Should cycling take centre stage in Dublin's transport policy?

monument

There's been quite a few threads about cycling or cycling has been mention in threads about transport in general but a substance number of people are fairly dismissive.

Should they be? Should cycling take centre stage in Dublin's transport policy? If not, why not? And nobody is saying it suits everybody.

Here's a bit to think about (a collection of posts, links and other bits from the last few months or longer)...

Why is promoting cycling good for Dublin / the State / the government? Because successful promotion...

• Lowers traffic congestion — The more people on bikes, the more congestion becomes less and less of a problem — and this reduces economic loss and makes Dublin more attractive to business, tourism, and as a place to live.
• Costs less than providing public transport — One of the main reasons the Dutch and Dains invested in cycling is simply they would have had to invest a lot more in public transport otherwise.
• Helps tackle obesity and a wide range of related problems — This saves the State money on heath spending in the mid to long run.
• Leads to better mental health — Same as above, and also gets workers and students off to a fresher start to the day.
• Lowers deaths and injury — Increasing the amount of people cycling alone leads to an increase in safity for all road users URL="http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_Safety_in_Numbers.pdf"]1[/URL URL="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.abstract"]2[/URL [etc]
• Lowers pollution — Bicycle give off no air pollution and a tiny amount of noise pollution, which again saves on health spending.
• Makes our towns and cities more attractive to tourists and businesses — knock on affects go way beyond cycling.
• Lowers cost of road building and maintenance — Cars do damage to roads, bicycles don’t.

To expand on the health benefits, quoting from here:

Physically Active Persons:

• have lower rates of: coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, colon and breast cancer, and depression;
• have increased functionality, lower risk of falling and of hip or vertebral fractures;
• are more likely to maintain their weight and prevent weight gain
• have reduced levels of depression and better cognitive function. (USDHSS, 2008; WHO 2010

Most journeys are too far to cycle?

The stats say the opposite. There's huge amounts of people commuting distances which are very, very easy to cycle (5km or under) and very large amounts travelling distances which are easy to cycle (6-10km) and you'll even get a few people travelling further than that. And outside commutes distances are generally lower again. From the NTA, based on a 2006 survey:



From the NTA, based on the 2006 census, see this page, -- and note the map of areas at the bottom of the page and note the population shares of the areas (the majority by far are in and around the M50).

It's impossible to get many people on bikes? See this post showing all trips in the Netherlands, nationally (many of their cities are much higher again for cycling). And it's estimated at least 40% of all train commuters get to the station or home by bike.

What about the weather? We have better weather and less rain than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. See here.

gurramok

Also incentivise and subsidise electric bikes as lets face it most drivers(probably due to age) are simply not able to cycle for miles around especially on hills or on a windy day.

And continue to make cycle lanes 'off road', it will enhance the safety aspect of cycling.

CIARAN_BOYLE

gurramok wrote: »

And continue to make cycle lanes 'off road', it will enhance the safety aspect of cycling.

Also it would enhance safety for pedestrians since a large number of cyclists ignore on road cycle lanes and cycle on footpath

Cookie_Monster

gurramok wrote: »

And continue to make cycle lanes 'off road', it will enhance the safety aspect of cycling.

No, you're just marginalising cyclists by doing that. Put them on the road where they belong, not on some crappy, unmaintained, full of junk and glass and pedestrians pathway. Even some the best off road cycle lane (eg Fairview - Baldoyle) is overgrown, has crap priority at junctions and always has pedestrians walking in it.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Also it would enhance safety for pedestrians since a large number of cyclists ignore on road cycle lanes and cycle on footpath

I really doubt it's a "high number".
Sounds to me more like a throwaway comment having a go at cyclists..

CIE

It's imposable to get many people on bikes?

Why would you want to impose it?

Something smacks of Luddism here.

-Chris-

I don't think anything was said about imposing anything, I read the OP as more about encouraging than imposing tbh.

mikemac

monument wrote: »

What about the weather? We have better weather and less rain than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. See here.

I hear that a lot in work when I say I cycle.
And realy I don't blame them, I used to think the same, sure everyone knows it never stops raining in Ireland.....

But from starting to cycle I found it rains far less then I thought it did. There are months when I can count on one hand how many mornings it has rained.

And rain isn't a big deal anyway, you can get rain gear but if it's a mild day then shorts and and a T shirt will equally do, you'll be getting wet anyway so it doesn't matter

Cycling in the rain isn't unpleasant

Rock of Gibraltar

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, you're just marginalising cyclists by doing that. Put them on the road where they belong, not on some crappy, unmaintained, full of junk and glass and pedestrians pathway. Even some the best off road cycle lane (eg Fairview - Baldoyle) is overgrown, has crap priority at junctions and always has pedestrians walking in it.

That's a crazy statement, I'm living in the Netherlands at the moment and there are tonnes of separated cycle tracks here. They have the exact opposite effect of marginalising cyclists, they're brilliant. Much safer and you don't get that niggling fear that you might be run over by a bus that you get in Dublin.

Just because cycle infrastructure isn't well maintained in Ireland doesn't mean the model can't work, we just need to get better at it.
Dublin needs a core road separated network of cycle tracks, complimented by on-road lanes on secondary and side roads. As far as I can see that's the only way to get commuters out of their cars and onto bikes in serious numbers.

bk

Absolutely Rock of Gibraltar, the problem in Ireland is that cycling is just an after thought for the city councils.

Most engineers in the city councils are road engineers and have no idea of cycling best practices or even cycle themselves. They just stick down crap cycle lanes everywhere with no thought to their suitability

What needs to change is peoples thinking. We need a top down policy that cycling comes first and all road engineering, maintenance, etc. needs to be primarily focused on cycling, followed by bus second and then only cars.

But they aren't they are too focused on cars and making sure they continue to get the revenue from paid parking fees. Not only does cycling suffer from this, but so does buses, etc.

