I hate bike lanes

Michelin

I sincerely hope Councils, in particular Dublin Corpo stop putting in bike lanes, there a complete sham and very dangerous to ride on with a racer in many places. But the worst thing when you are riding in a bus lane or on the road with a dodgy bike lane running alongside, motorists and in particular public service vehicle drivers feel they are within there right to blow you off the road or even squeeze you out.
Am I right or wrong?

68 lost souls

I would rather see them put in proper bike lanes than remove bike lanes. A nice road surface rather than that shoddy red surface that breaks up easily, on a seperate level to the road and path so you don't get broken break lights and other car parts and also you don't get walkers and runners in the way as well as avoiding the sloped exit of driveways. The other thing that drives me nuts is cars parked on the bike lane which I see happen all to often.

CramCycle

68 lost souls wrote: »

on a seperate level to the road and path so you don't get broken break lights and other car parts and also you don't get walkers and runners in the way as well as avoiding the sloped exit of driveways.

Disagree here, having at a different level to the road seems to give the impression we are separate from other traffic in all circumstances and you end up losing priority at junctions because motorised vehicles have seen you on a different level and will treat you like peds.

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

Disagree here, having at a different level to the road seems to give the impression we are separate from other traffic in all circumstances and you end up losing priority at junctions because motorised vehicles have seen you on a different level and will treat you like peds.

"Will ignore you until you make a dent in their door as they swing into your path" is probably closer to the truth.

I agree with the disagreement here. A different level does not work too well. Bits of the track on the N11 Stillorgan Road in Dublin are well separated from the footpath and raised from the road, but are a pain to use. Bitter experience of getting stuck behind someone while I was towing a trailer led me to this conclusion.

Also, that bit of track beside the Grand Canal is separated from the road and the path and I wouldn't use that one in a fit ("Look! It's any junction! Welcome to making a serious effort to avoid getting a bang of a car, or waiting for two sequences of lights to change before progressing"). If you are going to have something, a basic stripe of paint on the road works best, if you have a complicated junction, ditch the stripe altogether.

CramCycle

check_six wrote: »

Also, that bit of track beside the Grand Canal is separated from the road and the path and I wouldn't use that one in a fit ("Look! It's any junction! Welcome to making a serious effort to avoid getting a bang of a car, or waiting for two sequences of lights to change before progressing").

One junction in particular, the one where Mount St. crosses the Grand Canal. The crossing traffic gets up to 3 minutes before switching, then 15seconds for peds, 15 for bikes and then 15 for traffic travelling along the canal, its going to cause an accident with the traffic build up and peds but the council are refusing to acknowledge it is an issue after its been reported many times. At least the rest of them have reasonably fast turns (although they are all sensor activated so you have to stop in 95% of situations, unlike the road lights which flick as it will benefit some traffic).

Chips Lovell

CramCycle wrote: »

Disagree here, having at a different level to the road seems to give the impression we are separate from other traffic in all circumstances and you end up losing priority at junctions because motorised vehicles have seen you on a different level and will treat you like peds.

Plus, you've no way of leaving the lane aside from kerb hopping if you find someone pulling up on it or parked on it.

Macy0161

68 lost souls wrote: »

I would rather see them put in proper bike lanes than remove bike lanes. A nice road surface rather than that shoddy red surface that breaks up easily, on a seperate level to the road and path so you don't get broken break lights and other car parts and also you don't get walkers and runners in the way as well as avoiding the sloped exit of driveways. The other thing that drives me nuts is cars parked on the bike lane which I see happen all to often.

In theory I agree, but in my experience even a clearly seperate bicycle path doesn't stop it being used by walkers and runners. Grand Canal has been mentioned already in a different context, but some sections have as many pedestrians using it as cyclists in my experience (between Lesson Street and Baggot Street is a disaster). And that's where there's a much more pleasant footpath along the canal! I'm pretty sure they even ran a "road" running race on the cycle lane on the Wicklow Port Relief Road, rather than use either the road or footpath.

