries with excellent infrastructure, and I have been a utility/leisure cyclist in Ireland since childhood (long before the notion of "cycle lanes" started to take hold).

My basic point is that there is a fundamental difference between ideological opposition to separation of cyclists from motorised traffic and political opposition to bad public policy in relation to cycling.

I think the two get mixed up at times, and that is unfortunate.

Iwannahurl

TinyExplosions wrote: »

IF I was on the road bike, then yes. If I was, for example engaging in some leisurely tourism, then I'd probably use them

If I think of it again I'll post some of my pix of road bikes on Copenhagen's cycle paths!

TinyExplosions

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My basic point is that there is a fundamental difference between ideological opposition to separation of cyclists from motorised traffic and political opposition to bad public policy in relation to cycling.

I think the two get mixed up at times, and that is unfortunate.

I think the main 'ideological' opposition is purely surrounding mandatory use. If cycle lanes are in good nick, are as quick as using the road, and are going the direction I want, I'd have no problem using them. However, I don't want to be forced onto a shitty piece of uneven, glass strewn path with junctions every few metres

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If I think of it again I'll post some of my pix of road bikes on Copenhagen's cycle paths!

I have no doubt there are loads, it's just my personal feeling (having never experienced Danish cycle paths, I reserve the right to change my mind if I go there )