Killiney Towers roundabout acquires on-road semi-kerbed peripheral cycle lane thingy

nomdeboardie

I took some photos today of the alterations to the "Killiney Towers" roundabout (eastern end of Upper Glenageary Road) that I mentioned yesterday in the "Engineers Ireland ..." thread:









On-road cycle lane on the outside, seperated by kerbing (except at the main carriageway junctions, where motors have to drive). Kerbing will protect bikes between junctions, and as they exit (where squeezing by motors can happen). (In addition the main carriageway had been reduced to one lane, and the entrances/exits made tighter.)

Don't think I've seen this (in the flesh asphalt) anywhere else. I assume continuing cyclists will have priority at the junctions over exiting motors - but will the latter respect it? Situation before they were added (single main lane, where cyclists can just take the lane and form part of the stream of traffic, avoiding any possibility of cut-off) seemed safer to me, actually. Anyone seen one of these setups in action elsewhere (particularly Ireland)? If so, how have they worked out?

PS: Thanks in advance for any comments - I probably won't hit the "thanks button", just to avoid the complication of appearing confused if I end up thanking contradictory opinions etc. :cool:

Paul Kiernan

It looks like a recipe for disaster.

The Dutch have an excellent system of marking all intersections between cyclists and vehicles so that it is immediately clear who has to yield to who. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Mycroft H

To be honest, its not the worst cycle lane I've seen here though, looks like one of the better ones.

Tonyandthewhale

Looks like whoever designed this decided to completely ignored how roundabouts actually work.

Inquitus

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

Chinasea

I think any works put into cycle lanes are finally a step in the right direction. Ironically, Avondale road that leads off this roundabout is one of the worst places that I have found that fekken motorists park their cars on the cycle lanes.

nomdeboardie

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

That's the thing, it's basically a 2-lane roundabout, except that the inner lane is confined to one type of vehicle, and so there is still potential for conflict. There's still going to be a judgement call for an exiting motor just in advance of a continuing (or potentially continuing) cyclist, on whether to wait for the latter to cross first. This is pretty analogous to what can happen on regular multi-lane roundabouts, where e.g. vehicle enters in left lane to go straight so has to pass first junction, where "right" turning vehicle from right lane might want to exit.

Wishbone Ash

nomdeboardie wrote: »

There's still going to be a judgement call for an exiting motor just in advance of a continuing (or potentially continuing) cyclist, on whether to wait for the latter to cross first

Even more confusing where the cyclist needs to take the 3rd or subsequent exit. Are they supposed to ignore the rules of the road, i.e. avoid entering on the right?

nomdeboardie

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Even more confusing where the cyclist needs to take the 3rd or subsequent exit. Are they supposed to ignore the rules of the road, i.e. avoid entering on the right?

Yeah, I think that's the implication - that the rule is different for cyclists here ("round the outside"), but if so it should be well publicised. It's a bit like the Advanced Stop Lines/Boxes - they just appeared, without any fanfare (other than a couple of lines in the latest Rules of the Road booklet)...and the rest is history.

rollingscone

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

They give way to traffic from their right. Per the rules of the road?

rollingscone

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

They give way to traffic from their right. Per the rules of the road?

nomdeboardie

rollingscone wrote: »

They give way to traffic from their right. Per the rules of the road?

Doesn't that only apply to entering the roundabout?

Bunnyhopper

nomdeboardie wrote: »

I assume continuing cyclists will have priority at the junctions over exiting motors - but will the latter respect it?

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

It looks like this has the potential to be very good or very bad, and the issue of priority at the exits is going to be crucial.

tomasrojo

If I came upon this roundabout when out on the bike, I would treat it with extreme caution. I guess if I were continuing past an exit, I would cycle to the extreme right of the cycle lane and signal right vigorously, and look almost unrelentingly back over my right shoulder.

The only merit I can see at first glance is that the kerbing might force exiting cars to slow down.

galwaycyclist

In my view this is inherently dangerous and innately bad engineering practice. Even if it "works" at this site it still gives cyclists, and also road engineers, a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how to negotiate roundabout.

DePurpereWolf

rollingscone wrote: »

They give way to traffic from their right. Per the rules of the road?

