The case for separated bicycle lanes

Qualitymark

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/08/case-separated-bike-lanes/3015/

Interesting article in The Atlantic, which cites various efforts where cyclists have used items of trash to mark out bicycle lanes, causing drivers to avoid the lane.

hardCopy

Irish delivery drivers still park in lanes that are completely separated by a kerb.

See the Grand Canal Cycle Lane and Spencer Dock.

Maybe stinger spikes or anti-tank mines would do the trick.

Qualitymark

Anti-tank mines? Sounds like a runner. But with all the wars still going on around the world, they're quite expensive.

By the same token, I used to have a kind of 90-centimetre lollipop yoke on my back carrier at one stage; bright fluorescent orange and white, it stuck out to the right, and served as a warning to cars to keep over to my right and not come too close. Surprisingly effective, too.

Skrynesaver

Witnessed a mother with her child in a bike seat being forced to a sudden stop as some charmer over took her and then cut in front of her on the cycle lane as he came to a stop in the traffic. The traffic firmly believes that the two car lanes run the length of the street on Belvedere Rd.

Wing mirrors in this bike lane are forfeit from now on...


If there were a real separate infrastructure for cycling I'd be fine with it, however in my experience the cycle lanes exist to get bikes out of motorists way, with no right of way when crossing minor roads at junctions etc... With the exception of the coast road out to Howth which is a delight (apart from the Bull Island detour)

Qualitymark

Skrynesaver wrote: »

If there were a real separate infrastructure for cycling

We can dream, can't we... or move to Copenhagen or Eindhoven...

By the way, the Grand Canal bicycle lane is pretty nice too.

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

By the way, the Grand Canal bicycle lane is pretty nice too.

In your opinion.
I think it's a waste of space and money, and that it serves only as a hindrance to any cyclist who wishes to progress at a reasonable speed.

RacoonQueen

There's a separated lane part of the way up the Ballyfermot Road http://goo.gl/maps/jKb1F

Too many problems with it though,
Cars park on it
You lose your right of way at junctions
You have to go up on the path to continue on straight meaning, there's a lip to get onto paths and down onto road to cross
People stop their cars, drive along, park there
Kids play there
People walk there
If you continue on up you'll see a bus stop, people hop off the bus and straight down onto the road/cycle lane without looking

My biggest issue with it is that you lose your right of way, use it sparingly as in I use it to skip past that set of lights which are nearly always red. Go in on the lane there and come out just past the lights (and sit at the next set of lights which are also always red)

monument

RT66 wrote: »

Qualitymark wrote: »

By the way, the Grand Canal bicycle lane is pretty nice too.

In your opinion.
I think it's a waste of space and money, and that it serves only as a hindrance to any cyclist who wishes to progress at a reasonable speed.

I'm in no way saying it's perfect, but it does not just seem to be in his opinion alone given the large amount of people who use it at peak times at least.

There's a direct alternative to it for most of its length. 95%

The way he describes it, I'm going on the idea he's talking about the half decent section south of Grand Canal Street, as the route is desperate and underused north of that point.

Re costs: I'm trying to put a cost on the cycling part of the project but it seems to be hard given the intertwined cost of upgrades for pedestrians and the disabled, and maybe lesser so the costs the upgraded drainage.

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There's a separated lane part of the way up the Ballyfermot Road http://goo.gl/maps/jKb1F

Too many problems with it though,
Cars park on it
You lose your right of way at junctions
You have to go up on the path to continue on straight meaning, there's a lip to get onto paths and down onto road to cross
People stop their cars, drive along, park there
Kids play there
People walk there
If you continue on up you'll see a bus stop, people hop off the bus and straight down onto the road/cycle lane without looking

My biggest issue with it is that you lose your right of way, use it sparingly as in I use it to skip past that set of lights which are nearly always red. Go in on the lane there and come out just past the lights (and sit at the next set of lights which are also always red)

The cycling part of that road design was all an afterthought.

funnights74

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Witnessed a mother with her child in a bike seat being forced to a sudden stop as some charmer over took her and then cut in front of her on the cycle lane as he came to a stop in the traffic. The traffic firmly believes that the two car lanes run the length of the street on Belvedere Rd.