The logic seems to be, going for a stroll - use the footpath. Power Walk/ Run/ Jog - use the cycle lane. Let your dog have a dump - use the cycle lane. Need to clear debris from a crash, including AGS, sweep it into the cycle lane. Car broke down? Push it up off the road onto the cycle lane. Need to catch a few speeders, park the camera van in the cycle lane (as has happened on the N11).

For those reasons I actually prefer an on road cycle lane. When I'm commuting bike I chose the route that is bus lane/ on street cycle lane (Rock and Merrion Road) rather than the one that has a seperate cycle lane for most of it (N11).

68 lost souls

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Plus, you've no way of leaving the lane aside from kerb hopping if you find someone pulling up on it or parked on it.

Yes I can see this being a problem with my scenario alright. Perhaps the separate levels may not be a great idea after all having taken into account the previous comments.

I just see so many problems with the way it is now but I do think there should be designated cycle lanes perhaps even for younger or inexperienced cyclists to keep them safe and as has been pointed out if motorists see cyclists as a separate mode of transport then there should be either 100% separation or integration where no cyclist would need to go on a road as the cycle lanes were all good and in place but obviously this could never happen. Perhaps an outright ban of private cars in urban areas, lol maybe thats just the environmentalist in me.

eeeee

I agree with the disagreement. I think cycle lanes should be gotten rid of, in the city anyway. they re poorly designed and full of shyte. Also, because I don't use them I get bullied in by buses, beeped etc. for not using them, especially on the n11. A line on the road if there has to be one but I don't think segregating cyclists from traffic and consequently dumping them out on top of traffic turning left is not the way to go, as it is currently. And even new cycle lanes are being built this way (see Fosters avenue junction on the N11). Nothing or a line on the side of the road if they have to. Other wise it turns into a dog walking/running/broken glass collection point. And motorists become antagonistic because you are not in what they perceive to be the proper place. Bans etc. no need, just consideration and better design. We all have to share the road, and to be fair 99% of the time it's grand. Just the odd few incidents every now and then mainly from bad design and a lack of understanding I think.

CramCycle

Putting a straight ahead/left turn traffic lane to the left of a left turn only traffic lane. C'mon, where the hell did these planners qualify to be road designers. I can only recall one area in Dublin this was done correctly and it has subsequently been removed.

Chips Lovell

I'd get rid of them all and use the budget for road maintenance.

They're a menace and often do more harm than good. They're also used as a stick to beat cyclists with, e.g. "they spent x amount building this cycle lane and you won't use it".

CramCycle

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I'd get rid of them all and use the budget for road maintenance.

They're a menace and often do more harm than good. They're also used as a stick to beat cyclists with, e.g. "they spent x amount building this cycle lane and you won't use it".

Its like religious relatives giving out I won't pay tithes or pray even though I was educated at a Catholic school for 13 years. I told them half way through that I didn't want anything to do with it and yet they are still disappointed in me for not using the thing that I never asked for and never wanted.

sorry for the poor analogy, best I could do

bambergbike

The devil is in the detail. In general I prefer painted on-road lanes to raised tracks as it's easier to escape from them when needed (to make a right turn, to overtake aother cyclist, to get round an obstacle), but I wouldn't dismiss raised tracks out of hand.

A raised track can be very pleasant when it stays at the same level as it crosses side roads rather than dipping up and down. When a major cycle route intersects with a minor road, it can make sense to keep the cyclists on the major cycle route on a level, even, comfortable surface, and to ensure turning traffic yields to straight-on cyclists by making the cycle track double-up as a speed bump across the mouth of a junction.

But there are tonnes of raised tracks out there that are terrifying and horrible to use. Kerb separation isn't a solution in itself, it's just a tool that can be used to create good and bad solutions.

