Legal obligation to use cycle paths

Snickers Man

I live in the Grand Canal area where recently about half of the road has been taken up by a fine cycle path, separated by a kerb from both the pedestrian footpath and the rest of the roadway.

I warmly approve of this measure and would hope that the Council extends it throughout the city where appropriate. My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

I understand that a pedestrian has, strictly speaking, a legal requirement to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road if they are within 100m of one. To cross the road otherwise is "jaywalking" punishable, at least in theory, by a fine. I know. It's rarely if ever enforced. But it's there.

Is there a legal requirement on cyclists to use a cycle path if one is provided for them on the road along which they are travelling?

If not, there should be.

And if the police don't want to enforce it, the insurance companies could do us all a favour by refusing to pay out if a cyclist is injured while travelling where they shouldn't have been. That might concentrate minds wonderfully.

paddyandy

There was the pavement and the Cycle Lane but he chose the pavement .We don't care enough about it and as a nation we are dying from apathy about important matters .

seamus

There is a legal requirement, however the vast majority of cycle lanes and cycle tracks are inappropriately constructed for cycle traffic and are usually more dangerous and hazardous to use than the road.
There is a primary obligation on all road users to do their best to avoid injury or damage to property, and it is under this obligation that I refuse to use off-road cycle tracks.

A "fine" cycle path is a matter of opinion. I can't comment on the piece you refer to unless I've cycled on it. Neither for that matter, can you. Unless you've cycled on it yourself you actually don't know if it's of any use.

Mint Sauce

As pointed out, there is a legal requirement, however, most cyclelanes I have seen out totally in approprate. Between pedestirians using them as an extention the to footpath, cars parking in them or undertaking in them, passengers opening their doors without looking, every peice of road debre being swept into them, etc etc.

If theres a painted lane in the road, I'll usally use it, if its seperated by a kerb, or painted on the pavement, I generally wont.

Dravokivich

Overhanging branches from trees usually planted right next to them, make them pointless for me to use.

unless... I want to feel like I'm some sort of super spy while ducking between the trees while pretending I'm dodging bullets from the bad guys.

wench

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Well sometimes they're already in use & I think I'd take my chances with the cars over these lads
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056543191

AlekSmart

From The Rules of The Road...

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

A cycle track can also be a reserved part of a footpath or other area off the road. A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Maybe you should ask why, rather than get angry/annoyed about it? There's usually a very good reason why somebody does not use a cycle path/track/lane.

On which sections of road and in what direction have you seen cyclists not using the path?

Snickers Man wrote: »

I understand that a pedestrian has, strictly speaking, a legal requirement to use a pedestrian crossing to cross the road if they are within 100m of one. To cross the road otherwise is "jaywalking" punishable, at least in theory, by a fine. I know. It's rarely if ever enforced. But it's there.

That's not true -- it's rightly something like 15m away from a crossing. Having to walk 100m to a ped crossing in a huge amount of case would be madly crazy.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is there a legal requirement on cyclists to use a cycle path if one is provided for them on the road along which they are travelling?

Only for a limited amount of cycle tracks and only a limited amount of the time, and there are exceptions (for example: outside the operational hours, turning left or right where the path does not go, getting around an obstruction, the cyclists not going the same direction and the same way as the cycle path, etc).

Snickers Man wrote: »

And if the police don't want to enforce it, the insurance companies could do us all a favour by refusing to pay out if a cyclist is injured while travelling where they shouldn't have been. That might concentrate minds wonderfully.

Keep in mind you can still be criminally more liable even where one person is a percentage in the wrong.

AlekSmart wrote: »

From The Rules of The Road...

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

The rules of the road is not the law, it's just the RSA's view. And the RSA are wrong about a few things (see this current thread in motors, for example, Why [does the] RSA keep on publishing materials with incorrect information?).

Aka Ishur

Things people should remember when planning a cycle lane-

A cycle lane will not be used if -

• If you have to cross the road to get to it.
• If you have to yield at junctions joining the main rd.
• If there's no kerb/barrier seperating it from the footpath.
• If it requires the cyclist to leave/enter main rd at any sharp angle.
• If they are not cleaned on a very regular basis. (Traffic keeps the roads relatively clean)
• If they have short lengths between interuptions
• If they are easy to park either partially or totally on.
• If it uses the rediculous hi-grip surface stuff that breaks up almost immediately. Just use tarmac.
• If it dips up and down for entrances etc.