Wing mirrors in this bike lane are forfeit from now on...


If there were a real separate infrastructure for cycling I'd be fine with it, however in my experience the cycle lanes exist to get bikes out of motorists way, with no right of way when crossing minor roads at junctions etc... With the exception of the coast road out to Howth which is a delight (apart from the Bull Island detour)

He's on the footpath, on double yellow lines and on a cycle lane :eek:, only in Ireland.

BostonB

RT66 wrote: »

In your opinion.
I think it's a waste of space and money, and that it serves only as a hindrance to any cyclist who wishes to progress at a reasonable speed.

I kinda half agree. Its a mess, poorly designed and constructed. The junctions don't even line up. Too many points where cyclists and pedestrians conflict. Its mainly used by tourists and commuters only going a short distance. Anyone going any distance along the canal would use the road on the other side of the canal.

Was it really needed though, as its on roads with very little traffic anyway. There wasn't a problem cycling on them before they built the lanes. There wasn't any problem there to solve. Seems to be the build these fancy lanes were they fit. Not where theres a need.

endacl

I use the road. As a motorist, and a citizen. But mostly as a cyclist...

monument

Design flaws / project limitations aside, there's a lot of logic to what they've done:

Design options are advancing for the 4km missing link along the Grand Canal which would make a continuous off-road route from Adamstown to the Docklands. It's a small part of a network of planned mostly off road routes which will go along the Grand Canal, Royal Canal, Dublin Bay, the Dodder and Tolka rivers and other areas. While the Dublin Bay project is largely dependent on expensive flood defences, the Royal Canal and Dodder projects are also advancing.

Even with the limited length and connectivity, the section we're talking about already seems to be heavily used by commuters and it's also nice to give tourists an off-road route. In 2006 the census recorded around 100,000 people driving 4km so even while waiting for the wider network, shorter commutes seem to be a good starting point for getting people cycling.

Qualitymark

Yes, in my opinion the Grand Canal route is nice. It's short, so far, but beautifully surfaced, and allows me to cycle quite a long route along the canal separated from traffic, in pleasant surroundings. Sure, I have the inconvenience of having to stop for red lights every now and again, yes, it could be better. But I think it's pretty good.

Orion

funnights74 wrote: »

He's on the footpath, on double yellow lines and on a cycle lane :eek:, only in Ireland.

That's the red van. White van man further down is on a bike lane, double yellow lines and a hatching.

doozerie

My wife and I cycled along the Grand Canal cycle lane last Friday evening, from Grand Canal Street Lower. We turned south at the bridge at Harold's Cross Road. We had our daughter with us, I was towing her in her trailer. We decided to take the cycle route to see what it was like. We didn't like it. We encountered a number of problems:

* When stopped at traffic lights, the usual nonsense of slower cyclists pulling ahead kicked in. Usually they'd break the lights too so once we caught up with them we were left with the options of slowing down ourselves to their speed or trying to find an opportunity to overtake which the extra time and issues that towing a trailer throws into that mix. Even if we overtook, the same situation recurred with the same muppets at the next set of lights.

* The cyclist-only traffic lights added to our delays as we had to wait for their timeslot each time, even when the light for cars was green and we could otherwise have moved off safely. Almost all of the other cyclists had already broken the lights by then anyway (not something I do generally and not something I'd even consider when towing a trailer, which makes me and my daughter a slower and longer target), so the cyclist lights seem largely useless.

* Cars and cyclists breaking their red lights to cross junctions in front of us was highly annoying. A green cyclist-only traffic light apparently means nothing for some people, other than what they seem to perceive as a "safe" opportunity to break their red light and cross a junction without having to worry about being hit by a car. Basically, quite a few obnoxious people seem to treat a junction with a green cyclist-only light much like they might obnoxiously treat a pedestrian crossing, feeling free to cross it whether there is anyone on it or not 'cos the risk of harm to themselves is minimal.

