Briarhill roundabout cycle lanes

lucianot

After being out odf the city for 3 weeks I am very impressed at the new traffic ligth junction that replaced the old RB, it actually works! Now my surprise came from seeing these red stripes on the ground. Do they confere diplomatic immunity and inmortality to the cyclists riding on them? :P
Yesterday in a dark rainy day I didn't see any marks or banners signaling their presence. So far they look very dangerous to me.
Are these going to be improved or changed?

Also saw being built another long expected improvement by the Ballybrit road, the bus parking bay and shelter. Good news at last!

biko

Are you saying the cycle lanes aren't there yet or that you couldn't see them in the dark?
Was the street lighting on?

As long as cars stay in the car lanes and bikes in the bike lanes it shouldn't be an issue.
I haven't gone through after dark and don't know if more work is planned unless the lanes haven't been painted in yet.

This is what they should look like apparently:

lucianot

I am saying that I didn't notice any signs stating the presence of a cycle lane in the middle of the road. I had to guess those red lines were cycle lanes because to be fair I wouldn't expect them tobe there, I don't think these are safe, they are in the middle of two car lanes and for sure someone will be hit in a dark rainy day where visibility is reduced no matter how much good artificial light is available.
Sorry, forgot to answer straight to your questions: these are painted yet and are not properly marked yet. They are visible once you step on them.

lucianot

Ok, just saw them painting the bikes onto the red lanes. Still I think it's dangerous.

BeardySi

So forcing cyclists going striaght ahead to cross left turning traffic would be safer?

Most motorists are far more likely to spot the cyclist in front of them than the one in their blindspot when turning left (particularly as many don't even look when turing left).

We've got such cycle lanes on many junctions here in Belfast, they work well, especially when cyclists signal properly and motorists are aware of their surroundings...

lucianot

A cyclist become very exposed there. That's all I am saying. I am hope I am wrong but being right will mean someone will get hurt.

fago

The alternative to the layout above is forcing the cyclist to cross like pedestrians and follow the green man, or to have cyclist only green lights across the junction.

It seems like good design to me, you filter into the position in the junction which will leave you at the correct position on the road the other side of the junction.

This is exactly as you would want to do.

All that is required is a cyclist to take care when filtering into the traffic lanes. 3/4 of the time the traffic will be stopped because of lights anyway.

lucianot

I understand but I think a driver may not see the cyclists.

ciotog

lucianot wrote: »

I understand but I think a driver may not see the cyclists.

If a driver can't see a lit cyclist, obeying road traffic law i.e. not randomly swerving between lanes, on the road then the problem isn't with the cycle lane or the markings ...
If there's a concern about unlit cyclists then it's a garda enforcement issue.

lucianot

Ok, so a cycle lane in the middle of the road is the always the best option or just in this particular junction given the existing limitations?
What I mean is that this multiplies the chances of an accident. You can obey the rules of the road but accidents still happen.

Fuinseog

lucianot wrote: »

Ok, just saw them painting the bikes onto the red lanes. Still I think it's dangerous.

why is it dangerous. cyclist are road users and need their own lane. if you want enter the lane make yield to cyclists

Fuinseog

lucianot wrote: »

I understand but I think a driver may not see the cyclists.

true, and I have been run off the road and nearly killed at such junctions despite my high vis jacket and four lights. you have to vigilant. Thats why you have mirrors. I can see motorists turning left crossing over the cycle lane and either knocking down cyclists or honking at them for using the cycle lane and getting in the way.
its all about tolerance. Any cyclist on that stretch of road without lights is on a suicide mission.

Iwannahurl

Thanks for starting this thread Lucianot. I had been under the impression that discussion of the new Briarhill junction was on hold for a while.

TBH I'm not great at seeing the implications of junction designs when looking at the plans. It would be interesting to hear the views of cycling experts.

I had a look at the new junction to see how it works for cyclists in practice. Some photos below. I also took some video but I haven't had a chance to edit it, and probably won't for a wee while.

As far as I can see, there is no provision for cyclists coming from the Parkmore/Monivea side to turn onto the dual carriageway, if they wish to cycle along the hard shoulder towards town for whatever reason.

