Cycling on Irish motorways: not news?

doozerie

galwaycyclist wrote:

Back in 1975 An Foras Forbartha were quoting a 50% reduction in cycling accidents on N routes that had been fitted with hard shoulders. (The usual caveats about background patterns apply but this seems like a reasonable finding).

If you are on a high speed road on a bicycle, and there is an adequately surfaced hard shoulder of adequate width, then the hard shoulder is the best place to cycle.

Its difficult to draw direct comparisons with the UK as historically I don't think they used hard shoulders on non-motorway trunk roads. The use of hard shoulders is one aspect of road design in which we were well ahead of our neighbours.

I think the hard shoulder is arguably the best place to cycle on *any* road assuming that other road users don't use it (though I'm not a fan of segregation generally myself). From what I understand the poor safety record of hard shoulders on UK motorways comes down to the fact that people drive in there when they shouldn't and collide with cars/people that are in there for good reason (i.e. broken down, typically). It's the usual scenario of the dangers being due to the actions of the road users rather than the roads themselves. On a motorway there is significant danger around the exit and entry lanes, which obviously intersect the hard shoulder - that danger exists for all users of the motorway, car drivers included, but an added element of danger for cyclists is that car drivers will not be looking for them due to the existing rules of the road teaching them that they should never encounter a cyclist there. Some drivers on non-motorway roads are oblivious to the very existence of cyclists too, of course, but that's a different category of stupid.

Something else to skew things a little is that in at least one of the trials in the UK where they opened up the hard shoulder to traffic during congested periods there were apparently no accidents in there. I've only read a little about those trials but I think the duration was only a matter of months or less so maybe the lack of incident is purely down to the short period of measurement rather than an increase in safety, as such. It was proposed to trial this approach on more motorways there too although I don't know whether this happened, or is happening. I'm not sure if that tells us anything about the safety, or not, of hard shoulders but opening up motorway hard shoulders to traffic should eliminate any doubt that UK motorway hard shoulders are not somewhere you want to be on a bicycle.

markdrayton

doozerie wrote: »

On a motorway there is significant danger around the exit and entry lanes, which obviously intersect the hard shoulder - that danger exists for all users of the motorway, car drivers included, but an added element of danger for cyclists is that car drivers will not be looking for them due to the existing rules of the road teaching them that they should never encounter a cyclist there. Some drivers on non-motorway roads are oblivious to the very existence of cyclists too, of course, but that's a different category of stupid.

Surely the reasons entry/exit lanes are dangerous for cyclists are to do with the relative speed of cars and bikes?

a) cyclists would take a lot longer to pass the entry/exit lane and spend more time exposed to other traffic crossing their path

b) the large difference in the speed of a cyclist and other motorway traffic would make merging the two much harder. I imagine the reason we have entry/exit lanes is to accelerate or decelerate traffic to/from the speed of the other traffic on the motorway. Imagine you're joining a motorway, looking for a gap, and you see a cyclist -- it takes some time to calculate their speed and potentially a large adjustment in your own speed to fit in. Not much time for that at 100kph.

IMHO we're definitely not suited to riding on motorways.

rp

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know Cyclecraft's recommendation for crossing in front of slip roads on higher-speed routes is to wait at the side until the slip road is clear, cycle straight across the mouth of the slip road and then proceed as if you're joining the main road from the slip road.

IMHO, not one of John Franklin's better ideas: not only do you have often have to wait a long time on busy roads for it to be safe enough to cross from a standing start, but you also have to re-enter the main carriage way from an unexpected place (out of an off-ramp) and somehow merge with fast moving traffic. I'm still experimenting, but I find getting out of the bus lane (if any) well ahead of these junctions and taking a position well enough out to encourage following traffic that is turning off to slow and exit after you

tomasrojo

rp wrote: »

IMHO, not one of John Franklin's better ideas: not only do you have often have to wait a long time on busy roads for it to be safe enough to cross from a standing start, but you also have to re-enter the main carriage way from an unexpected place (out of an off-ramp) and somehow merge with fast moving traffic. I'm still experimenting, but I find getting out of the bus lane (if any) well ahead of these junctions and taking a position well enough out to encourage following traffic that is turning off to slow and exit after you

I've lent my copy of Cyclecraft to someone, so I can't check. It's possible I'm not representing his advice accurately. You probably have a point about waiting for a clear slip road being time-consuming, but I think proceeding as if you're joining from the slip road is fine. Cars on the main road have plenty of time to see you, as you're gradually re-joining the main road, and you're well away from traffic on the main road for a reasonable stretch.

