Junction design the Dutch pedestrian and cycle friendly way

Iwannahurl

I did a quick Google search and I believe this video has been posted on Boards only once previously. I think it's worth a look, given what is currently regarded as acceptable or best practice in this country. It's in Markenlei's fine library of Dutch cycling videos on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

gctest50

or get rid of the signs and stuff altogether

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI

Chris_5339762

The first one is great but I really hate the second one. Its one of those terrible examples of a 'shared space'... noone knows what anyone else is doing and it becomes a total nightmare for traffic. Everyone believes they have right of way and it just ended up unsafe.

foggy_lad

gctest50 wrote: »

or get rid of the signs and stuff altogether

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L39gNtsaZfI

Looks ok on quiet residential type streets but increase the amount of traffic X10 and see how the pedestrians and cyclists fare!

SeanW

I may regret saying this later, but I kinda like the design in IWHs first post: it is certainly safer than what the beloved National Cycling Manual suggests (that cyclists should be allowed to basically undertake at junctions), and provided that the junction ensures that motorised traffic also can get across at a reasonable rate (e.g. by not using zebra crossing or their cycling equivalent if ped/cylist traffic is very high).

It would be a good idea wherever there's enough room at existing junctions.

foggy_lad

SeanW wrote: »

I may regret saying this later, but I kinda like the design in IWHs first post: it is certainly safer than what the beloved National Cycling Manual suggests (that cyclists should be allowed to basically undertake at junctions), and provided that the junction ensures that motorised traffic also can get across at a reasonable rate (e.g. by not using zebra crossing or their cycling equivalent if ped/cylist traffic is very high).

It would be a good idea wherever there's enough room at existing junctions.

The major issue in Ireland for the Dutch model is that they give cyclists priority while in Ireland even if the laws were there to give cyclists and pedestrians priority drivers will not and the current situation will continue.

It would take several decades of intensive education and training to change driver attitudes towards other road users in Ireland

Grandeeod

foggy_lad wrote: »

The major issue in Ireland for the Dutch model is that they give cyclists priority while in Ireland even if the laws were there to give cyclists and pedestrians priority drivers will not and the current situation will continue.

It would take several decades of intensive education and training to change driver attitudes towards other road users in Ireland

In all aspects of life, including the use and appreciation of all types of transport, education is key. That's where Ireland falls short. It's well educated in many respects, but woefully uneducated in many more important areas of life itself.

Aard

I think the main point regarding cycling in the Netherlands is that they fully segregate cyclists from both pedestrians and motorists. This is quite different to here where road designers frequently shoehorn cyclists into whichever category is least disruptive. This leaves cyclists with sub-par infrastructure (would a motorist or a pedestrian accept anything sub-par? No, and rightfully so!) causing them to find other ways of achieving safety or speed. When cyclists are provided with good, *comprehensive* infrastructure (i.e. a decent lane/track for 500m doesn't count if there is nothing on either end) everybody benefits - even motorists and pedestrians - because everybody knows where they stand. If there is any lesson Ireland can learn it is this one - that unless cyclists are treated as a category unto themselves, every other mode will suffer to some extent. Good cycle design is not about punishing motorists, but about accommodating every *person* as effectively as possible irrelevant of mode.

Cookie_Monster

foggy_lad wrote: »

It would take several decades of intensive education and training to change driver attitudes towards other road users in Ireland

I have to agree with this. The junction in the OP looks nice but would be insanely dangerous in Ireland where there is little concept or awareness of left turning traffic to look on it's inside.
As a cyclist I'd be using the main traffic lane at a junction like that for safety reasons

monument

This is a follow up video to the "little understood" one the OP posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HDN9fUlqU8

Some key bits from the video's transcript:

• "This junction design explained in another video, was discussed a lot but little understood."
  
• "The advanced position of the cyclists, makes that they are gone before the car can make the turn. Even if they have green at the same time."
  
• "Which mostly is not the case. Especially at larger junctions, where turning cars have a different green phase from the cyclists."

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I have to agree with this. The junction in the OP looks nice but would be insanely dangerous in Ireland where there is little concept or awareness of left turning traffic to look on it's inside.
As a cyclist I'd be using the main traffic lane at a junction like that for safety reasons

See above.