* At the junction of Leeson Street Lower, mixing with pedestrians was a bit chaotic, especially as several of the cyclists in our immediate vicinity seemed to be nervous bike handlers.

* People were walking on the cycle track, even where there was a pedestrian lane mere metres to their left. Getting past them without the trailer clipping them was sometimes tricky.

* The cycle lane ran out immediately after the Rathmines bridge, spitting us onto narrow roads with cars parked both sides and some particularly obnoxious drivers who demonstrated that they'd rather drive right through bikes + trailer rather than flex an ankle and apply their brake (or even turn their steering wheel a little bit). By the time we were spat onto South Circular Road I, for one, was baying for blood.

* Our route from there towards Harold's Cross obliged us to go over the horribly narrow and humpy bridge from Clanbrassil Street. If encouraging family and/or nervous cyclists to cycle around that area, that bridge is not a good route over the canal to lead them to. In fact, a guy cycling ahead of us made a balls of trying to get past stopped traffic and walloped a car's wing mirror with his handlebars. He kept on going, didn't even look back. I adjusted the mirror for the woman in the car who couldn't easily reach it from her driver's seat and commented that the guy was an idiot. I passed the idiot further along the road, and as I did I told him I'd fixed the mirror and suggested that next time he might have the balls to do it himself - he growled something that I presume was meant to be offensive, demonstrating his innate charm once again.

It was a mess of a journey, fine in some places, stressful and dodgy in other places. Most of the dodgy places would have been avoidable if taking a route on roads instead rather than on the cycle track. Admittedly a lot of the problems were caused by peoples' behaviour (cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians), but the design of the cycle route contributed directly to at least some of the problems too. Next time we'd take a different route.

BostonB

Doing that same journey on the road instead is much easier. Theres always a queue along the canal so it forms a natural cycle line up the inside. Load of other cyclists so weight of numbers.

rp

doozerie wrote: »

* When stopped at traffic lights, the usual nonsense of slower cyclists pulling ahead kicked in. Usually they'd break the lights too so once we caught up with them we were left with the options of slowing down ourselves to their speed or trying to find an opportunity to overtake which the extra time and issues that towing a trailer throws into that mix.

When I still regulated commuted with a child-trailer, I often had evil thoughts about mounting knives to the trailer wheels, gladiator chariot style, for dealing with that class of fellow road user. In the end tho, I made do with just training the kids to jeer when we passed them out.

Qualitymark

BostonB wrote: »

Doing that same journey on the road instead is much easier. Theres always a queue along the canal so it forms a natural cycle line up the inside. Load of other cyclists so weight of numbers.

Ah, I don't tend to cycle it at commuting times, so it's been almost empty and a lovely cycle when I've been on it. Though there are still fools who whizz past you through the red lights, of course.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

* When stopped at traffic lights, the usual nonsense of slower cyclists pulling ahead kicked in. Usually they'd break the lights too so once we caught up with them we were left with the options of slowing down ourselves to their speed or trying to find an opportunity to overtake which the extra time and issues that towing a trailer throws into that mix. Even if we overtook, the same situation recurred with the same muppets at the next set of lights.

Is that not also a problem on the road along the canal and not a problem confined to this cycle path? At even busyish times for traffic I've found it harder to overtake cyclists along the road than on the cycle path, normal bike or cargo bike.

doozerie wrote: »

* The cyclist-only traffic lights added to our delays as we had to wait for their timeslot each time, even when the light for cars was green and we could otherwise have moved off safely. Almost all of the other cyclists had already broken the lights by then anyway (not something I do generally and not something I'd even consider when towing a trailer, which makes me and my daughter a slower and longer target), so the cyclist lights seem largely useless.

Hitting red every time is unfortunate. When I've used it I've usually get a green or orange at around half or more of the junctions. But I'm able to speed up or slow down to do so, which is maybe harder with a trailer?

