Pedestrians in the cycle lane

Muckie

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

Cycle mosts(plus from the recession) quite enjoy it too.

But about 3 weeks ago i meet a very large woman in the cycle lane,

there was no footpath, this was 100% cycle lane.

I slowed down, almost stopped, but jesus she just waddled by. Brushed

off me and i moved- big mistake!.

Course i wobbled off the edge of the lane, 5 - 6 inch drop.

Came down hard.

Was like a bolt of lightning hit me in the back. Turns out i had torn my

lumbar muscle. Still hurting but getting better.

So if you ever meet someone walking, if you can't avoid safetly, get off

and walk. Becareful folks.

carthoris

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

I don't - I cycle on the road.

Yup, cycle on the road. On the times that someone is going for a jog at night in the on-road cycle lanes, I've done the bell and they move in.

doc1976

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

rp

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

I wonder why? Do you think it might be something to do with the 30% greater chance of being killed or injured compared to riding on the road?

doc1976

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

Personally, I always ensure to wear a cape while avoiding cycle lanes.

Lumen

Fatty frotting fail.

Dermot Illogical

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

Slow down and say "excuse me!", or "I don't peddle on the footpad, so get out of the bicycling lane!" depending on humour.
I'm thinking of getting a bell for days I'm too lazy to speak.

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

Fatty frotting fail.

Waddling wanderlust woman in wanton wobbling wipeout #winning

doc1976

rp wrote: »

I wonder why? Do you think it might be something to do with the 30% greater chance of being killed or injured compared to riding on the road?

There's a 30% greater chance of being killed while cycling in a cycle lane???

wobbles

Get one of these bad boys. Blow it when your behind them and they will get the fight of their life. Wont be long getting out of the way then

rp

doc1976 wrote: »

There's a 30% greater chance of being killed while cycling in a cycle lane???

Correct. Dutch, German and UK stats indicate this. The Dutch analysed why this is so, and radically overhauled their cycle lane infrastructure and traffic laws to address the shortcomings.
Here's a good reference page.

carthoris

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

Perhaps our comments were a little abrupt but the point sticks; cycle lanes are fraught with trivial and frustrating issues that will not be resolved as mentioned above but cycling on the road you do not encounter such issues. Roads have their own problems but I prefer roads to cycle lanes/paths.

The reason I cycle on the road is mostly for convenience. A perfect example is the grand canal cycle way - it is a wonderful facility but the gates at the junctions which means I have to dismount and carry my bike is so bothersome that I would rather cycle the longer route on the road.

-Chris-

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

I cycle around them, slowing down if necessary.

Chris O Donoghue

I never use cycle lanes, the ones in Cork aren't worth a cuss. They're either on the footpath ,which means you have to stop at every road junction like a..like a... bloody PEDESTRIAN, or they're about 20 metres long and you end up hitting a wall or being decanted into the fast lane in front of an 18 wheeler.

I use roads: that's what they're for.

John_Rambo

-Chris- wrote: »

I cycle around them, slowing down if necessary.

Amazingly, I do the same, sometimes applying my brakes. When I'm in my car, I tend to avoid pedestrians on the road. I sometimes come to a complete stop.

coolbeans

On the rare occasions I use cycle lanes I go around ringing the bell as I do so. Bells are great and are a great way of telling someone to geroudda da way without causing offence or inconvenience to either party. Shouting is not cool.

Kintarō Hattori

coolbeans wrote: »

Delete repeat

You know you can edit your post and delete it. There is an option when editing a post to make it disappear!

Cookie_Monster

depends on what mood I'm in, sometimes I say "excuse me please" loudly enough that they can here while I'm still a bit back.

Mostly I just shout something abusive at them though or whiz by really closely (cos I'm a nice person like that)

Though as already mentioned I do try and avoid cycle lanes altogether if possible anyway.

Muckie

carthoris wrote: »

I don't - I cycle on the road.

I wish it had as been as easy as that, i'll get a pic later of where i met

"this large friendly lady".

rich.d.berry

My bell is a bit useless, but I ring it nonetheless. If I get no response then my normal shout is "Coming through!".

neris

only cycle lane i use is the one from sutton to fairview and always women someone walking in the cycle lane so cycle around them but cut back in close in front of them. Especially on the part between teh wooden bridge and clontarf which is just a cycle lane with no footpathas there is a footpath a short walk over the grass. Some of them get a bit upset but then again there are some real dopes in country

Jawgap

Muckie wrote: »

I wish it had as been as easy as that, i'll get a pic later of where i met

"this large friendly lady".