Del2005

foggy_lad wrote: »

The major issue in Ireland for the Dutch model is that they give cyclists priority while in Ireland even if the laws were there to give cyclists and pedestrians priority drivers will not and the current situation will continue.

It would take several decades of intensive education and training to change driver attitudes towards other road users in Ireland

Grandeeod wrote: »

In all aspects of life, including the use and appreciation of all types of transport, education is key. That's where Ireland falls short. It's well educated in many respects, but woefully uneducated in many more important areas of life itself.

I disagree. If the Gardaí actively enforced it then it wouldn't take too long for motorists to learn, the problem we have is lack of enforcement not lack of laws. We've done it with other problems like smoking in buildings and plastic bags.

bk

Wow, I mean really, wow, this type of junction looks amazing and would go a very long way to making cycling much safer * if implemented here in Ireland.

* What with left turning at junctions being the primary cause of cycling accidents and fatalities.

foggy_lad

Del2005 wrote: »

I disagree. If the Gardaí actively enforced it then it wouldn't take too long for motorists to learn, the problem we have is lack of enforcement not lack of laws. We've done it with other problems like smoking in buildings and plastic bags.

The problem with enforcement is not a lack of enforcement but a lack of Gardai to enforce the laws! just look at the many new penalty points offences lately and the pitiful number of people fined for things like using a mobile while driving or stopping in a junction on a yellow marked area, there are no Gardai to enforce traffic rules or laws, there are not even enough to investigate other crimes such as murders and drugs/gang crimes. There is no money for extra Gardai so this situation won't change in the foreseeable future.

galwaycyclist

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problem with enforcement is not a lack of enforcement but a lack of Gardai to enforce the laws! just look at the many new penalty points offences lately and the pitiful number of people fined for things like using a mobile while driving or stopping in a junction on a yellow marked area, there are no Gardai to enforce traffic rules or laws, there are not even enough to investigate other crimes such as murders and drugs/gang crimes. There is no money for extra Gardai so this situation won't change in the foreseeable future.

Then the obvious solution is make traffic law enforcement a local authority function rather solely a police function. The fines from speed cameras, traffic light cameras etc should also become a direct income stream for the local authorities.

At the moment local authorities are being asked to be a lead agency in transport policies that require a police function that they don't have and, as you point out yourself, is not available elsewhere.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

Wow, I mean really, wow, this type of junction looks amazing and would go a very long way to making cycling much safer * if implemented here in Ireland.

* What with left turning at junctions being the primary cause of cycling accidents and fatalities.

I am not a cyclist,but I interact closely (often TOO closely) with hundreds of them each working day,and I would be a huge advocate of the House of Orange invading and oppressing us rebel Irish,even if only to force this kind of stuff down our throats !

However,in the real world,we really DO need to know what exactly our generations of (now retired) Town and City Planners were doing on their many "Fact Finding Visits" to other EUropean Countries and further afield.

Like much else in our current deadbeat situation,the answers often tend to be horrifically Simple,both in theory and execution...something which our 30+ years of European Union Membership has taught us to be suspicious of.

Instead,we continue right to the present day,to design and fabricate highly dangerous Traffic Situations whose only positives are the use of far more Stainless Steel Poles than are desirable or reasonable.

We don't appear to have that highly desirable level of Comprehension when it comes to this type of Human Organization stuff....why not ?...I have NO idea...800 years of Imperial Rule or something like that ?

PS;..I just LOVE the lack of Cycle Helmets,Hi-Vizzes or other bright n shiny cycling paraphernalia,which the likes of "our" RSA deem far more important than the REAL Inherently Safe stuff graphically portrayed in that Video !!!

foggy_lad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Then the obvious solution is make traffic law enforcement a local authority function rather solely a police function. The fines from speed cameras, traffic light cameras etc should also become a direct income stream for the local authorities.

At the moment local authorities are being asked to be a lead agency in transport policies that require a police function that they don't have and, as you point out yourself, is not available elsewhere.

The local authorities are just not trusted enough to allow them this important role. THere is too much corruption and cronyism and parish pump politics.