Two-way cycle tracks on highly urban, city streets are problematic when it comes to traffic light controlled junctions. But in a route that has good reason for two-way sections, it can be hard to transfer back and forward to cycle tracks or lanes on both sides of the road.

doozerie wrote: »

* Cars and cyclists breaking their red lights to cross junctions in front of us was highly annoying. A green cyclist-only traffic light apparently means nothing for some people, other than what they seem to perceive as a "safe" opportunity to break their red light and cross a junction without having to worry about being hit by a car. Basically, quite a few obnoxious people seem to treat a junction with a green cyclist-only light much like they might obnoxiously treat a pedestrian crossing, feeling free to cross it whether there is anyone on it or not 'cos the risk of harm to themselves is minimal.

An enforcement issue, but high enforcement should be on the cards for the of what is a fairly major change to the streets.

doozerie wrote: »

* At the junction of Leeson Street Lower, mixing with pedestrians was a bit chaotic, especially as several of the cyclists in our immediate vicinity seemed to be nervous bike handlers.

That's the weakest point in this section of the route and a contender for the weakest point in the route.

I'm not sure if they looked CPOs for some of the land (even if not the building but some of the front garden), but that may be needed in the future if this really is to link up major cycling routes. The least they could have done is looked for the hedge to be taken up so even it if remains a pinch point, it's not so much of a blind spot.

doozerie wrote: »

* People were walking on the cycle track, even where there was a pedestrian lane mere metres to their left. Getting past them without the trailer clipping them was sometimes tricky.

Along most of Wilton Terrance seems to be the main problem on this -- people still seem to enjoy walking on the large stone kerbs of the cycle track rather than using one of the two footpaths inside it, and at least one of those paths were renewed as part of the cycle route project. That's behaviour you nearly can't account for.

But many developed this habit before the cycle track was even opened -- more than a few people have said to me that best practice is to keep new infrastructure like this closed off before its opened so bad habits are not developed by those on foot and on bicycles (ie breaking lights before there were even bike lights in place).

But at the Wilton Terrance in my view also has a major design flaw: At the east end, there should have been a footpath between the cycle track and the railings, or improvements made to the footpath inside the railings. Expecting all to walk down the few steps might seem logical but it does not fit in with pedestrian behaviour and is unrealistic for those with prams, wheelchairs, etc.

doozerie wrote: »

* The cycle lane ran out immediately after the Rathmines bridge, spitting us onto narrow roads with cars parked both sides and some particularly obnoxious drivers who demonstrated that they'd rather drive right through bikes + trailer rather than flex an ankle and apply their brake (or even turn their steering wheel a little bit). By the time we were spat onto South Circular Road I, for one, was baying for blood.

From all of the cycling I've done around those narrow roads it's fairly rare to encounter particularly obnoxious drivers.

doozerie wrote: »

* Our route from there towards Harold's Cross obliged us to go over the horribly narrow and humpy bridge from Clanbrassil Street. If encouraging family and/or nervous cyclists to cycle around that area, that bridge is not a good route over the canal to lead them to.

Harold's Cross Bridge?

I'm not sure if you can really link the road layout of a bridge over 700ms from a route to how bad the route is or isn't. At least not with the way project funding is doled out. But it will be interesting what approach they take when linking up the cycle path we're talking about and the one at Inchicore.

The sad thing is that Harold's Cross Bridge isn't that small but it is poorly laid out. There's an over generously sized inbound lane which could reduced without affecting much or anything and that space used to make wider and possibly dedicated cycle lanes.

doozerie wrote: »

Admittedly a lot of the problems were caused by peoples' behaviour (cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians), but the design of the cycle route contributed directly to at least some of the problems too.

I think this is fairly key, but it's also a key point of mine to say that the council can't wash their hands of the poor behaviour, even where there are no design flaws -- new stuff like this needs to be linked to better education and enforcement.