You seem fixared on the girth of this lady - bit of a chubby chaser are we??:D

In answer to the question, I do what I think is the typically Irish thing in such circumstances - I cycle around them then mutter obscenities under my breath so they can't hear, then kick myself a few minutes later when I think of something witty I could have said but didn't.

Rew

A lot of them in the cycle lane in the park despite the road being closed nearly hit one last night in the pitch black despite my lights only saw him at the last second. The maddest thing though was being passed by a motorcycle on the cycle lane in the park the other night. His plate was covered in mud so no hope of reporting him.

enas

rp wrote: »

Here's a good reference page.

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/what-should-going-dutch-mean/

http://manchestercycling.blogspot.com/2011/06/segregation-myths-2-segregated-cycle.html

http://manchestercycling.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-john-franklin-misled-nation-cycling.html

http://voleospeed.blogspot.com/2011/06/cyclenation-and-europe-one-from.html

Just one quote?

It is noteworthy that not one of the studies in the list linked to dates from later than 2001, and the only Dutch study referenced by Franklin dates from 1977. Given that the Netherlands is effectively a country-wide testbed for separated cycling facilities, this is an astonishing omission.

And another one:

it seems obvious that John Franklin believes that cyclists always belong on the road as an ideology. As an ideological view, there is nothing wrong with this. However, presenting this as fact by misrepresenting and cherry-picking research and conducting research which is little more than a collection of meaningless, context-free numbers in order to serve as a vehicle for an ideology which the numbers do not back is a dishonest practise.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

<snip>
And another one:

Questioning the validity of the research cited by Mr. Franklin because of its age is a bit like dismissing Galileos finding on the motions of the planets because he worked in the 1500-1600s.

It is a fact that most urban car/cycle collisions occur at junctions and involve conflicting crossing/turning movements.

It is self evident that increasing the complexity of junctions through adding cycle facilities has the potential to increase such conflicts. This prediction has been confirmed empirically in various studies of crash rates before and after the addition of cycle facilities.

check_six

Pedestrians in the cycle lane? Pah! I've been stuck behind cyclists in the cycle lane.

Took the bike + trailer + child up the Stillorgan Rd and decided to use the (frankly terrible) cycle lane. Saw a cyclist a good bit ahead, and ever so slowly caught up with him. It was only then that I realised that the width of the trailer would not allow me to overtake, and the added weight of the trailer would make any "alternative" overtaking manouevre a very drawn out affair, akin to a truck overtaking another long vehicle. The other punter was oblivious to all around him and I ended up trapped for ages until I came to one of the 'suicide chutes' that plop you onto the road in the path of vehicles swerving to get off the dual carriageway. I shook my fist at fate and went for it, survived, and pulled away from my nemesis (slowly).

rp

enas wrote: »

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/what-should-going-dutch-mean/

That was a good article, thanks for the pointer. But from my reading, it doesn't really contradict Franklin's view: the Netherlanders did there research on cycle lanes, recognized the problems and improved them - especially around junctions.

The design and quality of the lanes we have here (and in the UK and Germany) are not of that standard, and do put the cyclist into dangerous situations, such as needing to scan 270 degrees, putting us into motorists blind-spots (esp. trucks) and encouraging fast and close passing maneuvers by motorists.

Look, if cycle lanes were the best place to ride, we'd all be riding on them. I didn't wake up one morning and "god, I feel a bolshie today, I think I'll ride on the road and annoy some drivers" - I used to use cycle lanes where I could, but experience bet that out of me.

Finally, fifty good reasons not to use cycle lanes, from the German viewpoint: http://www.swb.de/personal/elch/e_50-reasons.html

enas

rp wrote: »

That was a good article, thanks for the pointer. But from my reading, it doesn't really contradict Franklin's view: the Netherlanders did there research on cycle lanes, recognized the problems and improved them - especially around junctions.

I absolutely agree. So indeed, cycle lanes don't have to be dangerous if properly thought of.

The problem with Franklin aversion to cycle lanes, and with this list in particular, is that it has lead generations of campaigners, mainly in UK, but also in Ireland, to use this as an objective argument that cycles lanes, not matter how you build them, are inherently dangerous. That is simply untrue. The Dutch did it well, and do it well. Franklin never acknowledged it, in fact, he tends to dismiss this criticism by saying that what Dutch do is quite irrelevant (*). Pretty strange to ignore the country that does best in the world in terms of achieving high cycling rates.