Spook_ie

Del2005 wrote: »

I disagree. If the Gardaí actively enforced it then it wouldn't take too long for motorists to learn, the problem we have is lack of enforcement not lack of laws. We've done it with other problems like smoking in buildings and plastic bags.

Given that the junction is directionaly controlled for pedestrians,cyclists and motorists, then yeah as long as Garda enforced ALL the directions involved, so that cyclists stayed on the green where drivers and pedestrians are expecting them.....oh wait, we got rid of that requirement last October

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86246406&postcount=31
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057026161

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

oh wait, we got rid of that requirement last October

The law is the same in the Netherlands, it is perfectly legal to cycle on the road even if a cycle path is available. However when high quality cycle infrastructure is available, people choose to use it.

Which just goes to so how bad cycle infrastructure is in Ireland given that people choose not to use it and that we need to focus on vastly improving the infrastructure.

foggy_lad

bk wrote: »

The law is the same in the Netherlands, it is perfectly legal to cycle on the road even if a cycle path is available. However when high quality cycle infrastructure is available, people choose to use it.

Which just goes to so how bad cycle infrastructure is in Ireland given that people choose not to use it and that we need to focus on vastly improving the infrastructure.

Exactly and the Irish way of doing such a junction will see the cycle lanes not wide enough for cycling on and the intersections with the roadway forcing cyclists to dismount to cross the roadway. Welcome to Ireland the land of saints and Gobshltes

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

The law is the same in the Netherlands, it is perfectly legal to cycle on the road even if a cycle path is available. However when high quality cycle infrastructure is available, people choose to use it.

Which just goes to so how bad cycle infrastructure is in Ireland given that people choose not to use it and that we need to focus on vastly improving the infrastructure.

Errrr No

It's not the same in the Netherlands! Article 5 of Section 2.1 dealing with road positioning from
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments-and-publications%2Fleaflets%2F2013%2F01%2F16%2Froad-traffic-signs-and-regulations-in-the-netherlands%2Froad-traffic-signs-and-regulations-jan-2013-uk.pdf&ei=VjMeUrPeAtDW7Qa01oFY&usg=AFQjCNHJxDKg9F-k6YQIbPgBJAH37FX52A&sig2=-GYtmo8uiwX1iHnuLzLFDQ&bvm=bv.51156542,d.ZGU&cad=rja

Article 5
1 Cyclists are required to use the mandatory cycle
track or the cycle/motor cycle track

ardmacha

The problem with enforcement is not a lack of enforcement but a lack of Gardai to enforce the laws!

This left turning issue would seem to be ripe for control by camera.

Sadly, the many cyclists who don't stop at the light at all will never be identified, which is why some identification is needed.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

Errrr No

It's not the same in the Netherlands! Article 5 of Section 2.1 dealing with road positioning from
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.nl%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments-and-publications%2Fleaflets%2F2013%2F01%2F16%2Froad-traffic-signs-and-regulations-in-the-netherlands%2Froad-traffic-signs-and-regulations-jan-2013-uk.pdf&ei=VjMeUrPeAtDW7Qa01oFY&usg=AFQjCNHJxDKg9F-k6YQIbPgBJAH37FX52A&sig2=-GYtmo8uiwX1iHnuLzLFDQ&bvm=bv.51156542,d.ZGU&cad=rja

There are mandatory cyclepaths in the Netherlands. It's not the whole story, however.

Bikes wider than 75cm can use the roadway. That encompasses a whole range of popular cargobikes, as well as this kind of oddity: http://www.velomobiel.nl/wet/

Mopeds also use the verplichte fietspaden, an arrangement I have found to be very annoying and occasionally dangerous.

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are mandatory cyclepaths in the Netherlands. It's not the whole story, however.

Bikes wider than 75cm can use the roadway. That encompasses a whole range of popular cargobikes, as well as this kind of oddity: http://www.velomobiel.nl/wet/

Mopeds also use the verplichte fietspaden, an arrangement I have found to be very annoying and occasionally dangerous.

From the same link as I previously supplied

3 They may use the non-mandatory cycle track.
Riders of motor-assisted bicycles equipped with
combustion engines may use the non-mandatory
cycle track only if the engine is switched off.