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, you're just marginalising cyclists by doing that. Put them on the road where they belong, not on some crappy, unmaintained, full of junk and glass and pedestrians pathway. Even some the best off road cycle lane (eg Fairview - Baldoyle) is overgrown, has crap priority at junctions and always has pedestrians walking in it.

Marginalised?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvquSD2PcCE

CIE wrote: »

Why would you want to impose it?

As Chris said, I did not say anything about imposing it, but rather encouraging it and making it a more attractive option for more and more people. It's about giving choice.

Why you should want it is partly outlined in my first post -- but here it is from the perspective of the individualise rather than the government, for those who choose the bicycle they get:

• Use of the most efficient vehicle, with...
• The most reliability and predictably (travel times etc)
• More enjoyable than waiting in traffic or on public transport
• Faster for a huge amount of trips
• Cheaper than everything but walking, which is slower
• More flexible than public transport
• Generally more direct than public transport (no changes, and no walking to stops / stations) and sometimes also more direct than the car (ie bus gate, contra-flow for cyclists etc)
• Better for your physical fitness, general health and mental health -- makes it less likely to get heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, diabetes, colon and breast cancer, and depression; lowers risk of falling and of hip or vertebral fractures
• Better for the city and the wider environment

Even those who do not choose the bike get the benefits a better city, a cleaner city, a city which is more attractive to business and tourism, less disruption to public transport (cars block the path of buses and trams, bicycles usually don't), safer roads, and the knock on effects of the saving for the state.

Fairly good reasons? Don't you think?

CIE wrote: »

Something smacks of Luddism here.

Luddism, really?

To me, ignoring or disregarding the most efficient mode of transport (bar none) smacks of Luddism. Ignoring something which could play a central roll in tackling congestion, obesity, heart disease and the other already listed health problems, air and noise population, lowering dependency on energy imports, and do other things like saving the state and individuals money.

What exactly is Luddite-like about promoting the bicycle as the key part of our transport system?

Antikythera

-Chris- wrote: »

I don't think anything was said about imposing anything, I read the OP as more about encouraging than imposing tbh.

OP rhetorically asks if getting people on bikes is imposable. I say in a free society, no, it's not imposable. People should be given the choice.

-Chris-

Antikythera wrote: »

OP rhetorically asks if getting people on bikes is imposable. I say in a free society, no, it's not imposable. People should be given the choice.

Huh?

L1011

-Chris- wrote: »

Huh?

The typo of impossible to imposable turns it from a question about whether you can't get people to use bikes to one about whether you can force people to use bikes. Which I doubt is what was meant.

bk

It is clear from the Netherlands and other examples that you don't need to force people to cycle. If you give people the right infrastructure, they will choose to cycle in massive numbers.

We have seen that ourselves with the massively successful Dublin Bike scheme.

-Chris-

MYOB wrote: »

The typo of impossible to imposable turns it from a question about whether you can't get people to use bikes to one about whether you can force people to use bikes. Which I doubt is what was meant.

Ah, a grammar correction. A typically worthwhile contribution... :rolleyes:

CIE

MYOB wrote: »

The typo of impossible to imposable turns it from a question about whether you can't get people to use bikes to one about whether you can force people to use bikes. Which I doubt is what was meant.

Is that what it was. Well, apologies for taking it literally then. I do expect anything under the EU, though, what with stuff like the "working time directive" and outlawing habeas corpus.

monument

Typo corrected, the question remains:

Should cycling become the central part of Dublin's transport policy?

Along with all the money and use of road space that would include.

Antikythera

-Chris- wrote: »

Huh?

Eh?

spank_inferno

No, because its chasing after the horse after it already bolted.

And that horse is housing planning.

I just think dublin is too spread out, & lacks density to make cycling viable.#
(and thats not to mention the hills, the wind... the rain!)

I'm sure most journey's taken are less than 5kms.
However if I was to cycle 5kms it would take my about 30 mins and I'd addive sweating like a hog.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I really doubt it's a "high number".
Sounds to me more like a throwaway comment having a go at cyclists..

I walk through Rathmines twice daily an area with an on road cycle path. I see an average of four cyclists on the footpath a day in this area.

I feel its a high number but that may be because I've seen a few incidents when cyclists speed down the foot path and hit a pedestrian.

monument

spank_inferno wrote: »

No, because its chasing after the horse after it already bolted.

Horse owners have to chase after horses even if the horses manage to bolt.

And we would be in good company chasing after the horse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn2s6ax_7TM

spank_inferno wrote: »

And that horse is housing planning.

I just think dublin is too spread out, & lacks density to make cycling viable.#

The stats in my opening post disprove that. While not every trip will be suited to cycling, most trips are cyclable distances.

spank_inferno wrote: »

(and thats not to mention the hills, the wind... the rain!)

Dublin is relatively flat and most of urban Dublin has few large hills.

As already mention, Dublin has better weather and less rain than Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Copenhagen is known to be windy and is very windy at times, sounds like somewhere else?

spank_inferno wrote: »

I'm sure most journey's taken are less than 5kms.
However if I was to cycle 5kms it would take my about 30 mins and I'd addive sweating like a hog.

Is basing transport policy on the current (untested?) fitness and speed of one person not a bit flawed? When was the last time you tried cycling 5km?

But if cycling 5km takes you 30mins, you'd only be going 10km/h. Very few people would sweat at all cycling that slow speed. And even at the slow speed of 10km/h you'd be travelling about the same speed of a lot of cars stuck in traffic, or faster than cars in many areas, and you'd be faster than public transport takes from door to door for most people.

Most people can travel faster than 10km over short distances like 5km without
"sweating like a hog."

bk

spank_inferno wrote: »

I'm sure most journey's taken are less than 5kms.
However if I was to cycle 5kms it would take my about 30 mins and I'd addive sweating like a hog.