My opinion anyways.

OssianSmyth

Mandatory cycle lane use was to be abolished last year...
http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2011-04-20.309.3

The canal cycle path is not yet complete so its use is not yet mandatory.

Jay-walking is prohibited only within 15m of a signalised crossing:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

patrickbrophy18

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

Completely agree. This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true. The reason why conflicts between motorists and cyclists is so high at the moment is because most of the roads in County Dublin are shared between both types of road users. The very purpose of facilities such as the Grand Canal Cycle Way is to separate cyclists and motorists traveling along it. In theory, this should result in a conflict free environment were neither type of road user has to worry about each other. As such any cyclist failing to use such facilities becomes a nuisance to motorists and commuters traveling by bus. This type of system should be rolled out to the rest of County Dublin and nationwide.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true.

It should be, but it isn't anywhere close to being so.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The canal cycle path is not yet complete so its use is not yet mandatory.

Signs are up so it is open (bar the bit they are finishing, which half isn't parallel to a road anyway).

However, it seems to be marked at as a cycleway which does not seem to be covered under mandatory use, and, even if it was covered there are the written and case law exceptions.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

It should be, but it isn't anywhere close to being so.

Why do you say that?

I have walked the entire length of the canal and I don't see anything wrong with it. While I do acknowledge that a small stretch of it remains incomplete, the finished stretches have ample space. Where stretches remain unfinished, I am perfectly fine with cyclists sharing the nearest road with motorists as long as caution is taken by BOTH types of road users. The only criticism I would have towards it is the lack of fencing, barriers or other measures which may safe-guard pedestrians and cyclists from accidentally falling into the canal.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Why do you say that?

To be fair to the council I'll wait until after it's officially opened to go into detail...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have walked the entire length of the canal and I don't see anything wrong with it. While I do acknowledge that a small stretch of it remains incomplete, the finished stretches have ample space.

Where I think you are referring to (along the canal from Leeson Street to Grand Canal Street?), is mostly better than the rest.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Where stretches remain unfinished, I am perfectly fine with cyclists sharing the nearest road with motorists as long as caution is taken by BOTH types of road users.

The unfinished section is only a dead end to a few houses, businesses and a hotel. Anybody not able to share such a road needs a kick up the...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The only criticism I would have towards it is the lack of fencing, barriers or other measures which may safe-guard pedestrians and cyclists from accidentally falling into the canal.

I don't think that's a problem.

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Completely agree. This facility along the Grand Canal is (or at least should be) a cyclists dream come true.

why? Free unhindered use of the roads would be a cyclist dream come true rather than constantly been directed into stupid dangerous cycle lanes that don't have priority and don't go where you want.

Mucco

Snickers Man wrote: »

My only frustration is that many cyclists, for reasons I cannot fathom, seem to prefer to mix it with cars in the roadway instead of use the fine facilities the taxpayer has provided for them.

What's wrong with cyclists using the road if they prefer?

Hilly Bill

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

Cianos

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.

Many would look at it and think there's nothing wrong with it. Even better, the road has recently been resurfaced and the lines are much more defined.

However, on a busy afternoon, this stretch is filled with adjacently parked cars, like the blue one in the link. The cycle lane is so close to this line of parked cars, that if a car were to open its doors, the door would swing right out in to the cycle lane. Cycling along, it's either smash in to the door, (potentially being flung off the bike and out under a car) or swerve out in to the road and be crushed by a car coming up fast from behind.

So yeah, Seamus was right. You might get pissed off with cyclists not being in the cycle lane, but you don't really know how safe or dangerous a cycle lane is until you're the one cycling on it.

So instead I cycle out in the cars lane, as I trust drivers behind me to consider my presence much more so than a kid opening the back door of a car, someone chatting away on the phone and not thinking, etc.

Snickers Man

seamus wrote: »

A "fine" cycle path is a matter of opinion. I can't comment on the piece you refer to unless I've cycled on it. Neither for that matter, can you. Unless you've cycled on it yourself you actually don't know if it's of any use.

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

There's millions of bad ones. Such as the old line "Cycle paths have pot holes where adjoining roads don't. So I won't use them."

If I were to decide that a pot hole might damage my suspension therefore I'll just drive along the footpath for a little while you'd think I was insane. And rightly so.