There are also loads of possible half-way houses between the two poles of kerb-separated raised tracks and cycle infrastructure which separates cars and bikes only by a painted line. Planters, armadillos, posts, bollards - all sorts of stuff can be used to put buffer space between cyclists and motorists and calm traffic without making it impossible or very difficult for cyclists to switch between the cycle lane and the main carriageway as needed. Again, none of this stuff is a solution in itself - sometimes it might represent an improvement, sometimes filling narrow cycle lanes with extra clutter could make things worse for cyclists.

Any design element can be deployed well or deployed badly. There are no magic bullets and perfect design elements that can just magic away problems - different solutions will work in different places.

From a campaigning point of view, it's probably best to demand quality infrastructure without getting too hung up on the precise design elements that could be used to realize it, although I accept that cyclists will have to point out that particular options are rubbish within the framework of consultations on specific projects.

the.red.baron

Non-segregated most of the time, this works pretty well, typically cars take heed of it and it's better alright for dealing with right of way with side roads and people turning across you.

Plus it's cheap

Segregated when it suits and there is the space for it, that means wide enough for 2, longer stretches with no side roads and faster moving traffic. Return it to the road before junctions etc or go over them for say the m50. This works for me. N roads, interchanges with the m50 etc, much more pleasurable away from 100kph traffic.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

They are the dumping ground for all the broken glass in the country apparently. And manhole covers. Manhole covers everywhere.

AdMMM

CramCycle wrote: »

One junction in particular, the one where Mount St. crosses the Grand Canal. The crossing traffic gets up to 3 minutes before switching, then 15seconds for peds, 15 for bikes and then 15 for traffic travelling along the canal, its going to cause an accident with the traffic build up and peds but the council are refusing to acknowledge it is an issue after its been reported many times. At least the rest of them have reasonably fast turns (although they are all sensor activated so you have to stop in 95% of situations, unlike the road lights which flick as it will benefit some traffic).

Pretty sure I saw a mobile CCTV pole erected in this very spot when walking there earlier on today with the sticker mentioning something about Traffic monitoring on it.

dave_o_brien

The majority of cycle lanes in Ireland (and many other countries) are designed to facilitate motorised traffic at the cost of convenience to the cyclist. The best designed ones ensure that a cyclist, who uses the system and obeys it's rules, is safe, but that does not mean that the system is convenient. This contrasts with drivers expectations, whereby surely a system designed for you must be convenient. It also contrasts with the experiences one encounters in a minority of other countries where cycle lane usage is far more pleasant. These are designed to facilitate the users of the cyclist at the cost of the motorist. There's no real appetite for changing who is prioritised here among local authorities or politicians.

.ak

If the cycle lane is clear and smooth I cycle in them. I actually like the red stuff (if it holds together, but more than often is breaks up, however sold the council that stuff is a cowboy) because it separates the cars and drivers rarely drift into it, it's a great visual aid for drivers.

However if it's a busy bus channel (say O'Connell st for example) I'll always cycle on the main road. I actually got clipped in my first week cycling on O'Connell st because a car decided they needed to squeeze into the cycle lane whilst beside me to over take a car just to get to a red light 20m away.... :rolleyes: Good lesson for me anyway. Pretend you're a car, stay infront of traffic if needs be, and don't feel embarrassed if you're slowing cars up, just be safe and seen.

No Pants

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Plus, you've no way of leaving the lane aside from kerb hopping if you find someone pulling up on it or parked on it.

Or not being able to leave it. If I'm coming from Sutton, Howth of Baldoyle, there's the off-road cycle lane on the sea wall. However, if I use that, I can't take my turn into Bayside unless I dismount and carry my bike down some steps while wearing cycling shoes.

Raam

No Pants wrote: »

Or not being able to leave it. If I'm coming from Sutton, Howth of Baldoyle, there's the off-road cycle lane on the sea wall. However, if I use that, I can't take my turn into Bayside unless I dismount and carry my bike down some steps while wearing cycling shoes.

You could probably cycle off the steps and fashion a sweet landing. It would look awesome to any on-coming traffic.

Brian?

So far, I've found one good off road cycle lane in Ireland. It runs from the N 81 to the N7 through Jobstown, Brookfield and the back of Citywest.

