More Speed Limits for Bikes

Chips Lovell

This is Ireland. People will think the signs are directed at everybody except themselves.

Raam

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is Ireland. People will think the signs are directed at everybody except themselves.

Reminds me... I was driving (OK, being driven) past the track on Sunday. Some cyclist gestured at two older ladies and presumably told them to move off the cycle track. It is the part which is exclusively for cyclists. He carried on. One of the aul ones flipped him the bird to his back.

Lusk_Doyle

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

This is Ireland. People will think the signs are directed at everybody except themselves.

Put up another sign under the other one saying "That means YOU a$$ face!"

Raam

Gonna have to ride balls to the wall for the next few weeks until this comes in. Go out with a bang.

OUT OF MY WAY ASSHOLES.

It will make a change to being nice and courteous to others.

Jocry

Diarmuid wrote: »

Except it isn't. Someone painting a white line down a wide footpath doesn't make a purpose built cycle track

no it doesn't but when you paint pictures of BIKES within the path "marked" as a cycle track then it does mean its a designated cycle track!!!

This is the most ridiculous idea, I commute this most days and while I agree people (including me) do tip along a a fairly reasonable pace, its more about educating everyone involved (be it more signage, etc) than going to waste more money on bollards or speed humps (god forbid!!)....

tunney

What is wrong with Darwinism?

Those that get creamed by a bike are obviously too stupid to live.

rollingscone

tunney wrote: »

What is wrong with Darwinism?

Those that get creamed by a bike are obviously too stupid to live.

Well your first problem is when you take flight after someone throws themselves under your wheel.

Other problems will follow.

buffalo

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

2 - Removal of the bushes etc near the two car parks. I've been hit by a car that went through the stop sign at that location. Visibility for the car driver was likely a contributing factor.

Do you mean this car park: http://goo.gl/maps/tiiXT ? Is there a stop sign there now? The only signs I've noticed are the ones that say "end of cycle lane" (http://goo.gl/maps/2cDPl), which means the onus is on the cyclist to stop and check for the car traffic which has priority.

Not that I'm saying this is the preferred scenario, just that I don't believe the blame was with the car driver in this instance. If there are stop signs there now, or you mean an entirely different car park, I retract all of the above, but I don't recall ever seeing them there.

tunney

rollingscone wrote: »

Well your first problem is when you take flight after someone throws themselves under your wheel.

Other problems will follow.

Well Darwinism works for cyclists too. Those that are thick enough to use them deserve to be in collisions with pedestrians.

Cycle lanes, as done in Ireland, are not for the safety and convenience of cyclists, just to try and stop motorists shouting. Pointless and really if we all just stopped using them that would (maybe) send a message to the pointless w*nkers in DCC (cycling officer my h0le)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

Talk of requiring funding, etc, leads me to believe that these won't be legal speed restrictions, but instead will be a form of "traffic calming" measures aimed at reducing the speed of bikes. Maybe some kind of gate which is just about wide enough to get through, but not so wide that you'd fly through it, or chicanes or speeds bumps or something.

Sounds daft though. The problem is not the speed of the cyclists, it's the fact that pedestrians wander haplessly onto the cycle lane.

I don't think actual speed limits could be introduced for cyclists, even through bye-laws.

There's a multitude of issues, and it's not only cyclists or other road users. It's both.

Some people go too fast for the amount of people on the promenade. Others disregard the cycle lane, as do cyclists. Apply a bit of cop on and there shouldn't be an issue.

The cycle track isn't exactly very big in some places. On occasions I am met by a group of cyclists in my side of the lane indicating that I should get out of their way for some reason and cycle on the footpath. I am in their way, you know, in my lane going the correct direction, but expected to move out of their way as they wish to continue cycling 3 abreast... so their conversation is not interrupted. I didn't move, they got angry. This happened several times with different groups.

What's with this idiotic mentality? You're in a group, so what, it doesn't give you more authority on the road, nor does it give you the right to bully others.

Brian? wrote: »

It's wide enough for about 4-5 bikes I reckon. I cycled up there 2 abreast with a mate and there was plenty of room for people to pass going the opposite direction.

Why wouldn't you break 20kph on that stretch?

I don't think you can fit that many bikes on it safely. 20Kph is much too slow. You wouldn't work up a sweat at all at that rate.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Well Darwinism works for cyclists too

Only childless ones.

Ed-Moses

Is it reasonable for pedestrians to walk on roads with faster moving vehicles? There are at least 2 alternatives for them to walk on.
I use the area regularly as a walker+ dog with a flexi lead and as a cyclist.
There is a 15 to 20 meter wide grass strip that the dog can use with the lead at full length of 8M. The areas where the dog is kept on a very short lead is at the Alfie Byrne Road Lawrence's Road stretch. The Vernon avenue junction and anywhere where the space tightens. This is done well ahead of where the footpath and cycle paths meet. Simple logic.
I just stay off the cycle track. If I have to cross it, I obey the safe cross code. Look both ways and cross when safe to do so. Simple.