Snickers Man

Cianos wrote: »

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.
...
on a busy afternoon, this stretch is filled with adjacently parked cars, like the blue one in the link. The cycle lane is so close to this line of parked cars, that if a car were to open its doors, the door would swing right out in to the cycle lane.

I accept that point. And I think that many cycle lanes in Dublin are about as much use as a chocolate teapot. They basically are a line painted in a road beside a lane that is not wide enough to take a normal sized car so effectively cars and bikes share the same space anyway.

But the stretch along the canal is the ideal cycle lane. It is completely separate, ie there is a kerb not just a painted line, between both the car and pedestrian sections. It's the closest I've seen in Ireland to those in Germany or Denmark.

Any cyclist who insists on using the road along that stretch is an idiot.

IMHO

Mongfinder General

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

Because they can. There is very little enforcement in this country. I see it every day. No real prospect of detection.

AltAccount

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road ...

Most? Really?

AltAccount

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

Possible reasons: Losing priority at every junction. Having to use badly timed crossing lights where cars are given very obvious priority. Being treated like a pedestrian rather than a vehicle.

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

But the stretch along the canal is the ideal cycle lane. It is completely separate, ie there is a kerb not just a painted line, between both the car and pedestrian sections. It's the closest I've seen in Ireland to those in Germany or Denmark.

Any cyclist who insists on using the road along that stretch is an idiot.

IMHO

Putting IMHO at the end does not mean much when you clearly don't know what you're talking about and are unwilling to be open to the idea that it is far from ideal.

Most of the canal route design would never be used in Denmark and Germany is a mixed bag on standards.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because most go against the traffic on the wrong side of the road thinking that they can cycle in any direction they want regardless of the oncoming traffic and thats just on the cycle lane. Saw it today in town, idiots cycling the wrong way along a one way street and across a junction that was controlled by lights .
One of them was close to being side swiped by a car moving across the junction and still had the cheek to give out to the driver as if he was in the wrong.

A driver broke a red light last week while I was crossing with a green bike light on the canal route and he had the cheek to beep at me!

Does that say anything about all or most drivers?

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's newly paved, it's straight. It's away from trees. It's got a dotted line signifying that it is two way. It's an excellent facility. There is NO good reason for a cyclist not to use it.

If you say so! You're the expert authorty here on cycle lanes. Forget what the people who have to use them think!

Snickers Man wrote: »

There's millions of bad ones. Such as the old line "Cycle paths have pot holes where adjoining roads don't. So I won't use them."

If I were to decide that a pot hole might damage my suspension therefore I'll just drive along the footpath for a little while you'd think I was insane. And rightly so.

Why don't drivers feck off and drive on the motorway?

nomdeboardie

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

kate.m

There's still a cycle lane marked on the road though, so you're technically not doing anything wrong by using that? (with the traffic) or will they get rid of it when the other side is properly finished?

Hilly Bill

AltAccount wrote: »

Most? Really?

Yep.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Putting IMHO at the end does not mean much when you clearly don't know what you're talking about and are unwilling to be open to the idea that it is far from ideal.

Most of the canal route design would never be used in Denmark and Germany is a mixed bag on standards.




A driver broke a red light last week while I was crossing with a green bike light on the canal route and he had the cheek to beep at me!

Does that say anything about all or most drivers?




If you say so! You're the expert authorty here on cycle lanes. Forget what the people who have to use them think!




Why don't drivers feck off and drive on the motorway?

Typical cyclist attitude. All cyclists should be kept off the road for their own good.

Capt'n Midnight

Motorists are required to keep as near to the left as it is safe to do so.

Motorists are allowed to drive in cycle lanes with dashed lines.


Does this mean that motorists are legally obliged to use such cycle lanes when there are no cyclists in them ?



Also as regards forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes, most collisions occur at junctions where a cycle lane won't separate the traffic anyway.

patrickbrophy18

Cianos wrote: »

Okay, here is an example of a cycle lane that most non cyclists would consider a 'perfectly good cycle lane', but one that I refuse to cycle in.