Even a slow cyclist could do it in 20 minutes (15km/h), which is probably much faster then car or bus for most journeys in the city.

You certainly shouldn't be sweating if you are cycling at only 15km/h, not unless you are totally unfit. You use the same energy cycling at 15km/h as you do walking at the average pace of 5km/h.

How can 40% of people in Amsterdam cycle 5km to work everyday without any of the above issues?

I think you are just looking for excuses where there aren't any.

monument

bk wrote: »

How can 40% of people in Amsterdam cycle 5km to work everyday without any of the above issues?

It's worth pointing out, this is how people dress in Amsterdam while cycling:

Patser

What exactly do you mean by making cycling central to transport planning?

Already cycling is being massively promoted and subsidised; with new cycle paths (like the one along the Grand Canal from Clondalkin on in), subsidies like the Bike to Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme and annual events - Sky Ride, Naked Bike ride etc. With Montague now being Mayor of Dublin I can see these events becoming even more high profile.

Your suggestions seem to be entirely based on bikes being better than cars for commuters but ignores the fact that road investment and improvements are there for more than just cars. Public transport still needs to be central IMO - since cycling is not an option for everyone with distance and disabilities both being big issues. Also Dublin being still a very active commercial city, commercial vehicles are unavoidable, you're just going to need delivery vans, couriers etc moving around. So pushing Cycling to the top of the agenda to the detriment of these seems a bit lopsided.

JuliusCaesar

Patser wrote: »

Public transport still needs to be central IMO - since cycling is not an option for everyone with distance and disabilities both being big issues. Also Dublin being still a very active commercial city, commercial vehicles are unavoidable, you're just going to need delivery vans, couriers etc moving around.

If the private car travel in Dublin was massively reduced by having better public transport and cycling, you'd still have a huge improvement in traffic.

Has anyone got any numbers from the Cycle Counter at the Grand Canal near Harolds Cross? It always seems to have a massive number of cycles passing, going by the 'so far today' total count. (Around 350 when I last passed about 3pm the other day:

Over 1,250 cyclists passed by the counter in its first 24 hours, between 10am on Monday and Tuesday, before it was reset for a photoshoot with the lord mayor.

)

PseudoFamous

I feel that cycling should not take centre stage, but rail based transport should. A large proportion of the congestion is caused by cars from outside the city limits. It takes approx 85 minutes (on the bus) to get from Arklow to Butt Bridge, a distance of 76km (average 54km/h). The same journey usually takes upwards of 100 minutes on the train (average 43km/h).

If public transport outside of Dublin was improved, a significant amount of traffic would be eliminated from the city centre, as people would choose the faster, more economical choice.

To me, a train taking that much longer than a bus to get into the city centre is pretty abysmal, and I feel that improving train speed and decreasing costs should be the main priority for the Department of Transport. The main bottleneck for the train is between Greystones and the city centre, and adding another set of tracks exclusively for commuter and intercity trains would slash a fair chunk off the time. I don't have a lot of experience of any other lines, bar the Drogheda one, which suffered the same bottleneck from Malahide inwards.

Chinasea

It totally should - but depressingly I have been having this conversation for the last 30 years and we seem to be no further down the em er road..

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

pic of fairly attractive cycling lady

tut tut, not even watching where she is going

What would be more useful than cycle lanes and that kind of hard infrastructure is allowing you to bring 2-3 bikes on a bus, like this:



Improves the flexibility of the whole system, similar should apply to Luas (though space is more an issue here I think), it's great that DART and Commuter already allow it (at times).

This combined with better priority on existing infrastructure (quicker lights in places, short lanes at certain junctions like this http://maps.google.com/?ll=-39.062682,174.064465&spn=0.008814,0.021136&hnear=New+Plymouth,+Taranaki,+New+Zealand&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=-39.06271,174.064344&panoid=o_vrlzsZSQZbXZk5ZjDfWQ&cbp=12,249.33,,0,-1.73 to make it more obvious to all traffic and binning the requirement to use lanes over the road (the odd time that they are legal))

bk

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I feel that cycling should not take centre stage, but rail based transport should.

Ideally they should go hand in hand. Look at the video of Amsterdam posted above.

High quality and safe bike parking and rental facilities at train stations so people can cycle to and from the train station to complete their journey.

Watching the video above I was shocked at the size and quality of the manned bike parking facilities. We really should have similar manned bike parking facilities at Hueston, Connolly, Tara and Pearse at least.

HivemindXX

Patser wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by making cycling central to transport planning?

Already cycling is being massively promoted and subsidised; with new cycle paths (like the one along the Grand Canal from Clondalkin on in), subsidies like the Bike to Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme and annual events - Sky Ride, Naked Bike ride etc. With Montague now being Mayor of Dublin I can see these events becoming even more high profile.

Your suggestions seem to be entirely based on bikes being better than cars for commuters but ignores the fact that road investment and improvements are there for more than just cars. Public transport still needs to be central IMO - since cycling is not an option for everyone with distance and disabilities both being big issues. Also Dublin being still a very active commercial city, commercial vehicles are unavoidable, you're just going to need delivery vans, couriers etc moving around. So pushing Cycling to the top of the agenda to the detriment of these seems a bit lopsided.

I agree that there have been some good moves recently, the Dublin Bike scheme most notably. I also agree that concentrating entirely on bicycles is not the way to go, it should be one of the main planks of the transport strategy but not the only one. There are already public transport improvements going on, the LUAS, real time bus timetables etc.

However I think you might have a misapprehension of how much effort is being put in to cycle infrastructure. In my opinion the majority of the off road cycle lanes in the city are a joke, a bit of paint is thrown down on the footpath and that's it. As soon as the road narrows or a complex junction appears the cycle lane either disappears or veers away. The Grand Canal cycle route is a good example, when I cycled along it I had to get off my bike 10+ times to open gates, I'd prefer to use the roads. Having a few annual events hardly counts as improving infrastructure.