I have used this method, but not in a while, as none of my routes currently involve crossing slip roads on high-speed roads. Thankfully.

TeddyTedson

coolbeans wrote: »

And how would you address the issue of hazardous slip roads? Would you expect motorists to slow down as you cross (continuing on m-way) while they exit, and similarly for accelerating motorists entering onto the m-way to ease off the gas if there's a cyclist proceeding (along the m-way)? I'm inherently against banning cyclists from any roads but there's good reason in this instance.

little tunnels perhaps? It might be an idea to try out..

Cookie_Monster

coolbeans wrote: »

To be fair you're moving the goal posts now. Slip roads on motorways are lethal for cyclists. You try and cross one while traffic enters/exits and come back to me. It's genuinely hazardous. I'm not talking about duallers as they're more of a grey area.

but aside from the illegality of cycling on a motorway what other difference is there between motorway and HQDC? None that I can see, same limits, same junctions, same build standard, yet it's perfectly fine (and legal) to cycle on HQDC.

I'm not going to cycle on the motorway but I've cycled across plenty of DC exits without issue, the N11 from Fassaroe to Delgany frequently.

Lumen

The problem here, from the perspective of legislation, is not whether a globe-circling-fast-but-hairy-Blorg can safety negotiate a m-way, it's whether your average RLJing-Apollo-riding-Hivispedestrianonabikewithasenseofentitlement can do so.

Unless you're going to introduce motorway licences for cyclists involving uphill time trials, you have to legislate for the majority.

Beasty

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but aside from the illegality of cycling on a motorway what other difference is there between motorway and HQDC? None that I can see, same limits, same junctions, same build standard, yet it's perfectly fine (and legal) to cycle on HQDC.

The speed limits are not the same - it's 100kph for a HQDC and 120kph for motorways

Roads built as motorways (as opposed to N-road conversions) often have very different junctions (look at the M1/M50 or M50/N3 intersections for example) that would be almost impossible for a cyclist to navigate, and "filter" lanes that can run for several kilometres between junctions

OK in Ireland we do have a kind of "hybrid" where the old N roads have been made into poor (I would suggest sub-) standard motorways, and yes you used to be able to cycle on them but now cannot, but the laws are there to be obeyed. Motorists would not and should not be expected to be keeping there eyes out for law-breaking cyclists on the hard shoulders or any other part of motorways

Cookie_Monster

Beasty wrote: »

The speed limits are not the same - it's 100kph for a HQDC and 120kph for motorways

there are HQDC with 120 kph limits
N1, N22 and N25 for example as per the roads forum under infrastructure.

rp

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've lent my copy of Cyclecraft to someone, so I can't check. It's possible I'm not representing his advice accurately. You probably have a point about waiting for a clear slip road being time-consuming, but I think proceeding as if you're joining from the slip road is fine. Cars on the main road have plenty of time to see you, as you're gradually re-joining the main road, and you're well away from traffic on the main road for a reasonable stretch.

You right: Franklin is only talking about passing the mouth of the on-ramp, which I don't find so problematic. Its the off-ramp behavior that bothers me - cars lashing past then cutting-in, just making the turn (usually on the cross hatching), only to end up breaking hard as the traffic ahead is stopped.
Some cyclists actually leave at each off-ramp and enter again, I dunno if that is safer or not: it certainly slows you down, and often increases the junctions to be negotiated (junctions = hazard).

GinjaNinja

saw guy coming off the M1 at white hall this morning. I was coming over the bridge. Hes got his double shorts and earphones in, I had to laugh. H was complete oblivious to all his surroundings.

On the topic of DC
Coming from Rush to Dublin the only route is the DC from blakes cross to Airport. In all fairness the DC are alot safer than Dublin City.

doozerie

Cookie_Monster wrote:

there are HQDC with 120 kph limits
N1, N22 and N25 for example as per the roads forum under infrastructure.

From what I understand, a road has to meet fairly stringent requirements to qualify for the title of motorway. I believe these requirement dictate not only how severe a bend the main carriageway itself can have but also such things as the severity of bends on entry/exit lanes, the width of entry/exit lanes, etc. I guess that they are all built around accommodating greater speed of traffic entering and exiting the motorway as well as traffic on it. In theory at least this makes the entry/exit lanes of a motorway faster stretches of road than entry/exit lanes of dual carriageways which adds to the dangers for cyclists.

