Cycle Lanes

LEIN

Getting ready to duck :P

What's with joggers and local jogging/running clubs using the purpose built cycle tracks as their own private running tracks from beyond Charlesland to Shoreline?

I have had some give out to me for being in their way with one purposely knock off the side of me. Where would you like me to go folks?

I'm sorry jogging folk, I will not risk my life by not using the dedicated lanes...

Not all are the same, there are a few that move over and greet with a hello, smile or nod.


I see that one of the clubs has spray painted the footpath with yellow permanent paint with distance markers!? Bit of a cheek?
In fairness when the Kings of Greystones boys done it at the south beach car park and at the archway under the train line to the beach at the zebra crossing, they probably thought what the hell, they got away with defacing public property why can't we!?




This has turned into a bit of a rant, wasn't meant too!

Cheeky Chops

First time I think I have ever agreed with anything you have said :P
You are far better behaved than me - I want to trip them up.

Charlie-Bravo

I don't see any problem with them using the cyclepath. I will be investing in a bell for my bike though (or a fog horn for those listen to music with earphones). That'll ensure they shift out of the way.

The Bishop Basher

I would genuinely never equate cyclists with cycle paths as they so rarely use them. A quick trip over to the cycling forum would back this up. Couple that with the fact that there are so few cyclists on that route anyway, I can understand why joggers would use them.

cocker5

DD9090 wrote: »

Getting ready to duck :P

What's with joggers and local jogging/running clubs using the purpose built cycle tracks as their own private running tracks from beyond Charlesland to Shoreline?

I have had some give out to me for being in their way with one purposely knock off the side of me. Where would you like me to go folks?

I'm sorry jogging folk, I will not risk my life by not using the dedicated lanes...

Not all are the same, there are a few that move over and greet with a hello, smile or nod.


I see that one of the clubs has spray painted the footpath with yellow permanent paint with distance markers!? Bit of a cheek?
In fairness when the Kings of Greystones boys done it at the south beach car park and at the archway under the train line to the beach at the zebra crossing, they probably thought what the hell, they got away with defacing public property why can't we!?




This has turned into a bit of a rant, wasn't meant too!

I can completely understand why joggers use them, I myself have used them many times while out jogging (well trying to jog), the reason is they are new flat and evened out properly. Prior to this the paths were all lumpy and uneven , not good to jog on so i would use the road, again not a good idea. With one exception when i see a bike coming or another jogger / walker I move over make room etc, I dont just continue jogging away. its called having consideration.

BUT with all that said those bloody running clubs drive me nuts for a another reason, not that they use these lanes BUT the run 5 people wide, they DONT make any effort to move in when meeting on coming people, so as a result I dont move over for them ...

I walk my dog along the sea front most nights and on two certain nights a week there are hoards of runners (which is great to see in one way) BUT IMO they nver move over run 4 / 5 a breast chatting away as they run.

TWO ABREAST is plenty... come on runners have a little consideration for others please

LEIN

Okay, use it when empty and give way to cyclists, I'm not going to argue with that, it seems fair. However, this is not the case.

I cycled from the DART station yesterday, jogger jogging towards me, we had a stand off, I didn't give in. Jogger (dramatically) dives out of the way at the last second. He calls me a fu#king @sshole?

Why? He was in the bike lane and expected me to move over onto the path in front of young children. Not a hope mate.

cocker5

DD9090 wrote: »

Okay, use it when empty and give way to cyclists, I'm not going to argue with that, it seems fair. However, this is not the case.

I cycled from the DART station yesterday, jogger jogging towards me, we had a stand off, I didn't give in. Jogger (dramatically) dives out of the way at the last second. He calls me a fu#king @sshole?

Why? He was in the bike lane and expected me to move over onto the path in front of young children. Not a hope mate.

He an idiot I suspect, plus a tad rude.

I totally agree with you, people using cycle lanes should give way to cyclists..

you should get an annoying bell or horn? and blow it when people dont / wont move... embarrse them it may work

But the again why should you if everybody just followed simple rules :rolleyes:

clocha_liatha

Relax , get on with your cycle, use your bell, if you dont have one get one and ignore the ignorant !. I cycle that way all the time and joggers usually move when hearing the bell, the only problem is people wearing headphones but thats another story.

Edgar_Murl

I don't have a prob with people jogging in the cycle lane, but I definitely don't want joggers giving me daggers looks when I give a gentle tinkle on my high nelly to warn of my approach. Fair is fair - don't expect cyclists to risk life and limb by cycling on a dual carriageway that trucks, cars and motorcyclists are using to try to break the land speed record.