The design and quality of the lanes we have here (and in the UK and Germany) are not of that standard, and do put the cyclist into dangerous situations, such as needing to scan 270 degrees, putting us into motorists blind-spots (esp. trucks) and encouraging fast and close passing maneuvers by motorists.

Look, if cycle lanes were the best place to ride, we'd all be riding on them. I didn't wake up one morning and "god, I feel a bolshie today, I think I'll ride on the road and annoy some drivers" - I used to use cycle lanes where I could, but experience bet that out of me.

Look, unfortunately, I only know too well what you're talking about (although Cork has been fortunately quite well preserved from that). I was simply reacting, out of topic admittedly, to this list of research being presented as a "reference", which simply it is not.

Finally, fifty good reasons not to use cycle lanes, from the German viewpoint: http://www.swb.de/personal/elch/e_50-reasons.html

Funny, but unfortunately very true

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Questioning the validity of the research cited by Mr. Franklin because of its age is a bit like dismissing Galileos finding on the motions of the planets because he worked in the 1500-1600s.

Well the motions of the planets haven't changed much since then. However, the situation in the Netherlands have quite dramatically changed since 1977. Indeed, state of art junction designs date from the 2000s. Things have evolved because decisions have continuously been evaluated and errors corrected (as rp mentions too).

It is self evident that increasing the complexity of junctions through adding cycle facilities has the potential to increase such conflicts. This prediction has been confirmed empirically in various studies of crash rates before and after the addition of cycle facilities.

Self-evidency doesn't explain much I'm afraid. That it has the potential doesn't mean it has to.

I always react to these type of assertions. Just because we got all used to the crap we have here (and the crap they have in many other countries to be fair), doesn't mean it can't be done correctly. I wish there were campaigners asking for the good stuff. Unfortunately, in the near future, I don't see any of that arriving here, so yes, I do ignore too cycle lanes and adopt (Franklin's) vehicular cycling techniques. In a nutshell, Dutch-style facilities or nothing at all for me, please.

(*) Sorry, I'm too lazy to find a pointer, I'm only basing that on memory, so I accept in advance your objections to this point.

CramCycle

enas wrote: »

The problem with Franklin aversion to cycle lanes, and with this list in particular, is that it has lead generations of campaigners, mainly in UK, but also in Ireland, to use this as an objective argument that cycles lanes, not matter how you build them, are inherently dangerous.

I'd disagree with this as I think it was more of a non scientific, more common sense approach, that if you let non cyclists build cycling infrastructure, then they will be inherently dangerous.

seeing_ie

carthoris wrote: »

Perhaps our comments were a little abrupt but the point sticks; cycle lanes are fraught with trivial and frustrating issues that will not be resolved as mentioned above but cycling on the road you do not encounter such issues. Roads have their own problems but I prefer roads to cycle lanes/paths.

The reason I cycle on the road is mostly for convenience. A perfect example is the grand canal cycle way - it is a wonderful facility but the gates at the junctions which means I have to dismount and carry my bike is so bothersome that I would rather cycle the longer route on the road.

Bit excessive imo.

Having cycled the canal cycle way a few times too, I'm more than happy to dismount to get through the gates.
It's the price you pay to keep the cycleway clear of quads/scramblers/horses/sulkys etc.

Can't think of any other well designed cycle paths in Dublin I'd be happy to cycle on.

petethedrummer

seeing_ie wrote: »

Bit excessive imo.

Having cycled the canal cycle way a few times too, I'm more than happy to dismount to get through the gates.
It's the price you pay to keep the cycleway clear of quads/scramblers/horses/sulkys etc.

Can't think of any other well designed cycle paths in Dublin I'd be happy to cycle on.

The gates are ridiculous. The canal path used to be on my route to work. I had to go through 11 gates to get to work and 11 on the way back. If I cycled it 5 days a week that meant 110 unnecessary dismounts and remounts.

el Bastardo

Chris O Donoghue wrote: »

I never use cycle lanes, the ones in Cork aren't worth a cuss. They're either on the footpath ,which means you have to stop at every road junction like a..like a... bloody PEDESTRIAN, or they're about 20 metres long and you end up hitting a wall or being decanted into the fast lane in front of an 18 wheeler.