As far as imposing cycling on people I don't think that's necessary or intended. It's quite frequent for people to tell me that they'd love to cycle but... If you take away some of the excuses by improving infrastructure and getting people to realise cycling 5k isn't like running a marathon a lot of people will eagerly take to cycling and every one that does improves things for motorists as well since in a lot of cases every bike on the road means one less car and despite complaints about bicycles an extra car on the road will slow down traffic more than an extra bike.

hardCopy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Improves the flexibility of the whole system, similar should apply to Luas (though space is more an issue here I think), it's great that DART and Commuter already allow it (at times).

The first time I finally saw a bike on the DART was some poor tourist who brought her bike into town after an Irish match in Lansdowne. All went well until she tried to exit the carriage at Pearse Station.

It made me realise why they're not allowed at rush hour!

AngryLips

Rock of Gibraltar wrote: »

That's a crazy statement, I'm living in the Netherlands at the moment and there are tonnes of separated cycle tracks here. They have the exact opposite effect of marginalising cyclists, they're brilliant. Much safer and you don't get that niggling fear that you might be run over by a bus that you get in Dublin.

As a someone who cycles daily I would be against segregated cycle lanes. One thing you notice about cyclists on the continent is that they cycle at a far more leisurely pace. Segregated cycle lanes wouldn't suit the style of cycling that's more commonplace here.

monument

Patser wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by making cycling central to transport planning?

For starters: Taking the national cycle policy seriously and implementing it as quickly as possible. For state bodies to start taking the Dublin City target of 20% modal share for cycling seriously – and even start to look beyond it.

Look at stepping up funding, looking at improving the current on road network of cycle lanes, possibly giving more road space over to cycle lanes or segregated cycle tracks along main routes, continued or a quicker investment in bicycle parking in key areas in the city centre and other retail centres, and quickly completing the off road network along Dublin Bay and the canals – completed to a very high standard and without the “features” such as kissing gates and cobblestone which can be spotted in the recent routes.

Patser wrote: »

Already cycling is being massively promoted and subsidised;

There’s some really good stuff, and then it’s mixed after that. Cycling is been promoted fairly poorly in a lot of cases -- the promotion of high-vis and helmets and the general depiction of cyclists in such gear, is against the promotion of normal cycling and greater safety vie the only proven method – safety in numbers.

Patser wrote: »

...with new cycle paths (like the one along the Grand Canal from Clondalkin on in),

You're joking right? Or you don't know much about that cycle path? From Inchicore to Adamstown it's about 9km and, depending on where you're going at the Adamstown end, you have 11-12 pedestrian "kissing gates" which require cyclists to fully dismount -- gates which are unsuited to any bike and make the route imposable or next to for cargo bikes, bike trailers, tandems and fully loaded touring bikes.

What other new cycle paths has there been in Dublin in the last two or three years?

The Sutton to Sandycove route along Dublin Bay has been in the pipe line for years but at this rate I'd be surprised to see it near completion at any stage in the next 10 years.

Patser wrote: »

...subsidies like the Bike to Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme and annual events - Sky Ride, Naked Bike ride etc. With Montague now being Mayor of Dublin I can see these events becoming even more high profile.

The tax break on bikes has been a great way of getting people on bikes, and Dublin Bikes so-far has been a success beyond even its promoter's dreams -- quickly funding the Dublin Bikes expansion plans and thinking far beyond them could be a next logical step.

Sky Ride was nice but the focus on high-vis is detrimental to promoting cycling as a normal means of transport and Naked Bikes might also be fun but is no more than a fringe event.

Patser wrote: »

Your suggestions seem to be entirely based on bikes being better than cars for commuters but ignores the fact that road investment and improvements are there for more than just cars.

Err... what? I did not make any argument against road investment?

Are you referring to my point that greater use of the bicycle "Lowers cost of road building and maintenance — Cars do damage to roads, bicycles don’t" ...I'm happy to add in "and bus" after the word "Cars". But if it's this point you're arguing against, I don't know what your point is.

Patser wrote: »

Public transport still needs to be central IMO - since cycling is not an option for everyone with distance and disabilities both being big issues.

Sure have pubic transport central, but what's the harm having cycling as the most centre part of policy?

Please debate with the figures -- or dispute my figures already posted if you can. I said cycling will not suit everybody (for a wide range of reasons), and, even among the people who it does, for some it suit taking the car/bus/train/tram one day but the bike another. Cycling can suit a huge majority of people and the it does suit the majority of distances -- as already posted, have a look at the figures of distances travelled and population percentages in the different parts of the GDA, see this link.

Patser wrote: »

Also Dublin being still a very active commercial city, commercial vehicles are unavoidable, you're just going to need delivery vans, couriers etc moving around. So pushing Cycling to the top of the agenda to the detriment of these seems a bit lopsided.

Who said anything about stopping commercial activity? The commercial activity still happens in Dutch and Danish cities and in other cities elsewhere with large cycling modal share. In fact, getting more people out of cars makes streets freer for delivery vans etc.

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I feel that cycling should not take centre stage, but rail based transport should. A large proportion of the congestion is caused by cars from outside the city limits. It takes approx 85 minutes (on the bus) to get from Arklow to Butt Bridge, a distance of 76km (average 54km/h). The same journey usually takes upwards of 100 minutes on the train (average 43km/h).

If public transport outside of Dublin was improved, a significant amount of traffic would be eliminated from the city centre, as people would choose the faster, more economical choice.

To me, a train taking that much longer than a bus to get into the city centre is pretty abysmal, and I feel that improving train speed and decreasing costs should be the main priority for the Department of Transport. The main bottleneck for the train is between Greystones and the city centre, and adding another set of tracks exclusively for commuter and intercity trains would slash a fair chunk off the time. I don't have a lot of experience of any other lines, bar the Drogheda one, which suffered the same bottleneck from Malahide inwards.