Cookie_Monster

astrofluff wrote: »

I don't see any problem with them using the cyclepath..

sure why not just run in the middle of the road...

Banta

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

sure why not just run in the middle of the road...

Cause that's where the cyclists are.

Charlie-Bravo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

sure why not just run in the middle of the road...

All in context Cookie - the idea being that we have bells on our bikes to warn them when they are on the cycle path. They'll know to move then.

loyatemu

astrofluff wrote: »

All in context Cookie - the idea being that we have bells on our bikes to warn them when they are on the cycle path. They'll know to move then.

IME at least 50% of joggers have headphones on, and at least 50% of cyclists don't have bells (though serious/fast cyclists would be using the road anyway).

Charlie-Bravo

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Nobody wins unfortunately.

IME - in my experience?? That's a new abrrev. for me.

Cookie_Monster

astrofluff wrote: »

All in context Cookie - the idea being that we have bells on our bikes to warn them when they are on the cycle path. They'll know to move then.

technically bells on bikes are illegal so you can't be doing that either

Sir Arthur Daley

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

technically bells on bikes are illegal so you can't be doing that either

No they are not.

Annasopra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

technically bells on bikes are illegal so you can't be doing that either

Since when?

Charlie-Bravo

Sorry, meant add this point earlier: runing on tarmac is a lot easier on the joints than on concrete. Hence why many joggers run on the cycle tracks. I'm sure most joggers would agree with me in this. And perhaps cyclists can understand why they're there when the footpath is free?

Banta

And most of the cyclists that I know all tell me that the road is better to cycle on than the cycle tracks apparently.

Solution? Cars should drive on the footpath.

IanL

Bit of general common courtesy, no harm jogging in lane as long as you move for a cyclist.

But there's a problem also, more apparent during summer of people cycling side by side on the road.

Causes obstruction to drivers and a danger to themselves too.

But cop on to some people doesn't exist!!!

Plastik

Causes an obstruction to drivers? I suppose it's too much to ask to wait until the way is clear and to simply overtake. Cyclists are allowed to travel two abreast. At least you can overtake them, which can't be said if you come across a tractor, bus, or the occasional OAP on a country road.

pansyflower

Plastik wrote: »

Cyclists are allowed to travel two abreast.

From rules of the road
• Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.
• Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic.

Plastik

pansyflower wrote: »

From rules of the road
• Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.
• Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic.

Those are RSA "best practise" guidelines. They're not the Rules of the Road. And since then the RSA now run ads on TV which advise that cyclists may travel side-by-side and to be both aware and patient when you encounter them. If you have just pulled that from their website then they need to update.

Zoo4m8

Plastik wrote: »

Causes an obstruction to drivers? I suppose it's too much to ask to wait until the way is clear and to simply overtake. Cyclists are allowed to travel two abreast. At least you can overtake them, which can't be said if you come across a tractor, bus, or the occasional OAP on a country road.

Glaring omissions from that list of other road users, usually going about their day to day business, but not travelling at the 'required speed' would be trucks and learners....don't forget them..must be inclusive..

pansyflower

Plastik wrote: »

Those are RSA "best practise" guidelines. They're not the Rules of the Road. And since then the RSA now run ads on TV which advise that cyclists may travel side-by-side and to be both aware and patient when you encounter them. If you have just pulled that from their website then they need to update.

My quote above is from the Rules of the Road.
Another quote from the same page referencing my first quote-
The word must is printed in red.

"Road Safety Authority
The table below sets down particular road traffic rules on cycling which you must obey. "

Sir Arthur Daley

Is there anything in "The Rules of The Road" on the legality of a bell on a bike?

Charlie-Bravo

Rules of the road is important, but done to death on here and probably on the other dedicated cycling forum. I'll try not to back seat mod this thread, except that a mod is the OP, and this thread is about the use of purpose built cycle tracks by local athletics clubs and their disregard for Damo's progress on his bike! :pac:

So what have we learned? Nobody is willing to contact the clubs to air their grievances!

http://www.greystonesac.com/contact-us/
http://www.kilcooleac.com/kac_info.htm
http://www.drfc.ie/contact.html

Plastik

pansyflower wrote: »

My quote above is from the Rules of the Road.
Another quote from the same page referencing my first quote-
The word must is printed in red.

"Road Safety Authority
The table below sets down particular road traffic rules on cycling which you must obey. "

Actually, you'll find that you're wrong. There are quite a few things in the rules of the road which you can download that are now out of date. Also included in the "must" category is that cyclists must use a cycle path where provided. In fact it was repealed in October 2012 by the Minister for Transport and it's now not compulsory apart from cycle tracks provided in very particular circumstances.