I have brought my 3 children on that stretch and every cyclist has been very patient before passing us. That includes the lycra clad road warriors.

The engineer who suggested further study I think needs to have a brain scan to find out if it's functioning as it should. God bless his little cotton socks, at least he is doing something..... Whether its useful is another discussion.

The St. Anne's section of road where the cycle lane is on the road is downright dangerous for cyclists on both sides of the road.
Mount Prospect Avenue- Clontarf road junction to Watermill road junction is concrete with a lip/raised edge right in the middle of the cycle path section.

Looking at other cycle lanes around the city.
The Stillorgan cycle lane is next to unusable. There is always a danger of a car pulling in front the cyclist to gain access to their property.
Exceptionally poor road planning.
The Drumcondra to Whitehall cycle path is nearly non existent. No road maintenance there then.

So an unenforceable proposal put forward.
Dangerous roads for cyclists.
No intelligible traffic planning.
No road maintenance detectable.
All of these points towards a discussion of what are we paying our property tax for?
The rhetorical answer is.... So that clowns can clown around with no accountability?
Again the engineer who put forward the report should submit the statistical evidence to back his solution for this daft idea.

SilverLiningOK

Reading through this thread seems to raise an interesting theme - cycling as sport versus cycling as transport.

I think the only reason that many Lycra clad roadies uses this track is that has a better surface for speed when compared to the road (which is 50kph btw with 60kph further out). Just because it's a cycle tack doesnt mean it's for time trials.

One of the main obstacles to people taking up cycling in the English speaking (if you don't like using Anglo Saxon) world is one of the perceived image of those who cycle (see cycle chic and copehagenize for more on this). People who dont cycle see helmets, high viz, safety glasses and other special equipment as a barrier. In other places not too far away choosing your bicycle as everyday transport for work, school, shopping and socialising in everyday ordinary clothes is the norm.

Another important barrier to normalised cycling is the infrastructure available up to recently. Routes like the on the Clontarf Road, Sutton, Grand Canal etc. may not perfect but they are a major factor in attracting more people to transport cycling.

I see the various potential conflicts in Clontarf regularly particularly on weekends. A bit of give and take and common sense all around would do no harm here. It is such a pleasure cycling at a relaxed pace with fresh air and the sea views. If people think that they are riding the bike equivalent of BMW/Merc then they shoud look around them and cycle at a speed according to the conditions taking into account the other people on their bicycles who are not members of the roadie tribe.

This whole speed limit business must have some gripe or complaint behind it. It seemed to come out of the blue last week. Was it on Liveline ? Or was it somebody working for independent newspapers who has a personal issue here ?

NeedMoreGears

buffalo wrote: »

Do you mean this car park: http://goo.gl/maps/tiiXT ? Is there a stop sign there now? The only signs I've noticed are the ones that say "end of cycle lane" (http://goo.gl/maps/2cDPl), which means the onus is on the cyclist to stop and check for the car traffic which has priority.



Not that I'm saying this is the preferred scenario, just that I don't believe the blame was with the car driver in this instance. If there are stop signs there now, or you mean an entirely different car park, I retract all of the above, but I don't recall ever seeing them there.

First - yeah that's the car park ; I was hit at the entrance nearest Howth, which is on the rightmost side of this image http://goo.gl/maps/tiiXT .





Today (and at the time of the collision) there are stop signs (the red octagonal ones RUS 027) - at the entrances from the main road (two in fact) and two more on each of the exits from the car park. I think those images are quite old. This one ,((http://goo.gl/maps/2cDPl), specifically says its 2009.



I'm not sure what the signage on the cycle track side is at the moment, but I don't think its those red signs you can see in the second image. I'll have a look on the way home this evening, although I'm fairly sure it's one of the blue ones. I just can't recall if the sign indicates the end of the cycle track. I think the stop sign means the car should stop and yield.

Thankfully only minor cuts and bruises for me and no damage to the car


Regardless of signage, I would remain convinced that better visibility for both cyclists and motorists at each of the three intersections in the image would be a good thing.

buffalo

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Regardless of signage, I would remain convinced that better visibility for both cyclists and motorists at each of the three intersections in the image would be a good thing.

Completely agree, and apologies. I've always been wary of that car park when out there, but never noticed they'd added the stop signs.

Raam

Stop signs are present at those carpark sections, aimed at cars. Also signs to indicate end of cycle track, iirc.

cyclic

I'd warmed up nicely on the few kms out and now on the Sutton side of St Anne's I'm pumped, ideal cadence, breathing well, 45kph with the unusual tail wind. Go go go. Group ride coming the other way, 8 guys in club gear (don't know which one). Race face, Oakleys down, Jeesus H - old woman with a dog. Christ that was close. Nearly put her in hospital for Christmas (and it was her own fault too,- crazy bat). Rats... bloody woman with 2 unleashed toddlers. Slow down to 30 and have to actually swerve out of line- one of those kids was in the cycle lane- moron. Why are these people out in the first place enjoying the sea breeze in this rather pleasant space. I don't get it? Stay at home and quit impeding me or face the survival of the fittest test (i'm definitely fitter).
Looking forward to that coffee in Howth. There is never any need to regulate cyclist behaviour. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't get it and is definitely an idiot.