A few problems with your post:

• In the Greater Dublin Area, the people who travel 70km are in the minority, and while I agree that these people need to be helped in getting where they are going to, they can't be too central to transport policy -- only about 2% of trips are made from the hinterland to the city centre.
• Most people live within the M50 (nearly 50%) and around it closely enough (a bit under 30%) and even those who live in the hinterland, a lot don't travel that far.
• While there is scope to improve rail connection and upgrade railway lines, the best value for money is when this is mostly done not too far away from the urban areas around the M50.
• You still need local transport solutions -- ie the bicycle is used in the Netherlands by at least 40% of rail commuters. The bicycle complements rail and vice versa.
• Ticket prices are not going to be decreased at a time where Irish Rail's subsidy is being slashed.
• Whatever about the Northern line, there's no room for a third track most of the way between Greystones and the city centre.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What would be more useful than cycle lanes and that kind of hard infrastructure is allowing you to bring 2-3 bikes on a bus, like this:

Improves the flexibility of the whole system, similar should apply to Luas (though space is more an issue here I think), it's great that DART and Commuter already allow it (at times).

This combined with better priority on existing infrastructure (quicker lights in places, short lanes at certain junctions like this...

Bike on public transport is good and can be very useful, but will always be the roads where bikes are used the most -- so improvements to all sorts of roads for cyclists will be far more useful. The existing road infrastructure is designed for motorised transport and it'll need more than small tweaks to change things.

Aard

For me, the best thing that could be done is to paint contra flow lanes in town. There's literally no way of getting from Grafton St to the Northside without going down Westmoreland St (pain in the ass and generally out of the way) or over the cobblestones of Temple Bar. If you were able to go down Parliament St, that would make things much easier.

As an aside, I find busses in town are generally grand to cycle beside. Their drivers are pretty vigilant. The worst are the suits and yummymummies in SUVs.

AlekSmart

AngryLips wrote: »

As a someone who cycles daily I would be against segregated cycle lanes. One thing you notice about cyclists on the continent is that they cycle at a far more leisurely pace. Segregated cycle lanes wouldn't suit the style of cycling that's more commonplace here.

Perhaps,to come at this from a different angle,we could agree with the OP's "Cycling Centre Stage" proposition....IF the cycling lobby were to agree to being integrated with then other forms of Road User,the mechanically propelled ones.

Introduce a compulsory Cycle Registration scheme,an annual Cycling Social Charge and associated Insurance for all cyclists.

I see little negative in this suggestion as,for example,the other two-wheeled lobby,the MOTORcyclist is substantially discriminated against by the apparatus of state.

There are few voices raised in demand for more Motorcycle parking bays,more motorcycle access to Bus Lanes and pedestrian areas,yet the mororcyclist pays registration charges,road tax,rider licencing and assorted compulsory basic and ongoing training levies to the State.

I would suggest to the cycling lobbyists that perhaps contributing FINANCIALLY to the State may well bring more in tyhe way of recognition than simply expecting stuff to be provided on the basis of a healthy outlook alone ????

monument

AlekSmart wrote: »

Introduce a compulsory Cycle Registration scheme,an annual Cycling Social Charge and associated Insurance for all cyclists.

Why would the state tax something it is trying to actively promote? What is a "compulsory Cycle Registration scheme" and "Cycling Social Charge" and how would these work? How much will they cost and how much will they cost to administer? Can you name one country, city or region which has successfully implemented a cycle / cyclists / bicycle registration scheme or such a "cycling charge"? Do children have to pay these charges? What about teenagers? Tourists on their own bikes? Dublin Bike users? Who collects and enforces them? How do you tell the difference between a child, teenage and adult or between tourist or other visitor and resident?

If the idea is for cyclists to "pay their way", will the same happen with highly subsisted public transport users? And given the current motor tax system is based on emissions / engine size, if a zero engine and zero emissions bicycle is to be taxed, will tax go up for other vehicles?

As for insurance -- that's even more laughable. There's as much need for mandatory insurance for cyclists as there is for pedestrians -- ie none. Increasing the amount of cyclists increases the amount of safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists -- see references in my first post. Or maybe I'm totally wrong, what is the need for mandatory insurance for cyclists?

AlekSmart wrote: »

I see little negative in this suggestion as,for example,the other two-wheeled lobby,the MOTORcyclist is substantially discriminated against by the apparatus of state.

There are few voices raised in demand for more Motorcycle parking bays,more motorcycle access to Bus Lanes and pedestrian areas,yet the mororcyclist pays registration charges,road tax,rider licencing and assorted compulsory basic and ongoing training levies to the State.

There's no such thing as road tax. It's motor tax. A bicycle has zero emissions and no motor other than the human on it -- and going down the road of taxing a person for excise is daftness. Motorcyclists are not allowed in bus lanes for safety reasons -- not that that stops them from using bus and cycle lanes.

Licencing and compulsory training was mainly introduced for motorcyclists for the same reasons as general motorists -- they are driving relatively large, heavy, powerful vehicles. Training is needed for cyclists -- the national cycle manual aims to put it in the school curriculum (as done in other countries), in the meantime maybe compulsory training for misbehaving cyclist could be a good idea.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would suggest to the cycling lobbyists that perhaps contributing FINANCIALLY to the State may well bring more in tyhe way of recognition

Given that the vast majority of cyclists are also car owners and are likely to continue to be car owners, cyclists already do contribute. Even in the Netherlands where cycling is much more popular, people who are only cyclists or only motorists are in the minority -- most people are both.

And bicycles are not really the same as motor vehicles, are they? A bicycle emits a tiny, tiny fraction of the noise, emits no air pollution, is safer for all road users, takes up far less room to park and move, does no damage to roads, and while also doing many positive things other modes of transport don't do, as listed in the opening post and again below.