And no, I don't know why or how roads like the N25 qualify for a speed limit of 120kph. Last time I drove on the N25 it was muck and I was hitting broken patches of road at 120kph and wondering what drugs the road authority were on. (Then I saw a guy cycling in the opposite direction in the hard shoulder beside me which confirmed that the quality of local drugs must be very high indeed!). Nor do I understand why the M50 qualifies for the title of motorway when its speed limit is 100kph.

doozerie

markdrayton wrote:

Surely the reasons entry/exit lanes are dangerous for cyclists are to do with the relative speed of cars and bikes?

Relative speeds certainly are part of the problem. The relative speeds would not be such an issue though if the motorway hard shoulders, which some people are suggesting are safe for cyclists to use, didn't intersect with the lanes used by motorised traffic at exits/entrances. So my point was that the theory of hard shoulders being safe is clearly not true when you consider their intersection with other lanes at junctions. Personally though I don't consider motorway hard shoulders safe even between junctions.

markdrayton wrote:

IMHO we're definitely not suited to riding on motorways.

I agree completely.

coolbeans

Lumen wrote: »

The problem here, from the perspective of legislation, is not whether a globe-circling-fast-but-hairy-Blorg can safety negotiate a m-way, it's whether your average RLJing-Apollo-riding-Hivispedestrianonabikewithasenseofentitlement can do so.

Unless you're going to introduce motorway licences for cyclists involving uphill time trials, you have to legislate for the majority.

Agreed, when you're making a law you've got to account for the lowest common denominator. No amount of whataboutery will get over the fact that most people lack very basic cycling skills and confidence. A

blorg

Nothing illegal about cycling on the N25 (other than the Jack Lynch tunnel.) I'd say the DC sections with hard shoulder are a lot safer than the non-DC sections towards Waterford too, which often have little or no hard shoulder. Not pleasant, but perfectly safe.

doozerie

I tried again to dig out some stats on incidents on motorway hard shoulders in Ireland. I couldn't find what I was looking for but did find some interesting stuff:

AA Ireland are supporting the RSA "Motorway Safety Campaign". They discuss the dangers of the hard shoulder on motorways and talk about one fairly nasty incident where a car drove into the hard shoulder and piled into a broken down car. That's just one incident, of course, but they provide some interesting stats on the number of motorway breakdowns the AA have attended in 2010 - 3,050 in total (of which 2,379 were during daylight hours). That accounts for AA member breakdowns only so the real breakdown figure would be higher, and when you factor in the cars that stop in the hard shoulder for reasons other than a breakdown then the number grows again. That's a lot of cars to be found in the hard shoulder. If you encounter a car in the hard shoulder while cycling there then you'll have to overtake it, possibly even having to leave the hard shoulder and enter the motorway inside lane to do so - good luck with that. And the advice for cars leaving the hard shoulder is to accelerate to motorway speed before exiting the hard shoulder - not much margin for error if you are cycling in a narrow hard shoulder with a car doing up to 120kph behind you.

Given the poor quality of motorway driving in Ireland generally, I think it would be beneficial for all drivers to read the RSA Motorway Driving guide. Those who advocate cycling on motorways might learn something from it too. This bit is sobering, for example:

Remember your total stopping distance at 120km per hour in dry conditions is 107.5 metres (27 car lengths). This is about the length of a soccer pitch.

blorg

That's an anecdote. If you look up actual stats you will find that motorways are overwhelmingly the safest roads in the country.

doozerie

blorg wrote:

That's an anecdote. If you look up actual stats you will find that motorways are overwhelmingly the safest roads in the country.

Yes it's an anecdote, hence my reference to it being "just one incident" i.e. it proves or disproves nothing. And yes, as far as I know there are fewer motorist deaths on motorways than on other roads, but that's no reflection on the safety, or not, of being in the hard shoulder.

Pedestrians don't fare well on motorways apparently, with 4 pedestrian deaths last year and 3 so far this year (drivers of broken down cars walking for help account for some of these so it's not just someone going for an adventure stroll along the motorway). So pedestrians account for half of the motorway deaths so far this year. More info here along with a ludicrous headline (well, it is the Independent!). They don't talk about whether the pedestrians who were killed were in the hard shoulder at the time but wherever they were presumably they were not seen by the driver(s) that hit them which doesn't bode well for cyclists on a motorway.