The cycle lane invites/facilitates them to filter past traffic turning left towards the Galway Clinic/M6 direction.

However, if cyclists wishing to take the DC position themselves in the cycle lane, then they are inside traffic going straight ahead towards the shopping centre/Clayton Hotel.

Is this really what the City Council expects them to do? Or is the assumption that either (a) cyclists won't be using the DC, or (b) that there is an adequate alternative?

I saw several cyclists while I was there (about 30-40 minutes) heading to and from Parkmore. The ones I saw coming from Parkmore were approaching the junction -- illegally -- on the footpath, then crossing either at the pedestrian lights or through the underpass.

I'm a supporter of the removal or drastic modification of roundabouts generally, but this new arrangement looks bodged, incomplete or unclear.

On the way into Parkmore, cyclists are invited to take what looks like an off-road cycle path. I tried this, and was very quickly reminded why I always avoided it when the roundabout was there. The "cycle path" ends abruptly and cyclists are shunted off directly into the path of vehicles accelerating off the junction (last photo). I always stayed on the road, and I would continue to do so with the current layout.

For the record, it also seems to be the case that motorists are confused by the new layout. This is clearer on my as yet unavailable video, but what seems to be happening is that two lanes of vehicles are trying to head towards the shopping centre/Clayton approach, which is only one lane. There is some degree of conflict (beeping of horns etc) at almost every green light for traffic coming from Parkmore/Monivea.

Also, some motorists coming from the city side on the DC, and entering the right-turn lane, seem to be confused about where they should be going. On a few occasions, within the c. half hour I was there, three or four motorists got stranded in the middle of the junction because they tried to go straight on (ie towards the Clinic/M6) on the green arrow for the right turn towards the Clayton.

I saw only one illegal u-turn (DC to DC). Sod's Law ensured that it happened as soon as I had put away my video camera...

By the way, my impression (based only on 30-40 minutes' observation late afternoon Monday) was that the new arrangement was working for motorists. I saw no tailbacks on any arm of the junction. That may not be the case at other times.

Fuinseog

[/QUOTE]


those photos look somewhat nightmarish. I know from similiar scenarios in Dublin it is not a probelm cos the traffic is slow moving, but speeding without consideration is another matter.

that helpful little arrow where cars cross over the cycle lane means cyclists will have to start praying. there will be a few deaths there for sure.

cyclists cycle on the footpath cos its safe. illegal takes second place and the guards do not care about this law.

Sponge Bob

Course when you take this cycle lane ( 'from' Parkmore/Airport) and cross the junction there is no corresponding lane on the other side.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Course when you take this cycle lane ( 'from' Parkmore/Airport) and cross the junction there is no corresponding lane on the other side.

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/Briarhill-Junction-1.jpg

Personally that doesn't bother me. However, many current and potential cyclists feel the need for cycle lanes and may wonder why there's no corresponding lane on the opposite side near the shopping centre. There's a hard shoulder on the DC, which only has two somewhat dodgy pinch points, IMO, at Windsor Motors and the Morris Roundabout.

The problem with such incomplete or incoherent cycle facilities, as I see it, is that cyclists who feel dependent on such infrastructure may adapt inappropriately. For example, I don't think cycling on the footpath or through pedestrian facilities is the appropriate response, but in reality that is what you see throughout Galway City on a daily basis.

Based on my limited observations to date, it seems to me that Briarhill will be no exception, and neither AGS or City Council are likely to be much concerned about inappropriate/illegal cycling practices, as long as 'traffic' moves as freely as possible.

That said, as a general rule I think it's a good idea for cyclists to use alternative routes if these are available and make sense. Would it be advantageous for city-based cyclists to travel to and from Parkmore via the R339? I always used the N6 in both directions, but maybe the R339 is now -- and perhaps always was -- better?

Iwannahurl

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/Briarhill-Junction-1.jpg

those photos look somewhat nightmarish. I know from similiar scenarios in Dublin it is not a probelm cos the traffic is slow moving, but speeding without consideration is another matter.

that helpful little arrow where cars cross over the cycle lane means cyclists will have to start praying. there will be a few deaths there for sure.

cyclists cycle on the footpath cos its safe. illegal takes second place and the guards do not care about this law.