In this situation, both car and cyclist are on the roundabout, the car wants to get off, so has to let the cyclist go first. The striped lines underline this as well.

This roundabout isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it relies on the both cyclist and driver to be confident with the rules of the road (not just know them)

New road layout only does so much.

Here a comparable Dutch roundy.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=veldhoven&hl=en&ll=51.40089,5.394792&spn=0.000686,0.001652&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.112526,108.28125&hnear=Veldhoven,+North+Brabant,+The+Netherlands&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.40089,5.394792&panoid=QZhdYkga6uo2NCen2CVrBg&cbp=12,334.19,,0,16.06

Cookie_Monster

Inquitus wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens if the cyclist is continuing round the roundabout here, and the motorist is turning left.

they get squashed. That's the most dangerous bit of cycle lane I've ever come across and I flat out refuse to use it I've had so many near misses

(it previously had a red tarmaced lane around the outside but without the seperators)

nomdeboardie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they get squashed. That's the most dangerous bit of cycle lane I've ever come across and I flat out refuse to use it I've had so many near misses

(it previously had a red tarmaced lane around the outside but without the seperators)

Ha - I had to refresh my memory of that by looking at Google Earth (old images) now. Don't think I noticed them in a car, and perhaps I've only been cycling that way since the roadworks commenced.

nomdeboardie

The plot thickens...

From Capt'n Midnight's Engineer's Ireland thread in Commuting and Transport http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056538177, Patrickbrophy18's post suggests that there may be traffic lights to come! (Not the first such mix, of course - e.g. new setup at roundabout approach to M50 etc from Leopardstown, though that's stll multi-lane, and at least some of it has an "off-road cycle path".)

Cookie_Monster

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Ha - I had to refresh my memory of that by looking at Google Earth (old images) now. Don't think I noticed them in a car, and perhaps I've only been cycling that way since the roadworks commenced.

the red had badly faided and darkened and was actually quite hard to distinguish from the black of the rest of the road, esp if wet

Highway_To_Hell

This isn't the 1st time they have tried to put a cycle lane on this roundabout. I think it is the 3rd attempt, 1st one only lasted a week before the ripped out the dividing kerbing leaving the red tarmac as he cycle lane. This time around they have made the central roundabout smaller an put in a brickwork section on the road that you can drive over. over the past 5 years they must have spent a fortune on that roundabout and in my opinion it was not too bad for cyclists.

Is it possible to find out from Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council how much has been spent on the roundabout and how many accidents have there been on it to warrant the work done.

And while I am moaning about DLRCC wasting money, what is the point of the aerobic equipment on the promenade at Scottsmans bay (40 foot). I regularly pass them and have yet to see them used for there intended purpose, seem to be there for kids to play on. I have more to moan about but I will stop now.

/rant

kuro_man

Problem with most cycle lanes, including this one, is it pushes cyclist to left-most side of the road, closer to cars entering the roundabout.

When I go through a junction, I want to be in the middle of the lane so that I cannot be overtaken or squeezed and cars entering from the my left can see me earlier. Also most roundabouts have a squeeze point on exit if there is an island for pedestrians. I have to ensure that cars do not attempt to pass at this point.

Overtaking maneuvers should not be encouraged on junctions.

galwaycyclist

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

In this situation, both car and cyclist are on the roundabout, the car wants to get off, so has to let the cyclist go first. The striped lines underline this as well.

This roundabout isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but it relies on the both cyclist and driver to be confident with the rules of the road (not just know them)

New road layout only does so much.

Here a comparable Dutch roundy.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=veldhoven&hl=en&ll=51.40089,5.394792&spn=0.000686,0.001652&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.112526,108.28125&hnear=Veldhoven,+North+Brabant,+The+Netherlands&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.40089,5.394792&panoid=QZhdYkga6uo2NCen2CVrBg&cbp=12,334.19,,0,16.06

With regret I don't think they are directly comparable the Veldhoven example looks as if it would fit completely inside the central island of the Killiney Towers example.