I use roads: that's what they're for.

Too true! It's the pig's arse, all in all! They're either poorly constructed, poorly situated, super short or non-existent! I always find it funny how the Dubs complain about facilities when they have so much (not that anything's perfect, I know... but!).

I use roads.

Iwannahurl

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

I slowed down, almost stopped, but jesus she just waddled by.

So if you ever meet someone walking, if you can't avoid safetly, get off

and walk. Be careful folks.

You are required by law to have a bell.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0190.html

Get one and use it, is what I would recommend.

I imagine one of these would also cover your legal obligations, and then some:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Reviews.aspx?ModelID=20105&Useful=true&ReviewID=246360

Cookie_Monster

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You are required by law to have a bell.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0190.html

Get one and use it, is what I would recommend.

Audible warning device.

28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.

(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of—

(a) a gong, siren or other strident-toned device except in the case of a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or

(b) a bell, except in the case of—

(i) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or

(ii) a bicycle—

I. the engine of which does not exceed 50 cubic centimetres in cylinder capacity as calculated in accordance with article 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958 ( S.I. No. 13 of 1958 ) and

II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions.

But my bike can go faster than 24 mph on a dry level road therefore a bell is not legal on it...

Dawn Rider

[QUOTE=Iwannahurl;

I imagine one of these would also cover your legal obligations, and then some:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Reviews.aspx?ModelID=20105&Useful=true&ReviewID=246360[/QUOTE]

I had one of those for a while, but didn't find it very effective with pedestrians. At junctions, they'd hear the horn, look to see where it's coming from... and still walk in front of me! A good (warning) roar is better imo.
Very good for cars though.

On cycle lanes just slowing down and maneuvering around the dozy planks is the best way. Although you can have great fun watching them jump if you have squeaky brakes!

CramCycle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But my bike can go faster than 24 mph on a dry level road therefore a bell is not legal on it...

it does stipulate that "II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions."

Personally its hard, if not near impossible, to find a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions anywhere in Ireland for most of the year IMHO

enas

I think "which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions." refers to when a bell is legally accepted as an "audible warning device". A bicycle in that case is not necessarily a pedal cycle, could be a mechanically propelled bicycle, and as long as it "is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions", it can fit a bell to comply with the law requiring that "every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device".

However, for pedal cycles, the law says: "Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place."

So, I assume that most of us would have a cycle "constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle" (commuter racing anyone? ), so no bell required. However, Airzounds and the likes seem to be illegal for everyone...

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

I absolutely agree. So indeed, cycle lanes don't have to be dangerous if properly thought of.

The problem with Franklin aversion to cycle lanes, and with this list in particular, is that it has lead generations of campaigners, mainly in UK, but also in Ireland, to use this as an objective argument that cycles lanes, not matter how you build them, are inherently dangerous. That is simply untrue. The Dutch did it well, and do it well. Franklin never acknowledged it, in fact, he tends to dismiss this criticism by saying that what Dutch do is quite irrelevant (*). Pretty strange to ignore the country that does best in the world in terms of achieving high cycling rates.

Oh lord where to start with this? Ok if someone is going around trying to blame John Franklin of all people for scepticism among cycle campaigners re roadside cycle facilities then they have their wires seriously crossed.

To my knowledge cycling activists in the UK/IRL and Germany have been expressing well-founded concerns about efforts to segregate them from other traffic since at least the 1930s.

The issue is not about the theory or practice of their construction but about the motives and background of the people seeking their construction. In the Netherlands they are being built by engineers who cycle, within a social and political framework where restricting private car use and promoting cycle use are accepted policy goals.

In our environment they are being constructed by engineers who have little understanding or interest in an environment where the promotion of car use is the overriding political and institutional objective. In Ireland, in particular, they are constructed by local authority roads engineers who do not appear to be accountable to any one. Futhermore they are funded by a central civil service executive who appear indifferent to how the taxes they disburse get spent other than to ensure they get spent within defined budgetary cycles.

Those who choose to forget history might need a reminder or two

Cycle Track History: Cycle Tracks for the Expansion of Motorised Traffic
http://www.oocities.org/galwaycyclist/info/vbriese_abstract.html

Cycle Track History: On the Decline of a Mass Means of Transport
http://www.oocities.com/galwaycyclist/info/bhorn_abstract.html


Last Tuesday I was at a city council transport committee where I was proposing that the city should compile inventories of recognised problem features for cyclists such as pinch points, narrow stacking lanes at traffic signals, slip roads, road closures and banned turns affecting cyclists, one-way streets, free traffic speeds, left-filter signals at traffic lights.