Okay, I will agree that this is a terrible way to plan cycle lanes by placing parking spaces to the left of them as this is hazardous to cyclists. If cycle lanes are to be placed parallel to parking spaces, they should be placed to the left with plenty of clearance between them and the car so that opening doors won't become an issue.

nomdeboardie wrote: »

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

Going by the footage of the video, it appears as though the traffic lights at each junction are trying the patience of pedestrians and cyclists. From this, I can understand how the superfluously long intervals between pedestrian and cycle lights would drive them nuts. As such, they need to be reconfigured to give more prioritization to cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the obvious glitches in their synchronization is extremely dangerous and hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians.

foggy_lad

nomdeboardie wrote: »

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

That video clearly shows that a very high number of cyclists will ignore the rules and laws and cycle through red lights putting pedestrians and other road users at risk.

monument

foggy_lad wrote: »

That video clearly shows that a very high number of cyclists will ignore the rules and laws and cycle through red lights putting pedestrians and other road users at risk.

So, cyclists are just like motorist and pedestrians?... Wait? Did you watch the same video? Who do you think it shows as the largest law breakers? Is your screen a bit foggy?

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Typical cyclist attitude. All cyclists should be kept off the road for their own good.

That's just a typical responce.

If motorists just stuck to motorways, there'd be no problem! Everybody would be better off, no traffic congestion in towns and cities, and there'd be close to zero deaths.

Cookie_Monster

nomdeboardie wrote: »

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

what a ****ing disater that is. I couldn't have imagined they'd be able to make that much of a mess of it...

Aard

From casual observation of the new cycle route along the canal it seems that there wasn't a lot of consideration for pedestrians in this. The line of desire of pedestrians is, quite rightly straight across from the bridge to the other side of the road. The new cycle path makes them meander a little. The ped crossing should have pretty much continued the footpath in a straight line across the road, and the cycle path should have been stopped a meter or so back, in line with the railings on the bridge more or less.

Another thing is that Denmark was mentioned above. Afaik, the current practice there atm is to avoid bi-directional cycle lanes unless they're properly segregated (i.e. not in a highly urban area). They usually go for lanes at the side of each car lane. Doing it this way keeps the cyclists on the minds of the motorist. Segregate them, and the motorist forgets that the cyclists are there. Also, the lanes in the canal route seem to be pretty narrow, a problem that is no doubt exacerbated by pedestrians walking in them.

Snickers Man

AltAccount wrote: »

Possible reasons: Losing priority at every junction. Having to use badly timed crossing lights where cars are given very obvious priority. Being treated like a pedestrian rather than a vehicle.

Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

Why is that such an imposition?

You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"

steve-o

Snickers Man wrote: »

You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"

So you hate cyclists. You hate the fact they aren't using the "wonderful facility". But, having seen the video, can you accept there are any design flaws or operational flaws?

seamus

Snickers Man wrote: »

Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all

Life would be a whole lot easier without.

All they really do is give the impression that bicycles need their own roads. They don't.

foggy_lad

Snickers Man wrote: »

Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

Why is that such an imposition?

You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"

Are you saying it is ok to provide a crap cycle lane that cyclists wont use(because it is just plain messed up by blind corners, narrow lanes, and places where the contra flow and proximity to pedestrians is dangerous due to not having a barrier at the canal edge,) and that spending millions on this is better than providing two separate good quality lanes at a greater expense but which provided far greater value for money because people will actually use them?


(I don't hate ciclists and i do think that good cycle lanes should be provided on carriageways and major roads but don't think city streets are the place for cycle lanes that are nothing more than a white marking on the road and not being wide enough for a bike yet expected to carry bikes bi-directional and a fortune spent making it look like the government care.!)

monument

Snickers Man wrote: »

....If only for self preservation.

Dublin roads are some of the safest in Europe, so that's nonsense.

Snickers Man wrote: »

As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

Why is that such an imposition?

Ireland and the UK are some of the few countries in the world which use such segregated traffic light sequences.

Elsewhere when traffic has a green light in one direction, pedestrians also have a green in that direction. Traffic turning yields to the pedestrians. It works and is proven to be safe.

The result of not doing this on this route is walking and cycling traffic stopped needless at more than a few junctions just for the odd car tuning left (along with also been stopped often for a considerable amount of time for traffic in the other direction).

Snickers Man wrote: »

You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

You've got wonderfully safe motorways to drive on, why don't you use them?

Run_to_da_hills

I would have thought that there was a European standard for cycle lanes as there seems to be for everything else including motorways in this country. There is a cycle lane on the Naas road just before Nulans X with a bus stop placed in the center of it.

jameverywhere

Y'all may find this thread enlightening:

documenting Ireland's cycle lanes

seamus

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would have thought that there was a European standard for cycle lanes as there seems to be for everything else including motorways in this country. There is a cycle lane on the Naas road just before Nulans X with a bus stop placed in the center of it.