It invites the thought that a "Dutch" treatment is being used in an Irish situation that is not equivalent in terms of junction geometry, leaving alone the wider road-culture and traffic law differences.

manwithaplan

I am generally a "sure it's grand" kind of cyclist but I do not like the look of this at all. Motorists could easily treat the cycle lane as being "off road" and assume they have priority at exits. I would feel trapped by that kerb, losing many of the options for dealing with the situation. Maybe there will be traffic lights but that defeats the purpose of roundabouts in keeping everyone moving.

I don't know the roundabout but was it not grand?

jameverywhere

Roundabouts with traffic lights are the dumbest thing ever. Just make a cross junction if you're gonna have lights.

I don't like the look of this either. I wish there were a universally recognised hand-signal for "I'm going straight here -- don't squish me!!" ...all we can signal is turns...

Amalgam

Those protruding ridges will be the death of someone, quite probably a cyclist. I have the willies using this roundabout at the best of times, very impatient driving area at certain times of the day, flustered Mums in large chunky family wagons.

I would be coming from Killiney Towers, going straight through, on down towards the Dart.

A design that looked great in an office somewhere..

manwithaplan

There is such a signal but I'm not sure if it's universally understood. It is discussed here:

portalantigo.cefid.udesc.br/ciclo/workshop/Irish.Cycle.Facilities.critique.pdf

I do something similar but with my right hand or sometimes point straight ahead.

Edit - just to say that the right hand version of this obscure signal is at least understood by most to mean "don't proceed" which sort of gets the job done.

rich.d.berry

manwithaplan wrote: »

There is such a signal but I'm not sure if it's universally understood. It is discussed here:

It's a 97 page document. Can you narrow it down a bit please? It's not obvious to me from the index where it is discussed. Thanks.

cdaly_

I use an arm straight up as 'straight ahead' (while occupying the middle of the lane). I wouldn't use the bike lane on that roundabout...

Lumen

jameverywhere wrote: »

Roundabouts with traffic lights are the dumbest thing ever. Just make a cross junction if you're gonna have lights.

Disagree. If one direction has substantially more traffic or is more congested, a roundabout soon grinds to a halt.

Part-time traffic lights work particularly well, but even without that roundabouts flow better than cross junctions, especially when there are more than four roads coming into a junction.

Stollaire

Is this a poor man's version of the Dutch Roundabout?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPbTvJZFSI

galwaycyclist

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It's a 97 page document. Can you narrow it down a bit please? It's not obvious to me from the index where it is discussed. Thanks.

It is illustrated on the 2nd page. See also the discussion under "An absurd situation" on page 93.

There are one or two flaws in the author's analyses which relate to a misunderstanding, at the time of writing, of how Dutch traffic law works. UK and Irish observers can get caught out by the "yield to traffic from the right" rule as it operates in Northern Europe.

Apart from that much of it is probably still current.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is illustrated on the 2nd page. See also the discussion under "An absurd situation" on page 93.

There are one or two flaws in the author's analyses which relate to a misunderstanding, at the time of writing, of how Dutch traffic law works. UK and Irish observers can get caught out by the "yield to traffic from the right" rule as it operates in Northern Europe.

Apart from that much of it is probably still current.

In particular, with reference to this discussion, there is an illustration on page 61 of the predominant collision types involving cyclists at roundabouts.

It makes a useful starting point for any discussion of on-road cycle lanes on roundabouts.

http://portalantigo.cefid.udesc.br/ciclo/workshop/Irish.Cycle.Facilities.critique.pdf

rich.d.berry

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is illustrated on the 2nd page. See also the discussion under "An absurd situation" on page 93.

Thanks.

That is the hand signal that I use to indicate that I'm about to stop.

galwaycyclist

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Thanks.

That is the hand signal that I use to indicate that I'm about to stop.

In Ireland the hand signal for "I am stopping" is an outstretched right arm with palm flat and waved up and down.

Don't expect either hand signal to be universally understood.

jameverywhere

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It's a 97 page document. Can you narrow it down a bit please? It's not obvious to me from the index where it is discussed. Thanks.

I found it on page 93.



Signal is useless imho if nobody recognises what it is.