AlekSmart wrote: »

...than simply expecting stuff to be provided on the basis of a healthy outlook alone ????

Did you read my opening post?

Do you have any idea of the cost to the state of congestion, public transport, air and noise pollution, obesity, general inactivity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, diabetes, colon and breast cancer, depression, fractures?

Why would you tax something that helps reduce these costs?

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

Introduce a compulsory Cycle Registration scheme,an annual Cycling Social Charge and associated Insurance for all cyclists.

bikes are not dangerous enough to warrant a registration requirement unlike cars etc

What would a cycling social charge entail exactly, as has already been discussed at length many times, cycling saves the government and society money; less traffic, less pollution, less PT needed (eventually), healthier population, less severe crashes and associated costs, less enforcement costs, less road maintenance costs, less time lost to traffic and so on and on and on

And again on insurance is not really needed, there should be no compulsory insurance on cars etc anyway. But as a cyclist you can get insurance of cycling Ireland for a very small amount (reflective of the safe nature and low impact of cycling, compared to the 100's-1000's it costs to insure a car)

I see little negative in this suggestion as,for example,the other two-wheeled lobby,the MOTORcyclist is substantially discriminated against by the apparatus of state.

you cannot group cyclists and bikers in such a manner. Motorbikes fall into the same bracket as cars in almost every respect that matters, rather than being like bicycles.

There are few voices raised in demand for more Motorcycle parking bays,more motorcycle access to Bus Lanes and pedestrian areas,yet the mororcyclist pays registration charges,road tax,rider licencing and assorted compulsory basic and ongoing training levies to the State.

Because, like driving a car, you are in charge of a high powered vehicle that can do a lot of damage and this risk needs to be assessed and minimised via licensing and testing. They don't pay road tax either, they pay motor tax, for having a motor. Bicycles don't have a motor so don't have to pay it. It's nothing to do with roads!!!

Motorbikes can use car spaces without issue so that's also not a problem.
As for access to pedestrian areas, again they are high power machines and will cause accidents in places like that

I would suggest to the cycling lobbyists that perhaps contributing FINANCIALLY to the State may well bring more in the way of recognition than simply expecting stuff to be provided on the basis of a healthy outlook alone ????

never mind the VAT, the prsi and paye and CT from bike shops...
never mind that most cyclists will also have a car and pay motor tax, fuel duty, VAT, VRT and tolls.
never mind that most cyclists will contribute to the state via paye and prsi anyway.

Roads are provided for all, and if anything pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders etc have more of a right to use them than motor vehicles as they can do so freely without the need for licensing or the requirement to prove they can operate the machine in a safe manner or without spewing out noxious pollution or burning vast amounts of fuel.

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

...

snap

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Bikes are not dangerous enough to warrant a registration requirement unlike cars etc

I'm not suggesting a "Danger Tax",and that is not why Motor Vehicles are registered and taxed,but I suppose it could be said to be an issue warranting further investigation,as most non-fatal Bicycle accidents tend to go unreported.

What would a cycling social charge entail exactly, as has already been discussed at length many times, cycling saves the government and society money; less traffic, less pollution, less PT needed (eventually), healthier population, less severe crashes and associated costs, less enforcement costs, less road maintenance costs, less time lost to traffic and so on and on and on

All of the above merits are,I suggest,debateable when suggested as a panacea to the listed problems,and there may well be problems associated with Mass Cycling which are currently not seen ?

And again on insurance is not really needed, there should be no compulsory insurance on cars etc anyway. But as a cyclist you can get insurance of cycling Ireland for a very small amount (reflective of the safe nature and low impact of cycling, compared to the 100's-1000's it costs to insure a car)

NO insurance for cars..?...Can you expand a tad on this suggestion
The low premium rate for cyclists has far more to do with the Underwriter having little insurable risk to cover rather than any admission that cycling per se,is ultra safe.
If cyclists were expected to bear the same degree of responsibility as Motor Vehicle owners and drivers that premium situation would alter,tout-suite.

You cannot group cyclists and bikers in such a manner. Motorbikes fall into the same bracket as cars in almost every respect that matters,rather than being like bicycles.

I would rather group it into terms of two-wheeled vs 4 wheeled and above,using the relative manouverability and unpredictability as the measurement,but again,the issue is debateable.

Because, like driving a car, you are in charge of a high powered vehicle that can do a lot of damage and this risk needs to be assessed and minimised via licensing and testing. They don't pay road tax either, they pay motor tax, for having a motor. Bicycles don't have a motor so don't have to pay it. It's nothing to do with roads!!!

Again,the notion of cycling as an entirely free concept is being ever more challenged by the flood of electro-bikes and electrically assisted machines now becoming popular (and problematical) on our streets.
Many of the Cycle shops make great play of the "NO Road Tax" element in their advertising as they quite nonchalantly drive cycling as a whole into the arms of the Revenue Commissioners.
Given that the thread is all about increasing Cyclings profile and establishing it as a main line transport option,it stands to reason that it IS all about roads...particularly allocating more road-space to cycling and cyclists...this space presumably to be taken from some other mechainzed sector already paying for it..?


Motorbikes can use car spaces without issue so that's also not a problem.
As for access to pedestrian areas, again they are high power machines and will cause accidents in places like that.

I would regularly (daily) see evidence to the contrary on Dublin's pedestrianized streets,whereas I would rarely see a motorcyclist riding along Grafton or Henry Streets,I regularly see cyclists,particularly vocational ones (couriers) displaying great prowess as they weave (at speed) through the pedestrians...sadly some don't always make it through without incident.


Never mind the VAT, the prsi and paye and CT from bike shops...
Never mind that most cyclists will also have a car and pay motor tax, fuel duty, VAT, VRT and tolls.
Never mind that most cyclists will contribute to the state via paye and prsi anyway.