This was vehemently objected to by the council engineers to the point where the meeting had to be suspended. Their view is that their obligations on cycling are confined to the construction of off road cycle tracks. By which they also mean converted footpaths - they even go so far as to dispute the idea that it is illegal to cycle on roadside footpaths. The senior engineer involved has previously proposed cycle track schemes where his stated intent was that cyclists would "dismount and become pedestrians" at every junction. These people will quite happily look you in the eye and tell you this represents best practice and will quite happily threaten legal action if you dispute their professional judgement.

With respect the individuals, who from the safety of their blogs, slag off the cycle campaigning community for failing to deliver Dutch cycling infrastructure, are being at best disingenuous.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Oh lord where to start with this? Ok if someone is going around trying to blame John Franklin of all people for scepticism among cycle campaigners re roadside cycle facilities then they have their wires seriously crossed.

That sounds a bit like an ad hominem attack to be fair, so I will silently skip that. Let's just exchange points, as I was only doing.

The issue is not about the theory or practice of their construction but about the motives and background of the people seeking their construction. In the Netherlands they are being built by engineers who cycle, within a social and political framework where restricting private car use and promoting cycle use are accepted policy goals.

In our environment they are being constructed by engineers who have little understanding or interest in an environment where the promotion of car use is the overriding political and institutional objective.

I'm all too well aware of that, of course. But again, you're not saying here that cycle lanes are bad as such. You're explaining why the cycle lanes we specifically have here are plainly wrong (to use a euphemism). But that doesn't explain why campaigners shouldn't ask for the good stuff, with the bigger picture that's involved (supersede the current car-centered approach). Also, I think a lot of campaigners don't appreciate what the Netherlands looked like in the 70s. It was a country equally as car sick as UK or Ireland (or many other European countries indeed), but things thankfully changed. Now, I'm not saying that's an easy task. That's an immense challenge. I certainly wouldn't feel strong enough to take it up. However, in the UK, after decades of scepticism, it is finally an approach that's gaining momentum, with the creation of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, and the Go Dutch campaign from the London Cycling Campaign.

Last Tuesday I was at a city council transport committee where I was proposing that the city should compile inventories of recognised problem features for cyclists such as pinch points, narrow stacking lanes at traffic signals, slip roads, road closures and banned turns affecting cyclists, one-way streets, free traffic speeds, left-filter signals at traffic lights.

This was vehemently objected to by the council engineers to the point where the meeting had to be suspended. Their view is that their obligations on cycling are confined to the construction of off road cycle tracks. By which they also mean converted footpaths - they even go so far as to dispute the idea that it is illegal to cycle on roadside footpaths. The senior engineer involved has previously proposed cycle track schemes where his stated intent was that cyclists would "dismount and become pedestrians" at every junction. These people will quite happily look you in the eye and tell you this represents best practice and will quite happily threaten legal action if you dispute their professional judgement.

Honestly, I deeply sympathise with you. You need a great amount of courage and determination to tackle such stupidity.

With respect the individuals, who from the safety of their blogs, slag off the cycle campaigning community for failing to deliver Dutch cycling infrastructure, are being at best disingenuous.

I think there's a misunderstanding, again, here, from your part. I don't think anyone, amongst the links I provided (which are written by known guys doing very good work, not just writing very informative texts on their blogs) and myself, ever criticised campaigners for failing to deliver Dutch cycling infrastructure (again, what a choice of words!, why all this aggressiveness?). We all know who are to be blamed for that. What I don't understand is, given the current situation, why not ask for the good stuff (proper cycling infrastructure), instead of dismissing it, to the point that it is claimed such infrastructure can only be inherently bad? (And yes, this cherry picked list of research from Franklin is always presented as an objective and scientific argument to back this claim.) Saying that achieving Dutch-style infrastructure is a long-term dream/utopia, so let's concentrate on more urgent short term problems first is perfectly understandable, and that's my stance too. But being fundamentally biased against dedicated infrastructure, because we've always seen it badly done here, as much as I can understand it, is not a view that I share.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