There is a handbook for city/county councils setting out how cycling facilities should be constructed.

It's only a handbook mind, nobody seems to pay it a blind bit of notice.

To give a bit of perspective on what cycle lanes are like;

Imagine the state maintained this vast network of motorways. These motorways go practically everywhere, are in OK condition (a few bumps and holes here and there) and have priority at all junctions with other types of roads.
But only trucks and busses may use them.

Cars are provided with a separate piece of road which is barely the same width as the car. The surface is fine when constructed, but it is never maintained, so it falls to ruin in a year or two and is almost never repaired. The road is continually littered with debris and glass. Pedestrians routinely walk down the road with their back to you, despite having a perfectly good path beside it.
Trucks and Busses routinely park in the car lane, requiring you to either try and squeeze by, or mount a six-inch kerb to get onto the motorway. The Gardai never do anything about this.

It zig-zags left and right in such a way that these roads are not suitable for speeds above 25km/h. Usually where they join or leave a motorway, there is a six-inch kerb. Where there is no separate car lane, you may drive on the motorway.
Every few hundred metres there is a junction with the motorway, requiring you to stop and check for traffic. Traffic does not slow down for you - if you don't slow down at these junctions, the traffic will plough right on through.

Sometimes there is no real junction - the car lane just "ends" and you have to figure out how to get onto the motorway safely while traffic just keeps on moving. Sometimes the signage directs you to get out of your vehicle and push it across the motorway in order to join the car lane on the opposite side.

Would you continue using these car lanes, or would you just abandon them completely, knowing that it is both safer and more convenient to use the motorways?

dave_o_brien

@Snickers Man, your blunt ignorance and refusal to accept some basic facts about road traffic management place you on one side of the old saying "for those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't, no proof is good enough." Others here have the no proof is good enough attitude, and would welcome the total abolition of cycle lanes. Obviously, there is a middle ground; cycle lanes that are effective, safe and create a relationship between the two types of vehicle that works.

The fact is that Ireland has no such cycle facility, and the Canal cycle lane is no exception. At every junction, the prioritisation of motorist creates points of conflict between motorist, cyclist and pedestrian. This is terrible practice from a traffic management perspective.

The likes of Denmark would be appalled at such a facility; it obviously undermines the pedestrian and cyclist to the extent that the motorist feels confronted every time a pedestrian or a cyclist deviates from their position of enforced subjugation, as you clearly feel with your post (the cyclist is not using the facility provided exclusively for him, and is instead using the road, which was originally provided for the use of all vehicles, which includes the bicycle). Danish planning would seek to eradicate such conflict.

I think it is important to remember that the heirarchy of importance in Danish traffic management places the needs of the motorist at the bottom of the ladder. Pedestrian traffic is the priority, as it should be. A city or towns experience is predominantly on foot, and the better you can make that, the better the town will be perceived. The motorised vehicles are given lowest priority because they cause the most accidents and fatalities, create unnecessary traffic blockages, damage to public property and pollution. The idea is to discourage reliance on motor vehicles, and to limit their access to urban areas to specific zones through specific arteries. So they provide better cycle lanes than motor vehicle lanes, and clearly give priority in a pedestrian first, then cyclist, then motorist manner.

Ireland does not have this attitude, so we clog some of our finest streets (Leeson Street, Merrion Square, O' Connell Street, College Green, Dame Street, Georges Street, the length of the Quays) with roads that allow traffic to take priority. This cycle lane is an extension of that policy.

Which brings me to my point; why does Ireland do this? People come to Dublin and say "it was beautiful, I had a great time, but the traffic was shocking." I've never heard anyone come back from Copenhagen, or Amsterdam and say "it was crap, couldn't get anywhere in my rented car." Surely policy on road traffic should be attempting to improve the city as an experience (and some actions, such as the College Green traffic restriction and 30kmph speed limit are tokenistic, unenforced attempts at this) rather than making it quicker to drive through.

By the way, I'm not condoning cyclists who break the road laws. That's as bad as when a motorist speeds, or accelerates to get through the yellow light, or parks taking up two spaces, or sticks the hazard lights on to pop into a shop for 2 minutes, or whatever. It's wrong.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Leo Varadkar has indicated that the mandatory use of cycle lanes will be repealed soon, with the exception of contra flow cycle lanes on one way streets and in pedestrianised areas, both of which to me seem logical and fair.