It's well designed and would be a joy to use if it wasn't full of glass. Having said that it comes to an abrupt end forcing you down a high kerb or onto to footpath. Infuriating.

Edit: Cheeverstown road.

Once you get over the N7 you have an absolutely shocking cycling lane. You lose right of way at every single roundabout, essientaly grouping you as a pedestrian.

keith16

dave_o_brien wrote: »

There's no real appetite for changing who is prioritised here among local authorities or politicians.

You've hit the nail on the head here. No-one cares. It's the same in all walks of life and cycling is just another microcosm.

Parking on double yellows? Ah shure it's grand.

Cycling with headphones in? I can't hear youuuuuu.

Press the button for the pedestrian crossing...lights turn red 10 minutes later and pedestrian is already home having tea? Wait there anyway.

Break red lights? Drive in the bus lane? Hog the middle lane? Stand in a doorway? Smoke in the playground? LALALALALALALALALA I DON'T CARE ME ME ME ME ME ME ad nauseum.

Michelin

keith16 wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head here. No-one cares. It's the same in all walks of life and cycling is just another microcosm.

Parking on double yellows? Ah shure it's grand.

Cycling with headphones in? I can't hear youuuuuu.

Press the button for the pedestrian crossing...lights turn red 10 minutes later and pedestrian is already home having tea? Wait there anyway.

Break red lights? Drive in the bus lane? Hog the middle lane? Stand in a doorway? Smoke in the playground? LALALALALALALALALA I DON'T CARE ME ME ME ME ME ME ad nauseum.

Yes, Cycle lanes are bull...t.
It feels safer often riding in a bus lane in Dublin. Off road cycle lanes with that crap red stuff...money wasted everywhere...I cant fathom the lack of intelligence or understand the stupidity of Council Engineers.

macnab

I was just thinking about this issue during my commute today.
I came to the conclusion that if "Cycle Lanes" are the answer then the question must have been:
1. Where are we going to put all these man hole covers.
2. Where will taxi drivers pull over when they need to pick up a fare.
3. Where will taxi drivers park when waiting for people to exit the concert at the O2.
4. Where can we dump all this broken glass.
5. Where are the workmen going to put their "safety" signs.
You get the gist.......

rp

Michelin wrote: »

Yes, Cycle lanes are bull...t.
It feels safer often riding in a bus lane in Dublin.

All bus lanes that aren't contraflow *are* cycle lanes

buffalo

rp wrote: »

All bus lanes that aren't contraflow *are* cycle lanes

*All* bus lanes are cycle lanes.

Jawgap

With some notable exceptions, cycle lanes in Ireland are badly thought out and badly implemented ('ah, just leave the bus stop in the middle of the track, sure they'll know to cycle around it).

I often wonder if the people designing them actually go and cycle the route (either before or after it's laid out)? I doubt they do and the whole philosophy seems to be any cycle lane is better than no cycle lane.

But as regards Dublin I must be wrong, after all it is 9th on the index of bicycle friendly cities in Europe - which suggests other aspects of the environment must be dragging it's sorry arse up the list, because I don't think it's there because of the quality of its cycle tracks.......

CamperMan

saw a cycle lane in Gorey, Co. Wexford last year, hideous.. it was about 300 metres long with a bollard in the middle and cars parked along it....

DirkVoodoo

The new doggy waste bins on the Clontarf bike path are great! The one place in Dublin I've seen them (seriously, even in the parks they are hard to come across) and the place them on the cycle path.

Not only does this create an obstacle for the cyclist to get around, it also encourages pedestrians to cross into and stand in the cycle lane, before crossing back out.

Madness!

rp

buffalo wrote: »

*All* bus lanes are cycle lanes.