Sometimes I point my arm forward to signal I'm going straight, but this only works if the driver makes eye contact with you and can see your arm (i.e. is mostly beside you rather than behind you)


EDIT

Also I'm pretty sure in the US that hand signal means "I'm stopping now" (altho made with right hand iirc)

rich.d.berry

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In Ireland the hand signal for "I am stopping" is an outstretched right arm with palm flat and waved up and down.

I use that one too. I thought that it meant that I was slowing down.

I obviously have been sending mixed signals. No wonder I've been passed on two occasions when stopping for pedestrian crossings. The following driver obviously thought that I was signalling that I was going straight through. :rolleyes:

Back on topic - I don't like the look of that kerbing. It is too dinky to prevent motor vehicles, especially HGVs, from crossing over but is a hazard for the cyclist, especially in the case of avoiding pedestrians that step out without looking. It will also prevent road sweepers from operating there.

Paul Kiernan

Stollaire wrote: »

Is this a poor man's version of the Dutch Roundabout?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkPbTvJZFSI

I got the heebie-geebies just watching that video. Plenty of close shaves. Cyclists appear to be very tolerant of drivers not yielding to them.

But it does indicate the point I was making earlier. All crossing points are clearly marked with white triangles. In this case these are forcing the driver to yield, in many other junctions they're forcing the cyclist to yield.

The problem with the Killiney roundabout is it is not clear to a driver exiting the roundabout whether he has to yield or not. A line of white triangles would clarify this.

manwithaplan

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It's a 97 page document. Can you narrow it down a bit please? It's not obvious to me from the index where it is discussed. Thanks.

Sorry - because it was before the contents page (rather strangely to be honest), I thought people would see it straight away.

miller50841

This country all over we have no money but they go and destroy a roundabout that was working fine ans spend huge money on it. The laws need to be enforced we dont need stupid idiotic designs like this. I know from experience there will be accidents with this lay out. Actually every time I am on this roundabout about 95 percent of the traffic and cyclists dont even indicate which by law you have to show where you intend to go or get off.......:eek:

rp

miller50841 wrote: »

Actually every time I am on this roundabout about 95 percent of the traffic and cyclists dont even indicate which by law you have to show where you intend to go or get off

Cyclist are not required by law to indicate

galwaycyclist

rp wrote: »

Cyclist are not required by law to indicate

Sigh


Traffic and Parking Regulations 182/1997

[url]
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a18[/url]

Signals by Drivers
18. (1) A driver intending to slow down, stop, or alter course, shall either give a signal by using a direction indicator or stop lamp, as appropriate, or give the appropriate hand signal set out in Table A in the Second Schedule.

(2) A driver shall indicate the direction in which the vehicle is to be driven to a member of the Garda Síochána by giving either a signal by using a direction indicator or the appropriate hand signal set out in Table B in the Second Schedule.

(3) A driver shall give a signal in sufficient time before altering course and in such a manner as to be clearly visible and clearly understood by those for whom such signal is intended.

(4) A driver shall not give simultaneous contradictory signals.

In Irish law "driver" = "cyclist" = "driver"

Crow92

Cycled the roundabout today into college, didn't like it at all, I was going slower than usual around the roundabout and I had to look at each of the exits I was passing by which had cars go through them twice like 2 seconds before I passed by them.

JMJR

I sent a query on this roundabout , I'll post any reply.




•Should you have any particular queries or comments in relation to cycling in Dún Laoghaire you can contact us at cycling@dlrcoco.ie

jameverywhere

Here's an interesting excerpt from page 62 of the document linked to earlier in the thread:

The Irish authorities have been aware since at least 1987 that there is likely to be little or no
scope for the use of segregated facilities at such locations. The predominant type of car/cycle
collision on roundabouts involves entering motorists crashing into circulating cyclists. The
recommended tactic for collision avoidance is for cyclists to adopt a prominent position within
the main traffic stream (this was the original function of ghost islands on roundabout splitter
islands90). It is understood that Swiss Federal traffic law has now been changed to facilitate
cyclists in staying within the main traffic stream. Conversely, logic dictates that a cyclist who
attempts to circulate outside the main traffic stream by using a cycle lane will experience the
maximum risk of collision. This is confirmed by the recent experience of Dorset county council
who marked such "annular ring" cycle lanes on several roundabouts, apparently without prior
consultation91. These are now being removed following a doubling of the casualty rate.