The common misunderstanding that there is a law against cycling two abreast is simply that, a misunderstanding. Unfortunately the sight of cyclists seems to generate a lot of anger for a certain class of motorist. You can't but feel sorry for people like the ones that give you a punishment pass [often within inches], pass on the horn, pass with the window open shouting, pass and immediately brake their vehicle to try and slow the group down. What goes through some peoples logic defies belief. Young, old, male, female it makes no difference. You come across a lot of people on a daily basis and some people are just assholes. And there are a lot of them out there.

Regarding bells, no idea. I think in the UK there is a law that all bikes sold must be sold with a bell attached. To the best of we don't have a similar one. Certainly never heard the bells are illegal line before.

To take it back on topic, that runners think that tarmac is much easier on the joints that concrete must be simply a placebo effect. The difference in impact must be so, so minute that it can barely be perceptible!

Sir Arthur Daley

Quote cut from website.
"it is not only a legal requirement but also common sense to have a bell on your bike"
http://www.bikeweek.ie/cycling-tips
Cycling tip no.2

Cookie_Monster

WikiHow wrote: »

No they are not.

mango salsa wrote: »

Since when?

Since 24mph (approx 38kph) is easily achievable on a flat road bells are illegal under the RTA (at least on racers, if not MTBs and hybrids)

Audible warning device.


28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.


(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of—


(a) a gong, siren or other strident-toned device except in the case of a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or


(b) a bell, except in the case of—


(i) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or


(ii) a bicycle—


I. the engine of which does not exceed 50 cubic centimetres in cylinder capacity as calculated in accordance with article 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958 ( S.I. No. 13 of 1958 ) and


II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0190.html

fat-tony

@Cookie Monster - I think that might refer to mechanically propelled bicycles as opposed to the human-powered kind as it refers to engine size of less than 50cc AND capable of less than 24 mph.

ie a regular bicycle can use a bell as a warning device and so can a mechanically propelled bicycle capable of less than 24mph

Cookie_Monster

There is also this: (same link as previous)

Pedal cycles.


93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place.

Since they don't detail what constructed or adapted means it's also allowable to state all racer type bikes are exempt from the rule.

Sir Arthur Daley

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

There is also this: (same link as previous)


Since they don't detail what constructed or adapted means it's also allowable to state all racer type bikes are exempt from the rule.

You are grasping at straws here now, just let it go.

bobwilliams

have been reading this thread with interest.
I'm not in the running club but I run that route five times a week,someone asked earlier why don't the joggers stay off the cycle lane.
Answer is it's a bit easier on the legs that the concrete.

I agree that the running club jogging 4 or 5 abreast would be annoying.

However I am jogging on my own,i will continue to use the cycle lanes and I would also like to know what the legal situation would be if there was a collision,i think i deserve a jogging lane just as much.

delta214

Do cyclists have a problem using the path when there is someone jogging on the cycle lane and there are not many people around?

Cookie_Monster

WikiHow wrote: »

You are grasping at straws here now, just let it go.

not really, it's not like anyone has bells or it ever get enforced anyway. Visit the cycling forum and throw it out for discussion if you like...
Either way I'm not going to put a bell on my road bike.

delta214 wrote: »

Do cyclists have a problem using the path when there is someone jogging on the cycle lane and there are not many people around?

yeah, it's illegal. Personally I try my up-most to avoid cycle lanes anyway and use the roads instead which are generally safer, cleaner and have better priority

LEIN

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, it's illegal. Personally I try my up-most to avoid cycle lanes anyway and use the roads instead which are generally safer, cleaner and have better priority

How did you make that one out? I agree with the rest but safer to cycle with tonnes of metal seems to be of the wall?

Plastik

I think most cyclists that spend a lot of time on the bike - bike as a sport/fitness as opposed to just to get around, would far prefer to be on the road than on the path.

Once you are on a path you cede all rights of way. In the vast majority of cases everything that crosses the cycle path tends to have a right of way over you. Side roads, estate entrances, house entrances, roundabouts. You are far more likely to have a car pull out in front of you, or turn in across you if you are on a cycle lane and in that respect, staying on the road, having motorists see you and treat you like another road user is much safer.

Of course, I would agree that there's an inherent risk in sharing road space with vehicles that are much bigger, faster, heavier, harder than you.

fat-tony

DD9090 wrote: »

How did you make that one out? I agree with the rest but safer to cycle with tonnes of metal seems to be of the wall?

I believe it's illegal to cycle on the footpath.

LEIN

fat-tony wrote: »

I believe it's illegal to cycle on the footpath.