4 Riders of bicycles having more than two wheels
with a total width, including the load, in excess of
0.75 metres and of bicycles pulling trailers with a
total width , including the load, in excess of 0.75
metres, may use the public carriageway.

And the point being what? that the Netherlands have laws that aren't the same as Ireland that is something I would not dispute

bk wrote: »

The law is the same in the Netherlands, it is perfectly legal to cycle on the road even if a cycle path is available. However when high quality cycle infrastructure is available, people choose to use it.

Which just goes to so how bad cycle infrastructure is in Ireland given that people choose not to use it and that we need to focus on vastly improving the infrastructure.

The bolded statement I would and am disputing

galwaycyclist

From memory, and I don't have time to look it up, what the Dutch call a non-mandatory cycle track is something similar to what we would call a hard-shoulder. These would not have cycle symbols but there would be an expectation that motorists would ordinarily stay out of them.

As far as I know - in the Netherlands once a structure is marked for use by cyclists its mandatory.

But there is no comparison between their standards of construction, design and maintenance and ours.

TheBandicoot

I don't cycle at all(much too out of shape for that) but I am all for designs like this as a pedestrian and bus user- I don't want cyclists to risk hitting me on the footpath(my brother lost a tooth this way) and I don't want them causing delays to buses by minutes at a time in bus lanes. Everyone should have a well segregated lane exclusive to themselves so everyone knows where they stand.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

The bolded statement I would and am disputing

In the present context, Dutch and Irish laws are not the same, so yes, in the case of G11-signed cyclepaths in the Netherlands cyclists are required to use them.

Bikes (and loads on bikes) wider than 0.75 metres are exempted, and given (a) the popularity of cargobikes and (b) the huge number of cyclists in the Netherlands, this means that there is a very large cohort of cyclists who legally may use either the cyclepaths or the road. The reality is that, ttbomk, the overwhelming majority of cyclists use the cyclepaths, whether mandatory or not, and why wouldn't they?

This is in stark contrast to Ireland, where until recently the law required cyclists to use certain cyclepaths even when it was perfectly obvious to any rational person that doing so was less safe and convenient than using the road.

Redskinsdog

Nice

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In the present context, Dutch and Irish laws are not the same, so yes, in the case of G11-signed cyclepaths in the Netherlands cyclists are required to use them.

Bikes (and loads on bikes) wider than 0.75 metres are exempted, and given (a) the popularity of cargobikes and (b) the huge number of cyclists in the Netherlands, this means that there is a very large cohort of cyclists who legally may use either the cyclepaths or the road. The reality is that, ttbomk, the overwhelming majority of cyclists use the cyclepaths, whether mandatory or not, and why wouldn't they?

This is in stark contrast to Ireland, where until recently the law required cyclists to use certain cyclepaths even when it was perfectly obvious to any rational person that doing so was less safe and convenient than using the road.

And for that design of road junction to work safely would IMO require the correct classes of road users to be in their correct places, something that cyclists groups successfully campaigned to change

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

And for that design of road junction to work safely would IMO require the correct classes of road users to be in their correct places, something that cyclists groups successfully campaigned to change

Uh no. For this design to work safely it requires the users to work off the traffic signals for the lane that they are in. The type of user is irrelevant.

The need for separate traffic signals is where this type of design breaks down when transposed to the Irish context.

For this design to be acceptable to Irish cyclists, then the extent of the green time for their lanes would have to match the green time for the car lanes.

Taking the Irish engineering practice of giving pedestrians 6 seconds in the signal cycle and applying this to cyclists would mean that junction capacity - expressed in time - was being removed from cyclists.

In that case a proportion of cyclists would ignore the paths and the lights and stay in the traffic lanes. People are cycling to get from A to B in a reasonable time not to justify the projects of traffic engineers.

Edit: A proportion would also use the cycle paths but would be incentivised to ignore the traffic signals.

Qualitymark

bk wrote: »

Which just goes to so how bad cycle infrastructure is in Ireland given that people choose not to use it and that we need to focus on vastly improving the infrastructure.

So true. Cycle lanes in Ireland are often very dangerous, with slippy manhole covers, potholes, drain covers and lines of cars any of which may fling a door open and break your fingers and hurl you out into traffic.