All the Taxation issues are indeed true,but relatively speaking the Motor and Motorcycle industries and their customers are paying substantially more.
The thrust of some arguement here appears to centre on placing Cycling at the CORE of Transport Policy,thus replacing the current Motor focused CORE ...that is laudable in so many ways,but it cannot come free of charge...If cycling wants to be at the CORE it will have to assume some of the costs curently levied on the other CORE elements....:)


Roads are provided for all, and if anything pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders etc have more of a right to use them than motor vehicles as they can do so freely without the need for licensing or the requirement to prove they can operate the machine in a safe manner or without spewing out noxious pollution or burning vast amounts of fuel.

Very valid and true,the Road Traffic Acts are framed and enacted from the perspective that Vehicular Traffic (Including Cyclists) must give way at all times to pedestrians...at ALL times...there's no grey area at all.

Again the issue of operator licencing and the ability to prove competency in operation is a given and again is something which the Cycling lobby will have to give some thought to in it's quest for a more dominant role in Transport Policy...if it seeks this increased role then it (and cyclists generally) will have to acept the State's requirements on attaining a set qualification....somebody once said " Be Careful what you wish for...lest you get it"......that may well be sound advice for many cyclists ?

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

NO insurance for cars..?...Can you expand a tad on this suggestion

expand how? There are many many countries that do not require mandatory car insurance, seems to work perfectly fine for them.


(NZ does not require insurance, you can get it if you like.
I got it, 270 EUR for fully comp on a 2002, 3.5L Mitsubishi Diamante for me and the gf , would easily cost 10 times that in Ireland :D:D)

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

expand how? There are many many countries that do not require mandatory car insurance, seems to work perfectly fine for them.


(NZ does not require insurance, you can get it if you like.
I got it, 270 EUR for fully comp on a 2002, 3.5L Mitsubishi Diamante for me and the gf , would easily cost 10 times that in Ireland :D:D)

Perhaps a little disingenuous Cookie.....NZ has a slightly different (and almost unique) insurance and liability code (The Accident Compensation Corporation,ACC) as you probably know,but it does certainly not result in uninsured Motorists....;)

Some interesting information and contrary opinion here...

http://www.acc.co.nz/for-individuals/other-motorists/index.htm

http://www.nzila.org/conferences/2005/materials/Compulsory%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Insurance%20121005%20-%201100.pdf

monument

You have not replied to any of my reply, but anyway let's deal with the reply to Cookie_Monster's post...

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a "Danger Tax",and that is not why Motor Vehicles are registered and taxed,but I suppose it could be said to be an issue warranting further investigation,as most non-fatal Bicycle accidents tend to go unreported.

As per the recent HSE research, most non-fatal motoring accidents go unreported. The cost of motoring accidents is far, far higher than expected. While tax is not mainly applied as "danger tax", but cars are mainly or at least started to be registered because of their power.

As already posted in my last reply and opening post, more cycling increases safety for all road users. See references in opening post.

AlekSmart wrote: »

All of the above merits are,I suggest,debateable when suggested as a panacea to the listed problems,and there may well be problems associated with Mass Cycling which are currently not seen

Ones the Dains and Dutch have not already found???

Fear of the unknown!? Is that the danger here?

AlekSmart wrote: »

The low premium rate for cyclists has far more to do with the Underwriter having little insurable risk to cover rather than any admission that cycling per se,is ultra safe.
If cyclists were expected to bear the same degree of responsibility as Motor Vehicle owners and drivers that premium situation would alter,tout-suite.

Cycling is safe. The more and more people who cycle, the safer roads become for all road users, and mass cycling is ultra safe. Even with cycling around traffic, the British Medical Association says cycling significantly outweigh any increased risk of injury.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Again,the notion of cycling as an entirely free concept is being ever more challenged by the flood of electro-bikes and electrically assisted machines now becoming popular (and problematical) on our streets.

Electric bicycles make up a small percentage of bikes and any argument about them only really applies to them, but anyway...

Only pedal assist electric bicycles are excluded from tax and registration, the rest have to be paid up and registered or are illegal.

How much are the state paying towards electric car grants? What about how much they are spending on infrastructure? And currently free power (because the payment system was delayed)? There's tax breaks for both, yes, but only grants and services being paid for for electric cars.

Problematical how? They let older or less able people move about?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Many of the Cycle shops make great play of the "NO Road Tax" element in their advertising as they quite nonchalantly drive cycling as a whole into the arms of the Revenue Commissioners.

There's no road tax for cars too! Road tax is a fictional thing. There's simply no such thing. Are you thinking about motor tax?

AlekSmart wrote: »

...this space presumably to be taken from some other mechainzed sector already paying for it..?

You pay for having the motor, not the use of roads. The majority of cyclists who are also motorists also pay for those roads when they are doing far less damage to them by cycling to work etc.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would regularly (daily) see evidence to the contrary on Dublin's pedestrianized streets,whereas I would rarely see a motorcyclist riding along Grafton or Henry Streets,I regularly see cyclists,particularly vocational ones (couriers) displaying great prowess as they weave (at speed) through the pedestrians...sadly some don't always make it through without incident.

Unchecked law breaking by cyclists is not a good reason to make it legal for more powerful motorbikes to be able to use pedestrianised areas.

AlekSmart wrote: »

All the Taxation issues are indeed true,but relatively speaking the Motor and Motorcycle industries and their customers are paying substantially more.
The thrust of some arguement here appears to centre on placing Cycling at the CORE of Transport Policy,thus replacing the current Motor focused CORE ...that is laudable in so many ways,but it cannot come free of charge...If cycling wants to be at the CORE it will have to assume some of the costs curently levied on the other CORE elements....

I'm asking again: Will public transport be paying it's way fully? If not why not?

And as already mentioned, did you not see the points about how most cyclists are motorists also, so they pay motor tax and registration? Or that motorists pay substantially more because they do substantially more damage to roads, add to noise and air pollution, etc?

