New Quays Cycling Lane Dublin

kencoo

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/new-quays-cycle-lane-to-lead-to-restrictions-for-dublin-motorists-1.1834760

I use the quays every day - south quay is like running the gauntlet... id say motorists are happy!

magicbastarder

that's an odd article - the subhead mentions moving an historic park to allow this, but there is no mention of this in the main body of the article. i wonder if it's the croppy acre.
it's low on other detail as well.

i can imagine how confusing it will be for all road users to have all motor vehicles allowed one direction up the quays, but only cyclists coming the other direction.

buffalo

I emailed the two councillors mentioned as having reacted negatively/cautiously to this plan, and have now received two responses.

One was detailed, explaining some of his economic reasoning, and the other said simply, 'thanks'.

I'd urge everyone on the forum to get in touch with anyone who has influence in the matter, and make sure your voice is heard. Otherwise they'll go on believing what the newspaper editors tell them - that this will kill the city centre, just like the bus gate. Or an awful shambles, just like the Dublin Bike scheme.

Orion

buffalo wrote: »

Or an awful shambles, just like the Dublin Bike scheme.

I actually thought that would be a disaster myself. Not just because of the way it works but I mainly didn't think the bikes would last a day without scumbags smashing them and/or littering the Liffey with them. I am still pleasantly surprised at how much of a success it's been.

Hmmzis

Regarding the concerns about traffic getting worse if this is implemented:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Research shows it might not make a difference whatsoever.

Johnny Jukebox

I have some sympathy for people who have to drive in and out of the city for whatever reason and I'd be hacked off at this proposal if I was one of these. I am lucky enough to be able to cycle and I really don't like bus/Luas/DART/car on the very rare occasion I have to use them to commute.

Add in the vast, free car parking for DCC employees (and other city center based public servants) and it looks a bit more shabby.

Kav0777

I misread the thread title as "New Quays Cycling League Dublin"

I'm a little disappointed to be wrong, to be honest...

mirrormatrix

I'm an avid cyclist myself but this idea is not one that I would be in favour of. The quays are a main artery for traffic in this city and, I believe, should be kept as is with cars and bicycles sharing the road. Introducing a two-way cycle lane would give rise to a number of issues. The two major ones I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) You would have contra flow traffic. This would mean that you would have to have a separate lights system for bikes, pedestrians and cars like on the canal. And we all know how crap that bike lane is. Takes hours for anyone to get anywhere along it on a bike.

2) Because of the contra-flow, you would have to keep the bike lane separate from traffic. This would give rise to a lot of the problems associated with keeping cycling traffic separate that posters have gone into on numerous other threads about badly designed cycle lanes in Ireland. It would also have the added effect (as many cycle lanes do) of a lot of cyclists not using the bike lane and clogging the (now reduced in size) road. This would only serve to further heighten tensions between cyclists and motorists and I believe would likely end up in cycle lanes becoming mandatory again.

We all know the quays aren't a particularly nice place to be if you are a novice cyclist. Could cyclists not use alternate routes around the city centre? I'm sure the same question could be asked of motorists, but I don't think that the number of cyclists vs number of motorists using that road in any way justifies giving cyclists an entire lane?

smackyB

mirrormatrix wrote: »

...

We all know the quays aren't a particularly nice place to be if you are a novice cyclist. Could cyclists not use alternate routes around the city centre? I'm sure the same question could be asked of motorists, but I don't think that the number of cyclists vs number of motorists using that road in any way justifies giving cyclists an entire lane?

One of the major reasons motorists outnumber cyclists using that road is because it's far too intimidating for the majority of cyclists. I've cycled for years and I hate using the quays, I can't imagine how scary it must be for a novice. You can't use current numbers as an argument against creating a lane. Build it and they will come.

buffalo

smackyB wrote: »

One of the major reasons motorists outnumber cyclists using that road is because it's far too intimidating for the majority of cyclists. I've cycled for years and I hate using the quays, I can't imagine how scary it must be for a novice. You can't use current numbers as an argument against creating a lane. Build it and they will come.