Not to mention the fact that the cyclists using them are in close, unrestricted conjunction with drivers, many of whom simply don't see cyclists and seem locked in some sad bubble of thought.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no. For this design to work safely it requires the users to work off the traffic signals for the lane that they are in. The type of user is irrelevant.

The need for separate traffic signals is where this type of design breaks down when transposed to the Irish context.

For this design to be acceptable to Irish cyclists, then the extent of the green time for their lanes would have to match the green time for the car lanes.

Taking the Irish engineering practice of giving pedestrians 6 seconds in the signal cycle and applying this to cyclists would mean that junction capacity - expressed in time - was being removed from cyclists.

In that case a proportion of cyclists would ignore the paths and the lights and stay in the traffic lanes. People are cycling to get from A to B in a reasonable time not to justify the projects of traffic engineers.

Edit: A proportion would also use the cycle paths but would be incentivised to ignore the traffic signals.

Uh no. For this design to work safely it requires the users to work off the traffic signals for the lane that they are in. The type of user is irrelevant.

Sorry totaly disagree with your statement, for your statement to be true would mean you are willing to allow pedestrians to cross with the different phases of the lights "as long as they are in the lane"

For this design to be acceptable to Irish cyclists, then the extent of the green time for their lanes would have to match the green time for the car lanes.

You seriously think that cyclists,cars and pedestrians having equal times is the most efficent usage of a junction, really hope you aren't involved in traffic management in any professional capacity, you see what I read between your lines isn't road sharing but for cyclists to disregard whatever phase of the lights is current, i.e if it's green for cars I'll use the carriageway, even if I hold up buses etc., if it green for cyclists I'll use the cycle lane and if it's green for pedestrians, well I'll just cycle slowly or become a pedestran

People are cycling to get from A to B in a reasonable time not to justify the projects of traffic engineers.

As are most people, but it does seem to me from various threads involving the cycling fraternity that they all cry for road sharing but seem very blasé when it comes to their side of it

Qualitymark

Spook_ie wrote: »

seem to me from various threads involving the cycling fraternity that they all cry for road sharing but seem very blasé when it comes to their side of it

Ah, the 'fraternity' word, and its loyal ally the 'they' word. Waiting for the 'brigade' word.

monument

I'm detecting more than borderline trolling -- warnings from previous threads apply.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

As are most people, but it does seem to me from various threads involving the cycling fraternity that they all cry for road sharing but seem very blasé when it comes to their side of it

blasé in what way? Or are you simply tarring all cyclists with one brush again?

perhaps we should discuss the perceived entitlements of taxi drivers and their constant blockage of road in the same terms in the context of road sharing and rule following?

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

... there is no comparison between their standards of construction, design and maintenance and ours.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The need for separate traffic signals is where this type of design breaks down when transposed to the Irish context.

Lest there be any doubt, I posted the video primarily because it was the first time I'd seen it. TTBOMK it was posted once before on Boards and was not much discussed then.

I'm aware of the limitations of the Irish context, as well as the unfulfilled (unrealisable?) longing for Dutch-style cycle infrastructure.

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Sorry totaly disagree with your statement, for your statement to be true would mean you are willing to allow pedestrians to cross with the different phases of the lights "as long as they are in the lane"

For the purposes of considering how Irish and UK traffic signals work, the footpath is considered as a lane with its own traffic signals. In the video the narrator refers to the crossings as "zebra crossings". However they clearly cannot be zebra crossings as we would understand them.

Yes in some countries all traffic going in a particular direction, pedestrians, cyclists and cars will get a green at the same time and turning cars are required to yield to pedestrians and cyclists passing inside.

In the case of this video, this may not happening since the captions state that the cyclists and the "car" lanes have different signals. What is happening with the pedestrians is not stated as far as I saw.

You seriously think that cyclists,cars and pedestrians having equal times is the most efficent usage of a junction, really hope you aren't involved in traffic management in any professional capacity, you see what I read between your lines isn't road sharing but for cyclists to disregard whatever phase of the lights is current, i.e if it's green for cars I'll use the carriageway, even if I hold up buses etc., if it green for cyclists I'll use the cycle lane and if it's green for pedestrians, well I'll just cycle slowly or become a pedestran

See above regarding everyone getting green at the same time. And yes in the Netherlands, which is where we are talking about, the engineers will often seek to reduce delay for cyclists by whatever means possible. So in this design the cyclists will have a free right turn - they bypass the lights altogether. In addition Dutch cyclists might get two green signal phases for every loop through the signal sequence. Furthermore, the cyclists may also be getting a four way green - where - for the cyclists - all the arms go green at the same time and cyclists are expected to just avoid each other at potential conflict points.