I'm very much aware of that. I was talking about bike lanes.

fat-tony

Cookie Monster was answering a question about cycling on the footpath, not cycle lanes -

Originally Posted by delta214
Do cyclists have a problem using the path when there is someone jogging on the cycle lane and there are not many people around?

LEIN

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah, it's illegal. Personally I try my up-most to avoid cycle lanes anyway and use the roads instead which are generally safer, cleaner and have better priority

fat-tony wrote: »

I believe it's illegal to cycle on the footpath.

fat-tony wrote: »

Cookie Monster was answering a question about cycling on the footpath, not cycle lanes -

???

Sir Arthur Daley

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

not really, it's not like anyone has bells or it ever get enforced anyway. Visit the cycling forum and throw it out for discussion if you like...
Either way I'm not going to put a bell on my road bike.

Why would i entertain the idea of discussing whether you shoul put a bell on your bike or not, i think you are old enough to make that decision yourself.

Cookie_Monster

DD9090 wrote: »

How did you make that one out? I agree with the rest but safer to cycle with tonnes of metal seems to be of the wall?

less chance of pedestrians wandering in front of you, less rubbish and glass, better surfaces, less obstacles like bins, poles bus stops, gates ets, better priorities at junctions so safer, less chance of getting run over by cars pulling out of driveways or turning left across the lane without bothering to look.

Spend any amount of time cycling and you'll quickly realise how poorly maintained and dangerous a lot of cycle lanes are and why so many cyclists avoid them.

WikiHow wrote: »

Why would i entertain the idea of discussing whether you shoul put a bell on your bike or not, i think you are old enough to make that decision yourself.

yet you want to argue the toss that they are a legal requirement when they clearly are not...

legrand

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

less chance of pedestrians wandering in front of you, less rubbish and glass, better surfaces, less obstacles like bins, poles bus stops, gates ets, better priorities at junctions so safer, less chance of getting run over by cars pulling out of driveways or turning left across the lane without bothering to look.

Spend any amount of time cycling and you'll quickly realise how poorly maintained and dangerous a lot of cycle lanes are and why so many cyclists avoid them.


yet you want to argue the toss that they are a legal requirement when they clearly are not...

anyhow - I'm waking along and I hear a Ring Ring Ring behind me - no worries, I turn and wave apologetically for being in the way or I wave thanks for letting me know your coming though.
Or
On the other hand I either get clipped by an aggressive cyclist as he pushes by or I maybe I am 'advised' to get out the F'ing way or more probably other aggressive behavior/abuse after the cyclist has passed me (a few seconds ago I was minding my own business enjoying the views of the sea/planning a birthday party etc) - thanks for making my day.

IanL

that may be true, but when a lane is there cycling two abreast on the road is a bit daft, Of course I slow down but single file on a busy road would be using cop on.

fat-tony

LEIN wrote: »

???

Identity crisis DD9090 - er LEIN

Your reply to @Cookie_Monster was misinterpreted by me as its construction led me to infer that you thought that cycling on the path was not illegal

Now let us draw a veil over this - ok?

Sir Arthur Daley

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yet you want to argue the toss that they are a legal requirement when they clearly are not...

You are the one who said bells are illegal on bicycles not me.

LEIN

fat-tony wrote: »

Identity crisis DD9090 - er LEIN

Your reply to @Cookie_Monster was misinterpreted by me as its construction led me to infer that you thought that cycling on the path was not illegal

Now let us draw a veil over this - ok?

Agreed

LEIN

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

less chance of pedestrians wandering in front of you, less rubbish and glass, better surfaces, less obstacles like bins, poles bus stops, gates ets, better priorities at junctions so safer, less chance of getting run over by cars pulling out of driveways or turning left across the lane without bothering to look.

Fair point.

Honestly!

Saw a jogger change from the right bicycle lane to the left bicycle lane at the last minute.

The bike had passed me by ringing the bell to let the jogger know he was coming but jogger had headphones on so obviously didn't hear. Nothing serious by the looks of it, I think the handlebars may have caught her in the ribs, but he had braked and swerved and hit the rail so not at speed. No idea why the jogger wouldn't run on the empty footpath.

Ridiculous having bicycle lanes if cyclists can't cycle in them. They're being forced on to the road by inconsiderate pedestrians, prams, joggers etc. and then we get upset when we're driving.

Same thing down by the harbour in front of St David's where the clowns in Wicklow County Council decided to waste money on cycle lanes going nowhere, used mainly for prams, skaters, mobility scooter and pedestrians/joggers. Who puts these clowns in position to make such stupid decisions? Cyclist are now on a narrower road and cars can't pass!