Granolite

cyclic wrote: »

I'd warmed up nicely on the few kms out and now on the Sutton side of St Anne's I'm pumped, ideal cadence, breathing well, 45kph with the unusual tail wind. Go go go. Group ride coming the other way, 8 guys in club gear (don't know which one). Race face, Oakleys down, Jeesus H - old woman with a dog. Christ that was close. Nearly put her in hospital for Christmas (and it was her own fault too,- crazy bat). Rats... bloody woman with 2 unleashed toddlers. Slow down to 30 and have to actually swerve out of line- one of those kids was in the cycle lane- moron. Why are these people out in the first place enjoying the sea breeze in this rather pleasant space. I don't get it? Stay at home and quit impeding me or face the survival of the fittest test (i'm definitely fitter).
Looking forward to that coffee in Howth. There is never any need to regulate cyclist behaviour. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't get it and is definitely an idiot.

?

Zyzz

I have a cycling ritual that I need to share. I call it "the terminator". First I crouch down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose. With my eyes closed I crouch there for a minute, visualizing either Arnold or the guy from the second movie (not the chick in the third one because that one sucked) and I start to hum the terminator theme. Then I slowly rise to a standing position and open my eyes. It helps me to proceed through my day as an emotionless, cyborg badass. The only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to my terminator leg. It ruins the fantasy.

Budawanny

id say its a shared space at least in parts. the problem really isnt about getting the eejit walkers to stay off, lets assume thats done or at least possible to do,
when you have proximity of families with children next to a cycling lane, there is a potential for a nasty incident.

rollingscone

A kerb a la Copenhagen would be an interesting experiment.

deandean

Sorry but 45km/h on your bike is not an appropriate speed on a cyclepath with only a white line separating you from pedestrians and the rest. Use your common sense. If you want to cycle fast, use the road.

On my bike a few weeks back I got fcuked out of it at Sutton by a group of four cycling at 45+ in 2x2 formation taking both cycle lanes and taking no prisoners. With lots of pedestrians out too. Stupid fools.

These two examples are why there are calls for speed limits on that cyclopath.

nomdeboardie

Zyzz wrote: »

I have a cycling ritual that I need to share. I call it "the terminator". First I crouch down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose. With my eyes closed I crouch there for a minute, visualizing either Arnold or the guy from the second movie (not the chick in the third one because that one sucked) and I start to hum the terminator theme. Then I slowly rise to a standing position and open my eyes. It helps me to proceed through my day as an emotionless, cyborg badass. The only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to my terminator leg. It ruins the fantasy.

A venerable tradition, indeed

NeedMoreGears

buffalo wrote: »

Completely agree, and apologies. I've always been wary of that car park when out there, but never noticed they'd added the stop signs.

No probs at all.

Had a look on the way home. The new signs on the track are the blue ones. At junction 1, there's and END sign with the blue cycle track sign, at junction 2 there's a blue cycle track sign only and at the third one there's a blue one with and END sign ; they probably are completely different going in the opposite direction!

It's bad enough having to dodge the poles in the middle of the cycle track but wasting them on very confusing signs is a joke.

Zyzz

nomdeboardie wrote: »

A venerable tradition, indeed

I am the original.

Cookie_Monster

deandean wrote: »

Sorry but 45km/h on your bike is not an appropriate speed on a cyclepath with only a white line separating you from pedestrians and the rest. Use your common sense. If you want to cycle fast, use the road.

but it's ok to drive at 100kph past walkers out walking on roads...
if you are walking along there it's up to you to have an expectation that there will be cyclists at speed using the path, 45 is not fast.

Zyzz

deandean wrote: »

Sorry but 45km/h on your bike is not an appropriate speed on a cyclepath with only a white line separating you from pedestrians and the rest. Use your common sense. If you want to cycle fast, use the road.

On my bike a few weeks back I got fcuked out of it at Sutton by a group of four cycling at 45+ in 2x2 formation taking both cycle lanes and taking no prisoners. With lots of pedestrians out too. Stupid fools.

These two examples are why there are calls for speed limits on that cyclopath.

Speed up mate!

nomdeboardie

Zyzz wrote: »

I am the original.

Through the magick of the rereg

Zyzz

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Through the magick of the rereg

Mine differs, but nice try

GoTilUBlow

Looks like they may be going ahead with Clontarf limits. NTA approval required

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/new-us-style-speed-limit-specifically-for-cyclists-to-be-introduced-for-first-time-in-ireland/

Watch this space......