And yes if some engineer puts in some design that imposes delay, if they are trying to manage one set of road users (cyclists and pedestrians) for the benefit of some other set of road users (motorists) then there is no moral obligation on the first groups to respect or obey the controls being applied.

We can see this in relation to pedestrian crossings and pedestrian phases at traffic lights all over the country. Several generations of Irish road engineers have been training several generations of pedestrians to ignore the red man at traffic signals.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

<snipped>

And yes if some engineer puts in some design that imposes delay, if they are trying to manage one set of road users (cyclists and pedestrians) for the benefit of some other set of road users (motorists) then there is no moral obligation on the first groups to respect or obey the controls being applied.

We can see this in relation to pedestrian crossings and pedestrian phases at traffic lights all over the country. Several generations of Irish road engineers have been training several generations of pedestrians to ignore the red man at traffic signals.

Great idea, so I assume then if motorists are being managed for the benefit of cyclists/pedestrians you'd have no objection to motorists ignoring the controls either.

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Great idea, so I assume then if motorists are being managed for the benefit of cyclists/pedestrians you'd have no objection to motorists ignoring the controls either.

Where have I stated that I have "no objection" to anyone ignoring any controls?

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Where have I stated that I have "no objection" to anyone ignoring any controls?

Perhaps it might be a wrong interpretation of you saying that one group has No Moral Obligation to respect or obey the controls maybe you'd expand and clarify on that statement

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps it might be a wrong interpretation of you saying that one group has No Moral Obligation to respect or obey the controls maybe you'd expand and clarify on that statement

Because it is a matter of what controls are being applied to whom and why.

Clearly what is important is context. Clearly if controls are being applied on any group then it should be seen to be for some good reason rather than simply for the benefit of another group.

Asking Mrs Rosa Parks to give up her seat at the front of the bus so that Mrs Smith can sit down is ok if it's because Mrs Smith is old and has trouble with her legs.

If Mrs Parks is being told to sit at the back of the bus because she is coloured and Mrs Smith is white and uppity coloured folks should know their place - then that is not OK.

Spook_ie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Because it is a matter of what controls are being applied to whom and why.

Clearly what is important is context. Clearly if controls are being applied on any group then it should be seen to be for some good reason rather than simply for the benefit of another group.

<snipped racist analogy>.

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

Qualitymark

Spook_ie wrote: »

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

I believe that the Dutch are right; the heavier and more deadly the vehicle, the more care its driver should take, and the more responsibility its driver bears in any accident.

Cyclists should go ahead at junctions because they are more fragile than half-tonne cars; drivers should be able to see them and avoid hitting them.

Spook_ie

Qualitymark wrote: »

I believe that the Dutch are right; the heavier and more deadly the vehicle, the more care its driver should take, and the more responsibility its driver bears in any accident.

Cyclists should go ahead at junctions because they are more fragile than half-tonne cars; drivers should be able to see them and avoid hitting them.

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

You really need to accept the idea that in an Irish context for the foreseeable future you should expect to see cyclists in any and all lanes on city streets and on any road besides a motorway. That's the law and that's cyclists responsibility.

In a Dutch context you're talking about cycle paths which mopeds users often illegally use (on the ones they are not alloewed use) because these are more attractive than mixing with large buses, HGVs and cars. In this context you don't need to force 99.999% of people to use cycle paths and those left over are a blip not worth talking about when it comes to affects on drivers.

Overall you're very close to the "cyclists can't act responsible so they should not get any improvements" argument and that's just silly because if that logic was applied to all road roads than all road building would end.

You also seems to be working off the idea that any upgrade would be done on the bases of current cyclists and that more cyclists is undesirable - which is not the case, as the goal is to increase the percentage of cyclists and more cyclists comes with clear benefits for us all.