I think there's a misunderstanding, again, here, from your part. I don't think anyone, amongst the links I provided (which are written by known guys doing very good work, not just writing very informative texts on their blogs) and myself, ever criticised campaigners for failing to deliver Dutch cycling infrastructure (again, what a choice of words!, why all this aggressiveness?). We all know who are to be blamed for that. What I don't understand is, given the current situation, why not ask for the good stuff (proper cycling infrastructure), instead of dismissing it, to the point that it is claimed such infrastructure can only be inherently bad? (And yes, this cherry picked list of research from Franklin is always presented as an objective and scientific argument to back this claim.) Saying that achieving Dutch-style infrastructure is a long-term dream/utopia, so let's concentrate on more urgent short term problems first is perfectly understandable, and that's my stance too. But being fundamentally biased against dedicated infrastructure, because we've always seen it badly done here, as much as I can understand it, is not a view that I share.

I would love to know who is saying that all cycling infrastructure is inherently bad? That sounds to me like a straw man argument intended to attack people for positions that they have never taken.

The issue is that in our analyses many of us have come to the conclusion that Dutch style infrastructure is unlikely to work here the way it works in the Netherlands. The topic of this thread is "Pedestrians in the cycle lane". One reason we have pedestrians in the cycle lane is because there arent enough cyclists to keep them out of the cycle lane. The Netherlands never eliminated cycling the way we have. At their lowest point, cycling's modal share in Amsterdam exceeded 20%. Dutch cycling infrastructure was constructed in the presence of huge numbers of cyclists who were already imposing a "safety in numbers effect" - whether on pedestrians or motorists. If we take our 2% of cycling commuters and push them off onto roadside paths we are diluting whatever limited effect they already have.


Let us say we build Dutch style cycle paths requiring separate traffic signals? Who is going to decide how much time the cyclists get at each junction? If it is the same traffic engineers who decide that Irish pedestrians get 6 seconds to cross the road then the net effect will be to remove green time from cyclists along the length of the road. The net effect will be to remove system capacity for cyclists.

How do you propose to construct Dutch cycle paths in conjunction with Irish roundabouts where the practice is not to provide formal crossings for the pedestrians not to mind the cyclists?

If we build Danish style infrastucture who is going to maintain it? Who is going to provide the specialised sweeping equipment and staff for Danish type maintenance regimes? Bearing in mind that roadside cycle facilities tend to gather more gravel, debris and broken glass.

If we go to the trouble of providing segregated space for Irish cyclists should we not do so using designs that increase the level of service for Irish cyclists? Should we not spend Irish taxes in a manner that will provide something that most Irish cyclists are likely to use - regardless of how imperfect by comparison with the Dutch ideal?

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I would love to know who is saying that all cycling infrastructure is inherently bad? That sounds to me like a straw man argument intended to attack people for positions that they have never taken.

There is of course John Forester and his acolytes in the US but to my knowledge no formal groupings over here have taken the kind of extreme positions those guys have.

CramCycle

enas wrote: »

That sounds a bit like an ad hominem attack to be fair, so I will silently skip that. Let's just exchange points, as I was only doing.

So does this

But that doesn't explain why campaigners shouldn't ask for the good stuff, with the bigger picture that's involved (supersede the current car-centered approach).

Campaigners do ask for the good stuff but they are put down/ignored due to either ignorance or lack of numbers, which is why it could be viewed that getting the numbers up is far more important than getting tracks laid down, as when the numbers are up you have a better chance of sensible decisions being made in track layout.

Also, I think a lot of campaigners don't appreciate what the Netherlands looked like in the 70s. It was a country equally as car sick as UK or Ireland (or many other European countries indeed), but things thankfully changed. Now, I'm not saying that's an easy task.

It did slump but I did not think it got as bad as the UK or here.

We all know who are to be blamed for that. What I don't understand is, given the current situation, why not ask for the good stuff (proper cycling infrastructure), instead of dismissing it, to the point that it is claimed such infrastructure can only be inherently bad?

I think you are missing the point of, it is either asked for and not gotten, asked for and the engineers/councils mess it up. Mainly, looking at the tracks we have now, it is fair to say that a good cycling track is beyond the capabilities of any council in Ireland. I have no doubt in my mind that they have been asked and in their opinion, what they have put down is good

Saying that achieving Dutch-style infrastructure is a long-term dream/utopia, so let's concentrate on more urgent short term problems first is perfectly understandable, and that's my stance too. But being fundamentally biased against dedicated infrastructure, because we've always seen it badly done here, as much as I can understand it, is not a view that I share.