You're still missing the point that cycling will save the state money compared to both public transport and car provisions. Cars and public transport cost more in direct and indirect ways, and it is not clear that even cars pay their way.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Very valid and true,the Road Traffic Acts are framed and enacted from the perspective that Vehicular Traffic (Including Cyclists) must give way at all times to pedestrians...at ALL times...there's no grey area at all.

Again the issue of operator licencing and the ability to prove competency in operation is a given and again is something which the Cycling lobby will have to give some thought to in it's quest for a more dominant role in Transport Policy...if it seeks this increased role then it (and cyclists generally) will have to acept the State's requirements on attaining a set qualification....somebody once said " Be Careful what you wish for...lest you get it"......that may well be sound advice for many cyclists ?

Why are you talking about the "cycling lobby"? Cycling lobby groups have actually opposed dedicated, segregated cycle lanes.

If you are going to reply to only one point in my post, reply to this:

You have yet to make the case why the government would want cyclists to pay more when the state is actively promoting cycling? Or for what reasons cyclists would pay more? Or what this payment would be? How it would be collected? Or who it would apply to or how it would be enforced?

bk

The idea of registering and licensing bikes is ridiculous.

For no other reason then the cost of administrating it would far outweigh whatever money registration would bring in.

I can never understand why anyone would be anti cycling. Even if cycling is not for you and you are a car fan, more cyclists mean less congestion and more space on the road for you.

If every cyclist switched to driving, there would be far more traffic and congestion on the road and everyone loses.

galwaycyclist

Hmmmm

I should probably come in on a few of these issues but I am insanely busy at the moment.

Compulsory insurance for cyclists - actually the Swiss do this see here

http://cyclingisgoodforyou.blogspot.com/2010/01/swiss-approach-to-cycling.html

I like the idea but I acknowledge that a cyclist register/compulsory insurance is probably not workable in Ireland.

galwaycyclist

Cycling facilities
The Irish Cycling lobby do not oppose cycle facilities per se but oppose cycle facilities that make cycling conditions worse. Cycle facilities in the Netherlands are demonstrably of a higher quality, attractiveness and “usability” than much of the equivalents in Ireland. Irish cycle facilities are often of poor quality, unattractive and impractical for cyclists to use.

On reason why Dutch cycle paths are of higher quality is because they are actually designed for motorised traffic. Mopeds at speeds of up to 30km/h are “design users” of urban cycle paths and outside urban areas a moped with a speed limit of 40km/h is the “design user”.

Excerpt from Dutch Institute for Traffic Safety and Research (SWOV) Fact sheet Moped and Light Moped riders

“Mopeds are delivered with a maximum speed of 45 km/h, which is termed the ‘design speed’. Light mopeds have a design speed of 25 km/h1. According to current legislation, moped riders must ride on the carriage way within urban areas (since 1999), with a speed limit of 45 km/h (since March 2008). On bicycle paths within urban areas and in 30 km/h zones, the speed limit for mopeds is 30 km/h. Outside urban areas, moped riders should ride on the bicycle path, with a maximum speed of 40 km/h. On roads outside urban areas (when no bicycle path is available) the limit is 45 km/h. Light-moped riders should ride on the bicycle path both inside and outside urban areas, with a maximum speed of 25 km/h. In the Netherlands, one can ride a moped or light moped from the age of 16. This makes mopeds and light mopeds popular modes of transport for young people who are not yet permitted to drive a car (16 and 17 years).”


Videos showing mopeds on Dutch cycle paths

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-KNdIVh6ss&feature=fvsr
This one is all mopeds and scooters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k
(Moped passes at 1 minute 31 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z08Xq764dys
(Moped at 1 minute 13 seconds)

If we want Dutch style "cycling infrastructure" in Ireland, we may need to insist on a similar mix of design users. However it would be a serious mistake to attribute the levels of cycling seen in the Netherlands primarily to cycling infrastructure - that is just one of the things they do.

CIE

bk wrote: »

The idea of registering and licensing bikes is ridiculous.

For no other reason then the cost of administrating it would far outweigh whatever money registration would bring in.

I can never understand why anyone would be anti cycling. Even if cycling is not for you and you are a car fan, more cyclists mean less congestion and more space on the road for you

Not always.

Cookie_Monster

CIE wrote: »

Not always.

now imagine all of those cyclists, each in their own car. then imagine how much more space that'd take up...

Patser

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

now imagine all of those cyclists, each in their own car. then imagine how much more space that'd take up...

And now imagine all of those cyclists sitting on a Double Decker bus and much less space that'd take.

CIE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

now imagine all of those cyclists, each in their own car. then imagine how much more space that'd take up...

I wasn't trying to change the thread title to "Should single-occupant driving take centre stage in Dublin's transport policy", for the record. Taking a focus that should be on improving public transport and putting it on cycling is, IMJ, equal to putting it on driving, because even if you are incrementally increasing the space versus an automobile, you're also slowing down average speeds and slowing down everything else that might be behind the dense cloud of cyclists.

Patser wrote: »

And now imagine all of those cyclists sitting on a Double Decker bus and much less space that'd take

Or an eight-car suburban train. Then you aren't even occupying the road.

dewsbury

In general I would be pro-cycling ... however, I note that references are made to Holland which has a similar climate etc...... we tend to forget that Holland is FLAT (!) and Ireland much less so.

The hills where I live are small but are a deterrent to cycling.

CIE

dewsbury wrote: »

In general I would be pro-cycling ... however, I note that references are made to Holland which has a similar climate etc...... we tend to forget that Holland is FLAT (!) and Ireland much less so.

The hills where I live are small but are a deterrent to cycling.

I personally don't mind an increased focus on cycling for a targeted purpose, but when does one determine what is enough...? I see cycle lanes in Kilmacreddock, which is still in the middle of nowhere but with wider roads than in the past.