While motorways are statistically the safest roads on which to drive -- they are 10 times safer than older single-lane roads -- collisions tend to be more serious because vehicles travel at speeds of up to 120kmh.

A car travelling at 120kmh in dry conditions takes 107.5 metres to come to a stop -- the length of a football pitch.

Figures from the RSA show that, since 2005, more than 100 people have been killed or seriously injured after collisions on the motorway network.

Last year, eight people died and 14 were seriously injured -- the worst year since 2007.

A total of six people -- pedestrians and drivers -- have died on motorways so far this year .

The figures also show 40 people were killed on the motorway network since 2005. Most people killed were car users (22), followed by pedestrians (eight), HGV drivers (six), motorcyclists (three) and taxi drivers (one).

galwaycyclist

I said I'd dig something out on slip roads. This is from a Galway Cycling Campaign report that was circulated to Irish local authorities in 2002. In the meantime we have adopted UK design guidance so the reference below to RT181 is out of date.

Priority intersections: Slip-roads/Acceleration lanes and merges
Although the issue of slip-road type structures is primarily a matter for rural cyclists, it merits consideration here. Collisions at these locations are known to carry significantly increased risk of fatality and serious injury. In the UK, recorded accidents at slip-roads have a fatality rate that is six times higher than that on the network as a whole. The overall accident rate per cycle movement is also thought to be significantly higher. On dual carriageways it has been estimated that replacing a roundabout or signalised intersections with a grade separated slip-road results respectively in a fourfold to tenfold increase in the injury accident rate for cyclists[Ref]. About 85% of these collisions occur at slip-road entries, with the overwhelming proportion being of the "cyclist going ahead" type. UK design practice is thought to favour the use of triangular merges rather than separate acceleration lanes, and it is not known if this is a contributory factor in the high casualty rate.

Figure 13 Collisions at slip roads



Solutions
In the UK, a right-angled cycle crossing arrangement has been developed to direct cyclists across the slip-road entry at right angles. (See: Figure 14 Right-angled cycle crossing page 49) In the UK, this is used in conjunction with a length of cycle lane, in Ireland the standard hard shoulder marking should suffice. The same effect could be more readily and cheaply achieved by simply using revised ghost island markings showing a cycle gap. It is reported that an alternative treatment using a cycle lane marked across the mouth of the entry was found to be ineffective. Collisions involving exiting vehicles comprised about 12% of recorded crashes, but the equivalent "mirror image" right-angled crossing of the exit slip-road may not represent as ready a solution. Cyclists are likely to perceive this as a detour, and will also have problems both in observing following vehicles and determining their intended course. A gap could still be provided in any ghost island markings, but the most important requirement is to ensure that a cyclist at the road edge has a clear view of following traffic.


Figure 14 Right-angled cycle crossing: Dual-carriageway slip-road entry




Urban areas
In both the UK and Ireland, general road design guidance would seem to restrict the use of acceleration lanes and merge tapers to rural dual carriageways or roads of that character. According to RT181 Geometric Design Guidelines (intersections at grade); "Acceleration lanes should normally be provided at intersections on divided roads with design speeds of greater than 80 km/h. An acceleration lane should be provided on an undivided road only where the design speed of the road is greater than 80 km/h and where a design year turning volume of over 1,000 passenger car units per day would use the lane." In Ireland the next highest design speed allowed for by the national design guidelines is 100kph (60mph). The equivalent UK, design manual, Part 6 TD 42/95 Geometric Design of Major Minor Priority Junctions expresses a similar view: "Merging tapers shall only be used at dual carriageway junctions. They shall be provided where a "B" road joins an "A" dual carriageway road having a design speed of 85kph or above."

[Ref] Pedal cyclists at dual carriage-way slip roads, M.C. Williams and R.E. Layfield, Traffic Engineering and Control, pp. 597-600, November, 1987.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

That's an anecdote. If you look up actual stats you will find that motorways are overwhelmingly the safest roads in the country.

...because they don't have cyclists on them. :pac:

Cookie_Monster

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I said I'd dig something out on slip roads. This is from a Galway Cycling Campaign report that was circulated to Irish local authorities in 2002. In the meantime we have adopted UK design guidance so the reference below to RT181 is out of date.

why do you advocate the above solution which forces the cyclist to yield and likely stop despite the fact that being in the driving lane of the DC they have a right of way already?

Seems to me you're simply demoting cyclists to a class of lesser road user in that scenario, taking away their default right of way rather the addressing the actual issue, motorists not following existing rules correctly...