I think this word is the biggest issue. When a councillor/engineer with no experience of cycling on a regular basis reads this, they see separate and pedestrianised, and in their eyes this is the smartest solution as if we are seperate, we are safer. Here in lies the problem, that until you get these guys out to experience it or get them reading reviews/papers/studies on the actual problems then this is the view they will remain with until retirement. Rather than seeing dedicated to mean, something that promotes cycling and shows it off as a valid form of transport.

carthoris

seeing_ie wrote: »

Bit excessive imo.

I agree - the gates are a bit excessive ...

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I would love to know who is saying that all cycling infrastructure is inherently bad? That sounds to me like a straw man argument intended to attack people for positions that they have never taken.

I'm not attacking anyone, I am giving an opinion and sharing my feelings about what I perceive as the traditional consensus amongst Irish and UK cycle campaigners (that's the only two cases I know well). The introduction to Franklin's list says "This list is intended to be without bias, but little evidence has been found to suggest that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads." Leaving aside the criticism of the "without bias" claim, which has been exposed much more eloquently in the links I mentioned, to me this really says that segregation is bad. Also, when I read this, I see that, although they're not against cycling infrastructure, they don't quite want any. Now of course, I understand, and share, their point of view, as they have no trust about what kind of infrastructure is currently built in Ireland. What I don't understand is why there has to be an opposition between asking "soft measures", but immediately achievable, and having a long term vision where modes are segregated. The first is about catering for the needs of the few current cyclists, the second about what will bring cycling to the masses.

The issue is that in our analyses many of us have come to the conclusion that Dutch style infrastructure is unlikely to work here the way it works in the Netherlands. The topic of this thread is "Pedestrians in the cycle lane". One reason we have pedestrians in the cycle lane is because there arent enough cyclists to keep them out of the cycle lane.
[...]
If we take our 2% of cycling commuters and push them off onto roadside paths we are diluting whatever limited effect they already have.

Which brings the question, what will bring those numbers? I'm surely not advocating cycling infrastructure for the existing 2%. In fact, I'm quite happy, as I've already said, with my cycling, I can deal with the odd bad driver. But apparently, currently cycling doesn't appeal to the masses, and is not seen as a normal activity. However, I think that the centre of Dublin has much more than 2% of cycling rate, which indicates that, at least there, cycling appeals to more than a minority. What minimum rate should be achieved before we consider it sufficient to justify good quality dedicated infrastructure?

Let us say we build Dutch style cycle paths requiring separate traffic signals? Who is going to decide how much time the cyclists get at each junction? If it is the same traffic engineers who decide that Irish pedestrians get 6 seconds to cross the road then the net effect will be to remove green time from cyclists along the length of the road. The net effect will be to remove system capacity for cyclists.

When I say that there is a bigger picture than just asking cycle paths, that's exactly what I meant. Move away from the current car centric approach. Completely overhaul the current system. Give back the public space to pedestrians and cyclists. For example:

How do you propose to construct Dutch cycle paths in conjunction with Irish roundabouts where the practice is not to provide formal crossings for the pedestrians not to mind the cyclists?

Remove them. As you say, they're not good for cyclists and pedestrians. Well most of them. For those that are really needed, do stuff like this or this.

If we build Danish style infrastucture who is going to maintain it? Who is going to provide the specialised sweeping equipment and staff for Danish type maintenance regimes?

It all costs money. In the Netherlands, about €30 per year per person. But is it a good investment? Does it cost less to build them than not to buid them? That's what Dutch authorities think.

If we go to the trouble of providing segregated space for Irish cyclists should we not do so using designs that increase the level of service for Irish cyclists? Should we not spend Irish taxes in a manner that will provide something that most Irish cyclists are likely to use - regardless of how imperfect by comparison with the Dutch ideal?

My point of view is that you are making an opposition where there doesn't have to be one. We can ask immediate measures that will meet our most immediate concerns, but still have a vision about what the ideal situation should be. That it can't be achieved before a few decades, or indeed at all, doesn't mean we can't be driven by a vision when campaigning.

enas

CramCycle wrote: »

Campaigners do ask for the good stuff but they are put down/ignored due to either ignorance or lack of numbers, which is why it could be viewed that getting the numbers up is far more important than getting tracks laid down, as when the numbers are up you have a better chance of sensible decisions being made in track layout.