Qualitymark

Spook_ie wrote: »

But does that not then confer on them the responsibility to be where you expect them to be rather than where ever they want to be?

I drive, and cycle, using the philosophy that I should mind my own responsibility, and not regard others' as any of my business.

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

So in the context of road traffic, do you believe that cyclists should be treated differently and given preferential treatment over other forms of transport?

If that is the case then does that place other road users under the same lack of moral obligation or do you just mean cyclists?

Firstly, galwaycyclist's allusion to Rosa Parks was not a "racist analogy" but, as I see it, an analogy broadly comparing discriminatory policy in the area of traffic and transportation to laws based on the colour of people's skin. If laws and policies are discriminatory then we should not be surprised or outraged if those discriminated against feel justified in ignoring, or objecting to, those laws and policies. For the record, I believe this is a reasonable analogy for the purposes of illustration, but like all analogies it should not be taken too far or too literally.

That said, your question is an interesting one. Should sustainable modes of travel be given preferential treatment? It is my belief that they should, and there are a number of inter-related reasons in different policy areas why that should be the case. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, road safety, public health, energy efficiency, climate change, social capital and sustainable urban planning.

Public policy favouring private car use scores poorly under those and other headings, whereas the opposite is the case for walking, cycling and public transport. Not only do we need a 'level playing pitch' for these modes of travel, but as a society we need positive discrimination in order to ensure a much greater modal share for them in future. Other countries have gone much further in that direction than we have, but there are early signs that we are starting to get the message in Ireland.

And no, there is no moral obligation on motorists, for example, to engage in civil disobedience or to ignore laws that favour, say, public transport. Take bus lanes, for instance. Motorists mightn't like them, but they serve a useful societal purpose and are there for the greater good. This is in no way equivalent to situations such as roads engineering practices that treat pedestrians and cyclists as second-class citizens.

monument

No posts full of personal attacks, focusing on loads of off-topic thread issues and playing the ball and not the man will be tolerated.

Warning to all: Nobody is to reply to his post.... Edit: Post deleted as it would otherwise be unfare allow a reply and that would drag this thread more off topic.

Back on topic please!

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

You really need to accept the idea that in an Irish context for the foreseeable future you should expect to see cyclists in any and all lanes on city streets and on any road besides a motorway. That's the law and that's cyclists responsibility.

In a Dutch context you're talking about cycle paths which mopeds users often illegally use (on the ones they are not alloewed use) because these are more attractive than mixing with large buses, HGVs and cars. In this context you don't need to force 99.999% of people to use cycle paths and those left over are a blip not worth talking about when it comes to affects on drivers.

Overall you're very close to the "cyclists can't act responsible so they should not get any improvements" argument and that's just silly because if that logic was applied to all road roads than all road building would end.

You also seems to be working off the idea that any upgrade would be done on the bases of current cyclists and that more cyclists is undesirable - which is not the case, as the goal is to increase the percentage of cyclists and more cyclists comes with clear benefits for us all.

You mean I should accept the concept that cyclists are basically going to ignore the law, time then to revisit the registration of cyclists to give Garda the chance to enforce the law. As it is now you read posts from cyclists about reporting registrations of vehicles to Gards where as if a cyclist needs reporting unless there is a Gard next door to them you have zero chance.

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean I should accept the concept that cyclists are basically going to ignore the law, time then to revisit the registration of cyclists to give Garda the chance to enforce the law. As it is now you read posts from cyclists about reporting registrations of vehicles to Gards where as if a cyclist needs reporting unless there is a Gard next door to them you have zero chance.

Yawn, all registration would lead to is significantly less people cycling and more traffic and congestion on our roads.

Not a single country in Europe has cycle registrations, it is a stupid and bureaucratic idea.

And it is a distraction from the real solution to this problem, which is to build, high quality, Dutch style cycle infrastructure that cyclists actually want to use.

Iwannahurl

Registration for cyclists -- the sort of thing you might hear a taxi driver saying.

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=3560.0

Spook_ie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Registration for cyclists -- the sort of thing you might hear a taxi driver saying.

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=21354.0

http://irishtaxi.org/forum/index.php?topic=3560.0

I don't see any mention of registration in those two links