I thought that the clarifications made back 2012 allowed for a bus lane (without a picture of a bike on the sign, RUS 030) for contraflow bus lanes? The St Stephen's Green being the poster child for this arrangement. I could be wrong, those S.I.s are fierce hard to understand

cython

Speaking of bike lanes, am I being overly cynical in thinking that this particular idea can only be badly implemented? Excerpt from article below (emphasis is mine):

Plans are being drawn up for a major change in traffic arrangements on Dublin’s north quays which would introduce a new two-way cycle lane and restrict private motorists to one lane instead of two.

So presumably the bus lane will be moved out one from the kerb, and into the current first traffic lane, while the bus lane would become the cycle lane? Personally I feel that while this may alleviate a problem with the south quays in terms of cycling infrastructure (bus lane that cuts in and out according to the street width) by providing an alternative, it may well be a retrograde move for the North quays, as inbound cyclists can currently use the whole width of the bus lane if they need to overtake other cyclists - this will be much tougher on a two-way lane, IMHO. Now of course we will presumably still be permitted to use a bus lane if we wish (for me it would depend on how the cycle lane "flows"), but will likely also draw increased ire from other road users in that scenario as there will now be "a perfectly good cycle lane", and drivers will have "given up" a lane to provide it.

And now, reading back on that, I realise that yes, I have become very jaded

cython

rp wrote: »

I thought that the clarifications made back 2012 allowed for a bus lane (without a picture of a bike on the sign, RUS 030) for contraflow bus lanes? The St Stephen's Green being the poster child for this arrangement. I could be wrong, those S.I.s are fierce hard to understand

Monsieur Gateaux has quoted what I suspect to be that very SI in his post on cycling legislation, specifically (emphasis added):

Bus Lanes


32. (1)(a) A bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 028 or traffic sign number RUS 029 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.


(b) A contra-flow bus lane shall be indicated by means of traffic sign number RUS 030 used in association with traffic sign number RRM 024.


(2) A person shall not enter a bus lane with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle during the period of operation of the bus lane indicated on an information plate.


(3) A person shall not enter a contra-flow bus lane with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle.


(4) A person shall not enter a bus-only street with a vehicle other than a large public service vehicle or a pedal cycle except for the purpose of access.


(5)(a) Sub-articles (2) and (3) do not apply to a vehicle crossing a with-flow bus lane or a contra-flow bus lane solely for the purpose—


(i) of entering or leaving premises or property adjacent to such a bus lane, or


(ii) of entering or leaving a road inset adjacent to such a bus lane in order to load or unload goods.

CramCycle

cython wrote: »

So presumably the bus lane will be moved out one from the kerb, and into the current first traffic lane, while the bus lane would become the cycle lane? Personally I feel that while this may alleviate a problem with the south quays in terms of cycling infrastructure (bus lane that cuts in and out according to the street width) by providing an alternative, it may well be a retrograde move for the North quays, as inbound cyclists can currently use the whole width of the bus lane if they need to overtake other cyclists - this will be much tougher on a two-way lane, IMHO. Now of course we will presumably still be permitted to use a bus lane if we wish (for me it would depend on how the cycle lane "flows"), but will likely also draw increased ire from other road users in that scenario as there will now be "a perfectly good cycle lane", and drivers will have "given up" a lane to provide it.

My experience of the canal which is a completely segregated bike lane is that a few people who don't give a toss about others will cycle against the flow headlong into other cyclists, ruining it for everyone, eventually cyclists with experience willl stop using it for safety reasons and then other road users will give out about giving up a lane of traffic that in hindsight, very few people wanted.

I'd much prefer they use the money to install live feed cameras, VPRN and hire a garda to observe the traffic and fine everyone they can who does anything stupid because they should know they are being watched and if they still act the maggot they really need their license revoked. If possible, use it mush like you see on "Police camera Action" programs to track cyclists who flaunt the rules and hopefully pick them up, time and manpower allowed, further down the quays.

cython

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the canal which is a completely segregated bike lane is that a few people who don't give a toss about others will cycle against the flow headlong into other cyclists, ruining it for everyone, eventually cyclists with experience willl stop using it for safety reasons and then other road users will give out about giving up a lane of traffic that in hindsight, very few people wanted.