The purpose of the red paint is to highlight the presence of cyclists and delineate 'their' space, presumably. This is the function of those ubiquitous blue boxes on many junctions in Copenhagen, for example. Of course in Copenhagen you have Danish motorists and cyclists using Danish infrastructure designed by Danish engineers and managed by Danish local authorities subject to Danish law, all the while immersed in Danish cycling culture.

It's true that many road traffic regulations are routinely ignored by road users and law enforcers in this country, but I would question whether cycling on the path is always safer.

Certainly many cyclists feel safer, and that is why they vote with their wheels and cycle on the path.

The new signalised Briarhill junction is large and complex. I would hope that cyclists would be able to use it as logically, legally and safely as pedestrians now can. Personally it annoys me to see people cycling on and through pedestrian facilities. They still do it at Moneenageisha, for example, though I'm not sure what that reveals.

By the way, with regard to the speed of traffic, it is my impression that many motorists drive way too fast through the junction. I'm open to correction on this, but I think the posted limit is 60 km/h, which is too high anyway IMO.

Sponge Bob

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's a hard shoulder on the DC, which only has two somewhat dodgy pinch points, IMO, at Windsor Motors and the Morris Roundabout.

That is a hard shoulder not a cycle lane. As there is no westbound cycle lane along the DC I would suspect there will be none through the Ballybrit roundabout to the west of the DC when that is dug out next year.

Iwannahurl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is a hard shoulder not a cycle lane. As there is no westbound cycle lane along the DC I would suspect there will be none through the Ballybrit roundabout to the west of the DC when that is dug out next year.

Re the hard shoulder, I'm not sure what the significance of that is?

A hard shoulder is perfectly cycleable. The one on the N6 DC between Briarhill and Ballybane is very gritty at the moment, but it's wide. Even when there are cars parked in it, it is still possible to pass. The same cannot be said of most cycle lanes.

I haven't seen any plans for the Morris Roundabout*, but I would be surprised if there weren't even token cycle lanes included.

The presence of a cycle lane on the left side of the Briarhill junction, heading towards Parkmore, suggests that cyclists are expected in the area. If cyclists are on the junction at that point, then they would/could have come from the DC presumably, ie along the hard shoulder.

Then again, the new cycle lane/path arrangement may just have been bunged in to replace or augment the heap of sh:t that was there previously, and which still dumps cyclists onto the Parkmore Road directly in front of traffic accelerating off the junction (either that or it prompts them to continue along the footpath, which I saw happen frequently).





*EDIT: I don't recall specifically seeing plans for the proposed modifications to the Morris Roundabout, but I think I heard that the early proposals were a mess.

Beasty

Thread moved from the Galway forum - please note that any new posts will be subject to the cycling forum rules, so anyone unfamliar with them please check out our Charter and FAQ section first

Thanks

Beasty

HivemindXX

Just for reference if I was going straight ahead on either of the roads which have the cycle lanes I'd probably be positioning myself right where the lane is whether the red markings were there or not.

I'm not sure where the OP would expect cyclists to be at that stage that would be safer. If the design was such that I was supposed to be on the inside of left turning traffic either on the road or the footpath I'd be ignoring it and taking up position on the left side of the leftmost straight ahead lane. Being on the inside of left turning traffic is probably the most dangerous position in the road. The cyclist fatality statistics back this up with no problem. You are FAR more likely to be killed by a left turning vehicle than by one which hits you from behind while you are both going straight.

Iwannahurl

I'm not claiming expertise in this area, but AFAICS the red area is OK for cyclists going straight on. I understand this is not a given in the Irish context, for various reasons I have already alluded to.

However, I can't see what provision, if any, is being made for cyclists turning right(ish) to travel on the N6 dual carriageway past the racecourse.

The drawings seem to show an ASL, but how can that be of use when traffic is already moving?

lucianot

What is the point on moving this to the cycling forum when it's so geographical dependant, i.e only related to a Galway junction?

ciotog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not claiming expertise in this area, but AFAICS the red area is OK for cyclists going straight on. I understand this is not a given in the Irish context, for various reasons I have already alluded to.

However, I can't see what provision, if any, is being made for cyclists turning right(ish) to travel on the N6 dual carriageway past the racecourse.