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why do you advocate the above solution which forces the cyclist to yield and likely stop despite the fact that being in the driving lane of the DC they have a right of way already?

Seems to me you're simply demoting cyclists to a class of lesser road user in that scenario, taking away their default right of way rather the addressing the actual issue, motorists not following existing rules correctly...

Yes I accept that accusation in part. The GCC and Cyclist.ie has been arguing in the first instance for the elimination of slip-road type junctions on urban roads with mixed traffic.

On the issue of arterial dual carriageways, where the distance between junctions "should" be measurable in kilometres, then relative to a typical commuter journey (5km), the delay experienced by a commuter cyclist at the above treatment should not be excessive.

Note also that there is no element of compulsion in the suggestion above (based on hard shoulders not cycle lanes) - its your choice to use it or not.

rp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Seems to me you're simply demoting cyclists to a class of lesser road user in that scenario, taking away their default right of way rather the addressing the actual issue, motorists not following existing rules correctly...

Agreed. I don't like that style of junction. It looks fine on paper, but out there you are put in the position in trying to judge speeds and accelerate across a lane of traffic (who has priority over you) and who are already speeding up to main carriageway speeds and are certainly not looking for vehicles joining at that point. You can of course wait for a suitable gap, but that might be a long time coming.
By staying on the main carriageway, and taking the primary position you should be exactly where the joining drivers are looking, and you can use the buffer space afforded by the primary position and your brakes to avoid cars not giving way.

galwaycyclist

rp wrote: »

By staying on the main carriageway, and taking the primary position you should be exactly where the joining drivers are looking, and you can use the buffer space afforded by the primary position and your brakes to avoid cars not giving way.

Taking the primary position is something that in my view has to be qualified by the prevailing traffic conditions. Here we are talking about speeds of 100 kph by following traffic. If you get hit full on by something moving at 100kph then the outcome for the cyclist is likely to be poor with a high risk of fatality. Remember the impact energies are proportional to the square of the speed. I would argue that caution needs to be taken about doing something on a dual carriageway that would be automatic on a 50kph urban street.

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Taking the primary position is something that in my view has to be qualified by the prevailing traffic conditions.

sure, it would be suicide just to pull out into the middle of the lane, but I gradually increase my distance from the road edge as I approach the on-ramp, so that I am more visible to the merging traffic, to discourage other cars sharing the lane with me at this point and to ensure I've 'buffer' - space to move into should I need it. Being driven into from behind, although as you say, would have a poor outcome, is also one of the rarest events - car drivers generally are looking at what is ahead of them, because their own safety depends upon it.

deman

Saw a cyclist in Tampere, Finland, a few weeks ago, stopped and questioned by police.

marmurr1916

blorg wrote: »

Cycling on motorways is not particularly dangerous; no more dangerous than cycling on a HQDC which is entirely legal. Small, busy roads are much more dangerous. I don't however cycle on motorways (in Ireland) as it is illegal and segregation is one of the reasons motorways are so safe in the first place.

So when a car travelling at 130km/h has a puncture and swerves into the hard shoulder, that's much safer?

blorg

marmurr1916 wrote: »

So when a car travelling at 130km/h has a puncture and swerves into the hard shoulder, that's much safer?

How often does this happen? How often does it happen right where you happen to be? The risks for cyclists, insofar as they exist on HQDCs are entry ramps, not the hard shoulder which is very safe.

Do you honestly think cycling on a motorway or HQDC hard shoulder is more dangerous than a narrow N road with no hard shoulder?

Again not endorsing riding on a motorway but a HQDC is entirely legal and has a similar level of safety.

Thinkingaboutit

Is there some sort of joke I'm just too slow to get? Cycling in the hard shoulder is foolish enough given how cars will pull in after running out of fuel or some other emergency, or some random stupid reason. A car moving from roughly 80 mph to maybe 60 mph or less for some exit/slipway will have no means of stopping safely when someone cycles across, no matter how much speed they dump. Whatever speed a person cycles at, or imagines themselves cycling at, it would be slower than the basic urban speed limit. Narrower roads are safer simply because the car will be moving at a slower pace, and the motorist can realistically brake or swerve if they fail to anticipate a cycling turning right, say. Say no to drugs or something.

blorg

@Thinkingaboutit- you may think this but narrow roads with no hard shoulder are far more dangerous than motorways or HQDCs and the accident stats back this up very strongly.