Now, Sickers Man, if you wish to continue howling your opinion without being willing to listen to the other side and accept the experience of cyclists, fair enough. But just be aware that for you, your belief that the lane is "an amazing facility" is founded on opinion. Just like the opinion of people who say that all cycle lanes are dangerous. They're not. But they are in a country like ours that makes traffic policy that kowtows to motorists at the expense of everything else. Remember that you own a car, not the road.

Snickers Man

steve-o wrote: »

So you hate cyclists. You hate the fact they aren't using the "wonderful facility". But, having seen the video, can you accept there are any design flaws or operational flaws?

I don't hate cyclists. I am, sometimes, a cyclist myself. I hate stupid cyclists, which is a qualification and not a tautology.

And looking at the video the flaws that I spotted were (1) dumb cyclists crashing the lights from the left when the camera wearer tried to cross the road with the lights.

(2) Roadworks preventing passage through a section of the cycle path. Regrettable but sometimes inevitable and usually temporary.

(3) the blind corner at Leeson St Bridge needs to be rectified. I'm in total agreement there.

The film didn't show the section east of Leeson St bridge where in the early days there was a terrible congestion of pedestrians and cyclists using teh same space. This now appears to have been rectified with an improved footpath along the canal.

The section in which pedestrians were seen walking along the cycle path west of Baggot St bridge is a confusion but the complaint in the commentary that "there's no footpath here" is misleading. There was NEVER a footpath on that side of the road in that section. Unless of course you mean the canal bank, suitably protected by a wall, on the far side of the railings.

The section that I travel along most and which annoys me most when cyclists use it is Herbert Place. There is NO good reason not to use the cycle path there, it's straight, well paved, separated from the road and with reasonable traffic signals. Cyclists slowing down car traffic on that stretch of road are just being inconsiderate.

If you are arguing for a generally more sensible sequencing of pedestrian/cyclist crossing signals in Dublin then I'm with you. I think perhaps cycle lanes like this could help force the issue because the way pedestrians traditionally deal with it is just to ignore the signals anyway as the flim shows. No complaints; no action from the authorities.

Bottom line is I'm all in favour of proper cycle paths. And given the limitations of Dublin when compared with Germany (we weren't bombed to rubble in the 40s and therefore given the opportunity to rebuild our cities with wider streets including cycle paths on pavements) the Grand Canal cycle path is a good start and one that should be supported.

Of course it's not perfect. But such flaws as there are are rectifiable.

Oh and "cyclists being treated as pedestrians for the purpose of traffic signals" is NOT a flaw.

View

Snickers Man wrote: »

As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane.

Correct me if I am wrong but, in the absence of a cycle lane, wouldn't the "safe way of permitting traffic turning right across" the path of an oncoming cyclist be for the traffic to yield to the oncoming cyclist just like the traffic would for oncoming cars?

Why are the rules of the road suddenly expected to change when a cycle lane is put in? Would they be changed if a bus lane was put in? Or another lane for cars?

nomdeboardie

Snickers Man wrote: »

Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

Why is that such an imposition?

You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"

Why would a cyclist who wants to make progress, as opposed to having a more pleasant view of the canal, not choose to use the road going in the same direction, when they are legally entitled to do so? Would you choose to drive through scenic country lanes and small towns in preference to using a motorway if you want to get to your destination as quickly and efficiently as possible? If cycing is being promoted for transport and fitness as well as leisure, it's imperative that cyclists are not coerced onto facilities that impede progress.

nerraw1111

I’ve been using the new grand cycle lane regularly enough and I like it for the most part. Last night, I got all green and it was fantastic. Nice surface and traffic free. It felt like a properly designed cycle lane, which it isn’t yet.
I mainly use it off peak which makes a huge difference.

But the junctions are so badly designed in that pedestrians are pretty much forced to stand in front of the bicycle lane. It’s not pedestrians’ fault who are often taken by surprise that they are suddenly standing in the middle of a cycle lane.
The ridiculous small gap that cyclists and pedestrians, from both directions, must file into at Lesson st Bridge really grinds my gear. I mean look at the gap!
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.332244,-6.250491&spn=0.010892,0.01929&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.294644,58.798828&hnear=Dublin,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.332217,-6.253014&panoid=J5BZUH54aeIzaEblrGOsRA&cbp=12,177.27,,0,11.57

All these problems could be rectified when the lane is finished. But for the most part, I prefer it than the road, just as long as you're not in a hurry.

dave_o_brien

Snickers Man wrote: »

Oh and "cyclists being treated as pedestrians for the purpose of traffic signals" is NOT a flaw.