The drawings seem to show an ASL, but how can that be of use when traffic is already moving?

The city council engineers expressed the view that they didn't feel it appropriate to facilitate cyclists travelling via the hard shoulder of the N6 when I raised the question in regard to the Font roundabout proposals (I asked if they would consider a path through the grass area there currently - which I used when I travelled that way).

ciotog

lucianot wrote: »

What is the point on moving this to the cycling forum when it's so geographical dependant, i.e only related to a Galway junction?

Probably because the cycling facilities been put in place do relate to national policy on cycling infrastructure vis a vis the National Cycling Manual from the NTA (which provides design guidance). Also, it's in general keeping with boards policy for such questions to go to subject forums where they exist.

Iwannahurl

lucianot wrote: »

What is the point on moving this to the cycling forum when it's so geographical dependant, i.e only related to a Galway junction?

You may well ask! Still, you're here now, so the discussion is clearly not over.

ciotog wrote: »

Probably because the cycling facilities been put in place do relate to national policy on cycling infrastructure vis a vis the National Cycling Manual from the NTA (which provides design guidance). Also, it's in general keeping with boards policy for such questions to go to subject forums where they exist.

You're being very diplomatic! I wish it was for such rational purposes. IMHO, it was a compromise: keep the thread open but remove it from the Galway City forum because anything traffic-related ends up as an argy-bargy. Personally, I think it's a mistake to try to contain or 'sanitise' such debate, because IMO any discussion of cycling, traffic, roads infrastructure or transportation policy in the Galway City context should of necessity be robustly critical. But that's just me.

However, Boards is run according to its own internal logic, and the 'silo' structure is probably needed to keep the show on the road. Recurring rows are seen/experienced as a "headache" by the Mods. Discussion/debate about traffic management and transportation policy in Galway City seems to polarise opinion and, as I see it, critiquing Galway's car culture is not welcome in some quarters. Cycling advocates have been tarred as "serial whingers", while questioning apparently excessive car use (mea culpa) has been seen as judging people from a high horse.

Fair enough I suppose, from the perspective of headache-free Boards refereeing. Regulars who do not welcome these rows in the Galway City forum will not be subjected to such horrors if they simply avoid the Cycling forum. A key feature of Boards 'silos', IMHO, is that aficionados of certain forums are not exposed to things they don't want to hear. Insisting on expressing unpopular viewpoints in these forums is not welcome, and may well be seen as trolling, especially if the perpetrator is an 'outsider'.

It seems to be possible to have words like "cycle", "lane", "walk", "path", "traffic", "car", "speed" and "limit" occur in the same thread, post, paragraph or sentence in the Cycling forum without all hell breaking loose. Not that Cycling regulars are averse to a good row, mind you...

It remains to be seen, however, whether new threads about Galway City's roundabouts and junctions, for example, will be similarly moved to the Infrastructure>Roads Forum or threads on motorised traffic moved to Motors...

[/RANT]

ciotog wrote: »

The city council engineers expressed the view that they didn't feel it appropriate to facilitate cyclists travelling via the hard shoulder of the N6 when I raised the question in regard to the Font roundabout proposals (I asked if they would consider a path through the grass area there currently - which I used when I travelled that way).

I know the bit of grass you mean. As a cyclist I always found its existence odd.

If the City Council engineers don't think cyclists on the DC hard shoulder is a good idea, from where are they expecting the cyclists who will be using the new lane on the left side of the junction heading towards Parkmore?

I have been told that the intention of the design is that cyclists will use the "hook turn" manoeuvre, hence those wee boxes out in front of the stop lines. Does that make sense, especially in the context of the Council not wanting cyclists on the DC hard shoulder?

Is the R339 a viable alternative, by the way? Is there any compelling reason for cyclists to use the DC hard shoulder?



.

what_traffic

They never installed the hook turn boxes (so they dont want to facilitate cyclists using the N6) and the plans have deviated from the original one submitted online (galwaycity.ie link). They have added additional lane on N6 outbound and also removed the bike path bypass on this arm. At least they had sense to alter the Monivea Road inbound cycle lane so as no to not put straight ahead cyclists in conflict with left turning traffic. They have added an additional left turn lane to the left of this cycle lane.