Well at least my cynicism is matched somewhere I can't comment as to the cycle path on the canal, as I haven't used it, but I do cycle through the Phoenix Park on my commute, and the off road cycle path there is completely summed by by the bit in bold (and a few pedestrians, to boot). With that being the case, I don't mind using it on the way home, as I go a bit slower, but I won't go on it to average 35-40 kph or more on the way in. Thankfully there is a usable shoulder on the road, and motorists haven't had to give up anything to provide the cycle lanes

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd much prefer they use the money to install live feed cameras, VPRN and hire a garda to observe the traffic and fine everyone they can who does anything stupid because they should know they are being watched and if they still act the maggot they really need their license revoked. If possible, use it mush like you see on "Police camera Action" programs to track cyclists who flaunt the rules and hopefully pick them up, time and manpower allowed, further down the quays.

I'm all for idiots being disciplined, and would have no issue with this approach, especially as it can be done equally across all road users, at least in theory.

buffalo

cython wrote: »

Speaking of bike lanes, am I being overly cynical in thinking that this particular idea can only be badly implemented?

City Council proposes moving historic park to separate vehicle traffic and cyclists

I read that article last night, still wondering what the 'historic park' is. My only suggestions are the one in front of the Aishling where Anna Livia is now, or the Croppy's Acre. But I can see no reason why they would need to move, and nothing else along the quays would.

dave_o_brien

CramCycle wrote: »

My experience of the canal which is a completely segregated bike lane is that a few people who don't give a toss about others will cycle against the flow headlong into other cyclists, ruining it for everyone, eventually cyclists with experience willl stop using it for safety reasons and then other road users will give out about giving up a lane of traffic that in hindsight, very few people wanted.

I'd much prefer they use the money to install live feed cameras, VPRN and hire a garda to observe the traffic and fine everyone they can who does anything stupid because they should know they are being watched and if they still act the maggot they really need their license revoked. If possible, use it mush like you see on "Police camera Action" programs to track cyclists who flaunt the rules and hopefully pick them up, time and manpower allowed, further down the quays.

While I see where you're coming from, but there are a few things to note here.

1. The move to restrict the number of vehicular lanes on the North Side Quays will have an enormously positive impact on the Quays in general, making the pedestrian experience far better.

2. Increased congestion is a tactic to reduce car use. It's not liked by motorists, but it works.

3. It ain't designed for you or I to go training on. It's a traffic facility. If you can't overtake safely, don't overtake.

4. Increased surveillance would be great, but it shouldn't be treated as one or th'other. In instances like the recent Gardai clampdown on private motorists using College Green, there seems to be an increased appetite for enforcement of existing laws.

Skrynesaver

Beautiful morning so I decided to do the whole route in this morning and came through the Hollystown>Snugbourough Rd. industrial estate rather than the old N2.

They have put up an inviting on ramp as you come through from Hollystown to a new cycle lane... What a treat thought I, freshly lain tar and separation from the trucks going through the industrial estate so up I get, until the first roundabout when I discover that I was mistaken in my belief that I wanted to go to Blanch and that the airport would be a much nicer way to go... >fume<

It's almost a useful facility it just fails to have considered how the road is actually used by cyclists, it's almost as though the facility is not for cyclists at all, but rather to get those annoying cranks out of the way of cars.

</rant>

CramCycle

dave_o_brien wrote: »

While I see where you're coming from, but there are a few things to note here.

I heard a bit on Newstalk this morning about it where they had someone in talking about it, other than Ivan giving out and saying we should all be taxed, I would not be as against it as much after hearing the other ideas behind it. But without seeing the plans, I can see other issues.

Which lane will it be put in? If its the current bus lane, then that puts the issue of buses pulling into collect fares in the way, although this could be solved by having the bus stops on the Liffey but I presume there are H&S issues with this such as crowding at peak times.

In the middle lane, you effectively have cyclists going against traffic on both sides. If there were those safety bollards to stop silly maneuvres like on O'Connell street its not to bad but the junction and light priorities will need alot of work.