DePurpereWolf

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

I got the heebie-geebies just watching that video. Plenty of close shaves. Cyclists appear to be very tolerant of drivers not yielding to them.

The cars are driving 5km/h, plus, it is sometimes difficult to see how much space there actually is. I don't particularly like the roundabout, it's over complicated with the two-way cyclist roundy, but there is much traffic, and nobody seems to be stressed or agitated.

But it does indicate the point I was making earlier. All crossing points are clearly marked with white triangles. In this case these are forcing the driver to yield, in many other junctions they're forcing the cyclist to yield.

The problem with the Killiney roundabout is it is not clear to a driver exiting the roundabout whether he has to yield or not. A line of white triangles would clarify this.

As a foreigner, for me this applies to the whole of Ireland, cycling and driving, it is never clear to me who has the right of way and who hasn't. It still goes by eye-contact. It's due to the eduction of the drivers, but also because most of the junction don't have the appropriate signage. It would be nice if an effort was made just to add the correct signage across Ireland. By doing that, you're educting the drivers to look at signs.

Keep_Her_Lit

Don't like the look of that roundabout design one little bit. It seems quite possible that users unfamiliar with it, whether cyclists or motorists, could fail to notice the kerbing altogether under certain conditions, e.g. heavy traffic on a dark, wet night.

I also agree that lack of clarity about priority at the exits is likely to cause problems too.

check_six

I expect the priority issue to be 'fixed' by painting a yield sign for cyclists at every exit so that you have priority over no one!

I tried going around a cycle lane that was part of the footpath around a roundabout near Carrickmines one day and I got trapped there until someone stopped their car at one of the exits to let me proceed. I was dragging a trailer at the time, so starting off was a little less explosive than usual, but even still I would have been stuck for a bit. Catastrophically bad design. I don't see how the design in the OP is much better, you end up in the wrong position for passing by an exit, and you are not in the eyeline of those entering the roundabout either (eg. driver at entrance thinks "There's a cyclist. He's so close to the previous exit he must be turning off, I'll go now without checking to see if he continued or not").

nomdeboardie

Thanks to everyone for the comments - lots of interesting points and info.; (I haven't been hitting the "thanks" button just to avoid the complication of appearing confused if I end up thanking contradictory opinions etc.).

nomdeboardie

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

This isn't the 1st time they have tried to put a cycle lane on this roundabout. I think it is the 3rd attempt, 1st one only lasted a week before the ripped out the dividing kerbing leaving the red tarmac as he cycle lane. This time around they have made the central roundabout smaller an put in a brickwork section on the road that you can drive over. over the past 5 years they must have spent a fortune on that roundabout and in my opinion it was not too bad for cyclists. ...

Wow, the history of this roundablot(C) is even more tortured than I realised :pac:

Highway to Hell indeed

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

... And while I am moaning about DLRCC wasting money, what is the point of the aerobic equipment on the promenade at Scottsmans bay (40 foot). I regularly pass them and have yet to see them used for there intended purpose, seem to be there for kids to play on. I have more to moan about but I will stop now.

/rant

Chortle - thsy are a peculiar addition to the seafront, indeed. I always have a slightly bemused expression as I pass by. Saw a couple of people scissoring(?! ) away on them once.

My own rants to DLRCOCO would include asking them to put all the *!$$ off-road "cycle paths" back(?) on the roads...

nomdeboardie

kuro_man wrote: »

Problem with most cycle lanes, including this one, is it pushes cyclist to left-most side of the road, closer to cars entering the roundabout.

When I go through a junction, I want to be in the middle of the lane so that I cannot be overtaken or squeezed and cars entering from the my left can see me earlier. Also most roundabouts have a squeeze point on exit if there is an island for pedestrians. I have to ensure that cars do not attempt to pass at this point.

Overtaking maneuvers should not be encouraged on junctions.

Yes, conflicts with entering traffic are another aspect of roundabouts in general. I think I've had more cut-offs by entering vehicles than exiting, while cycling, at least recently.