It is if the pedestrian is treated poorly. In fact ANY design in which the pedestrian is treated poorly is a flawed design. This cycle lane is criminal in how it treats the pedestrian, as is most of the road network in Ireland's urban areas. Priority should be given to pedestrians in all aspects of road design, particularly in urban areas like this one. The manner in which the design facilitates the pedestrian currently is embarrassing.

Milan Cobian

And given the limitations of Dublin when compared with Germany (we weren't bombed to rubble in the 40s and therefore given the opportunity to rebuild our cities with wider streets including cycle paths on pavements)

Germany's cities were rebuilt in the 1950's without the benefit of cycle lanes, which were not added until much later. At the time of course, the cyclists were by far in the majority (as in Dublin) and such additions were not necessary.
The most cycle-friendly cities in Europe include such cities as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, neither of which "benefitted" from re-arrangement courtesy of the Luftwaffe, the RAF or the USAAF. So the "clean slate" argument is a fallacy.
Attitude is the key differentiator between us and continental cities. They have decided that public transport, properly funded by taxes, is a societal good. The extension to this is that cycling is also a better means of urban transportation than the car.
We have decided that we don't want to pay taxes for public transportation, allied to wanting to live spread out all over the place so public transport is not economically viable at the level we're willing to pay for it. Ironically, had we developed a sustainable planning policy that involved increased taxes to fund sustainable public transportation, planning and development we wouldn't be paying all our taxes from here to kingdom come to bail out Anglo. We had no vision so we pay the price many times over in the long run.
But I digress. Anyway, throw a good dose of a Maggie Thatcher-like attitude ("A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.") and we have some idea why Ireland is so motor-centric. This previous statement I suspect would also attract plenty who would be happy to substitute "bike" for "bus."
A worthy mention also goes to our strong motoring lobby - after all this is the country that decided, as the economy flat lined, that the best pro-business initiative would be to promote a car subsidy scheme, specially designed to ensure as much money as possible left the economy.
All in all, this leaves cycling (and public transport) very much the black sheep of the transit family in Ireland. Whether this remains the same as petrol prices head north at a rate of knots remains to be seen.

Snickers Man

View wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but, in the absence of a cycle lane, wouldn't the "safe way of permitting traffic turning right across" the path of an oncoming cyclist be for the traffic to yield to the oncoming cyclist just like the traffic would for oncoming cars?

This is of course true. But the issue I have in mind is dealing with cyclists who are travelling in the same direction as the motorist, not oncoming cyclists.

Because the cycle lane is on one side of the road only, it means that in one direction (in this case going from west to east) a cyclist wishing to go straight over say the Herbert Place to Warrington Place junction at Hubband Bridge will be travelling to the right of cars going in the same direction, including those wanting to turn right over the bridge.

The cyclist is therefore, if expected to follow the same traffic signals as the motorist, effectively overtaking a car turning right. This is idiotic.

The solution is to have cyclists obey the pedestrian signals instead. This seems to me eminently sensible and to be fair, most cyclists do so. But only yesterday some clown nearly got himself killed, or worse might have caused a car to brake suddenly and have another car crash into its rear end thereby damaging both cars' bumpers, by blithely ignoring his stop sign and bombing across the junction as a car tried to turn right.

This is NOT the same as giving way to pedestrians when turning right, as is the default duty of a motorist when there are no filter lights or pedestrian signals. A bicycle travelling at full pelt coming from behind the car and in the driver's blind spot is a much more sudden and surprising event than a pedestrian approaching the same crossing.

So given the limitations of the cycle lane, ie the fact that it is on one side of the road only, then it is necessary for cyclists to "be treated as pedestrians."

They have no grounds to feel slighted by this.

SleepDoc

Snickers Man wrote: »

The solution is to have cyclists obey the pedestrian signals instead.

So given the limitations of the cycle lane, ie the fact that it is on one side of the road only, then it is necessary for cyclists to "be treated as pedestrians."

They have no grounds to feel slighted by this.

Cyclists are not pedestrians and have a common law right to use the road. Unlike cars, which are crap, make you fat and are a money pit (I have one).

The solution is to ignore the blasted thing and cycle as normal on the road. The speed limit is 30kph anyway so you won't be holding anything up.