On the liffey lane, the only real issue here is right hooking traffic, so again a light sequence issue coupled with enforcement. If they remove car park spaces from this side, it is possibly the best option.

1. The move to restrict the number of vehicular lanes on the North Side Quays will have an enormously positive impact on the Quays in general, making the pedestrian experience far better.

Completely agree, anything that reduces heavy vehicle usage in a dense pedestrian area (pun not intended but it works) is a good thing IMO

3. It ain't designed for you or I to go training on. It's a traffic facility. If you can't overtake safely, don't overtake.

That was my point, human nature for those with either no experience or no manners (a minority of all road users), will mess around like they do on the canal cycle path, I don't mind sitting behind people if I can't overtake, I have learned to either leave early or accept being late but some people, as anyone who commutes in Dublin, no matter how they commute, will know.

4. Increased surveillance would be great, but it shouldn't be treated as one or th'other. In instances like the recent Gardai clampdown on private motorists using College Green, there seems to be an increased appetite for enforcement of existing laws.

Definitely, again, if only one tactic is used, people find ways that they believe is cheating the system, that said some people don't care either, I have only once seen a Garda stopping on College Green and I notice just as many people texting or talking on the phone while driving despite the increase in the harshness of the penalty. I don't like these "Campaigns" the Gardai have, letting us know at certain times of the year they will be enforcing certain laws with the levels of enforcement they should have all year round.

buffalo

CramCycle wrote: »

this could be solved by having the bus stops on the Liffey but I presume there are H&S issues with this such as crowding at peak times.

On a related note, why are the inner paths along the Liffey so narrow anyway? Take away a traffic lane and give half to the pedestrians by the river, and the other to the cyclists.

Orion

Or take away one of the lanes and create a bi-directional cycle track:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/new-quays-cycle-lane-to-lead-to-restrictions-for-dublin-motorists-1.1834760?utm_medium=email&utm_source=morning-digest&utm_campaign=digests

RobertFoster

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Beautiful morning so I decided to do the whole route in this morning and came through the Hollystown>Snugbourough Rd. industrial estate rather than the old N2.

They have put up an inviting on ramp as you come through from Hollystown to a new cycle lane... What a treat thought I, freshly lain tar and separation from the trucks going through the industrial estate so up I get, until the first roundabout when I discover that I was mistaken in my belief that I wanted to go to Blanch and that the airport would be a much nicer way to go... >fume<

It's almost a useful facility it just fails to have considered how the road is actually used by cyclists, it's almost as though the facility is not for cyclists at all, but rather to get those annoying cranks out of the way of cars.

</rant>

Good luck with that. If you'd stayed on the path to the M2 you'd have been left stranded in the middle of some grass halfway up the motorway slip road heading north. It just ends: no dished kerb, no off ramp, just grass.

It's as if the paths are designed to facilitate local recreational cyclists who'll go to the end of the path, turn around and go home after their bit of exercise. What do you mean you want to further than 2.5km from home? Take the car, silly!

No Pants

RobertFoster wrote: »

Good luck with that. If you'd stayed on the path to the M2 you'd have been left stranded in the middle of some grass halfway up the motorway slip road heading north. It just ends: no dished kerb, no off ramp, just grass.

It's as if the paths are designed to facilitate local recreational cyclists who'll go to the end of the path, turn around and go home after their bit of exercise. What do you mean you want to further than 2.5km from home? Take the car, silly!

A motorway sliproad no less. :rolleyes:

I've never cycled that particular piece of road. I normally come through St. Margaret's, across the old N2 at Ward Cross (now roundabout), down past Tyrellstowns and then turn left onto the Cruiserath road (R121?). I might look to my left at the cycle path, but then ignore it as it has pedestrians, debris and entryways with fairly stiff rises/drops off the kerb. I have occasionally used the new road to take me as far as the Texaco garage, but again, without using a cycle path. I'm generally going the far side of 30km/h so I think cars can cope with that.