Again, I don't see where the opposition is. We have to bring the numbers somehow. But in my opinion, building good quality cycle paths is part of the solution for bringing up the numbers. Of course, it has to be prioritised, and I guess there are some core routes that are most needed, and "soft" solutions can be used anywhere else. As the demand grows, more routes can be built, and progressively a network can emerge. I think the grand canal path is a good step in this direction. I haven't cycled it yet, but apparently it's far from perfect, as this topic and few others show. If I was a Dublin cycle campaigner, I would be asking to have it improved to become as perfect as possible, and, if that succeeds, use it as a showcase for what's achievable (I'm not saying it's not what they do, I honestly don't know in that instance).

It did slump but I did not think it got as bad as the UK or here.

The main difference is that they were lucky enough that the realisation came much earlier. It did get as bad as the UK (don't know for here), at that time. The challenge is indeed much bigger now.

I have no doubt in my mind that they have been asked and in their opinion, what they have put down is good

To be honest, I have no idea of the context in which they've been built. However, just because they built a bad imitation of a cycle path doesn't mean we should abandon the idea altogether. Again, I can't elaborate much more on that, but I do have the feeling that the crappy cycle lanes that have been built in Ireland in the last two decades have put a lot of campaigners off the idea altogether, and that's a shame in my opinion.

manwithaplan

As a people, I don't think cycle lanes are really us.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Which brings the question, what will bring those numbers? I'm surely not advocating cycling infrastructure for the existing 2%. In fact, I'm quite happy, as I've already said, with my cycling, I can deal with the odd bad driver. But apparently, currently cycling doesn't appeal to the masses, and is not seen as a normal activity. However, I think that the centre of Dublin has much more than 2% of cycling rate, which indicates that, at least there, cycling appeals to more than a minority. What minimum rate should be achieved before we consider it sufficient to justify good quality dedicated infrastructure?.

The Salthill district in Galway reported a modal share of 9% for cycling in the last census. There are virtually no cycle factilities to speak of in Salthill. Rather than trying to copy the Dutch we need to be sitting down and figuring what it is about Salthill that is working for cyclists and figuring out how to reproduce these conditions elsewhere in the city.

As regards minimum rates - the view among some of us who have looked into this is that in many of the most prominent cases in the Netherlands etc it was the cyclists who came first and were followed by the cycle facilities not the other way around.

We just need to get more people cycling - we have done it before - in the 1980s there was significant growth in cycling in Ireland with zero investment by the state.

enas wrote: »

When I say that there is a bigger picture than just asking cycle paths, that's exactly what I meant. Move away from the current car centric approach. Completely overhaul the current system. Give back the public space to pedestrians and cyclists. For example:

Again you appear to have missed the point. The cycle facilities that we are currently being offered are part and parcel of the car-centred approach. Unless you successfully replace the car-centred approach with something else first, the institutional tendency will be to use roadside cycle-facilities as a means of pursuing car promotion.

As it happens we are pursuing Dutch standards we have proposed to councillors that they adopt mopeds with speed of up to 40kph as the design vehicle for any future cycle facilities - as per the Netherlands. That got too scary for them.

CamperMan

if you saw her there, and there wasn't any room, common sense would have said, get off the bike and push the thing..

Rwood

neris wrote: »

only cycle lane i use is the one from sutton to fairview and always women someone walking in the cycle lane so cycle around them but cut back in close in front of them. Especially on the part between teh wooden bridge and clontarf which is just a cycle lane with no footpathas there is a footpath a short walk over the grass. Some of them get a bit upset but then again there are some real dopes in country

I agree totally that there are some real dopes in this country. I mean who would think that cyclists should obey the rules of the road.
Red light means stop and wait for green.
Pedestrians always have the right of way
Cycling on the footpath is illegal
Why should motorists obey the rules of the road if cyclists don't and then you want to know why you get knocked down. Wake up pay attention and don't wear headphones while in control of a vehicle.
Again I agree "there are some real dopes in Country"

rp

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As it happens we are pursuing Dutch standards we have proposed to councillors that they adopt mopeds with speed of up to 40kph as the design vehicle for any future cycle facilities - as per the Netherlands. That got too scary for them.

Too scary for me too: stoned teens on Bromfiets weaving around the cycle path drove me back onto the roads in Eindhoven.