I've seen this argument time and time again - motorists make up the majority of visitors to the city centre, most people commute by car... therefore we should make life easier for those people, which means more people will choose to drive, and it becomes a vicious circle.

Tenzor07

Widen roads, remove bus/cycle lanes, free on-street parking, double that silly 30kph speed limit, reduced pedestrian crossing time. Luas stops for cars, make the BXD line a priority car lane instead..

Signed, G.Hook, and "The AA"

eeeee

mirrormatrix wrote: »

We all know the quays aren't a particularly nice place to be if you are a novice cyclist. Could cyclists not use alternate routes around the city centre? I'm sure the same question could be asked of motorists, but I don't think that the number of cyclists vs number of motorists using that road in any way justifies giving cyclists an entire lane?

I actually think cycling the quays isn't that bad. Yes some of the junctions are a mess but if you keep a good eye around you they're no more intimidating/hard than anywhere else. When I started cycling around Dublin, 12 years ago now, I was told the quays were super scary etc. They never were, I had way more problems on the n11 than I have ever had on the quays. It's slower for one.

I am ambivalent about the new lanes. I never use the two-way canal one, the white line is advisory at best, and the amount of slower moving cyclists makes it too dangerous and aggravating to use (Passing out others and the salmoning.) and I am not super speedy by any means. If you commute over 15kph it's a no go I find. The Clontarf one is better for wrong side of the 'road' riders but still a problem every time I go on it. Unless it's quite I avoid it.
Which is the biggest problem. Not cycling in the cycle lane is the biggest cause of getting beeped/shouted at/pushed off the road for me, and this definitely won't help lessen this. Drivers with little understanding of the above issues are hardly going to be more sympathetic to cyclists heading up by them on the road in a traffic jam when there is a two way cycle lane right beside it.
Also the filtering right/left depending on direction. I have yet to find an off the road cycle lane in Dublin that does this at all well.

All said though, it might encourage more people out on the bike and commute to work which is no bad thing, more cyclists on the road etc. etc. etc.

Orion

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Could cyclists not use alternate routes around the city centre?

For those of us that work in the city centre what do you suggest? Change job so we don't have to cycle down the quays?

buffalo

For me, it's not so much about the specific facility, but more of a general push to make cycling 'normal'. To make it acceptable that road space is given over to facilitate cyclists of any shape or form. That'll encourage more people cycling, and hopefully that'll continue the upward spiral currently underway.

dave_o_brien

For what it's worth, I'd be supportive of just removing a lane on the north quays in it's entirety and giving it over to pedestrians, narrowing the remaining lane and resurfacing the whole area to single level with a heavier tactile material for the traffic lane (increases the in-car noise and encourages slower driving, allegedly). Route the buses down the Luas line, or via Manor Street towards O'Connell Street.

The north quays has the potential to be a wonderful riverside amenity, and the fact that it remains an "important traffic artery" is an embarrassment that highlights how utterly poorly we have used our public spaces.

Tenzor07

gadetra wrote: »

I actually think cycling the quays isn't that bad..

For a bike-user the quays have many hazards, bus's swinging in and out of stops, taxi's pulling in suddenly, pedestrians cross en-masse once no cars are coming..

Speed is also an issue, is the "30kph" limit still in place? When my Garmin tells me I'm doing 30kph i see cars passing me going double that speed..

rollingscone

dave_o_brien wrote: »

For what it's worth, I'd be supportive of just removing a lane on the north quays in it's entirety and giving it over to pedestrians, narrowing the remaining lane and resurfacing the whole area to single level with a heavier tactile material for the traffic lane (increases the in-car noise and encourages slower driving, allegedly). Route the buses down the Luas line, or via Manor Street towards O'Connell Street.

The north quays has the potential to be a wonderful riverside amenity, and the fact that it remains an "important traffic artery" is an embarrassment that highlights how utterly poorly we have used our public spaces.

Spoken like a true architect...as read by someone who has read a lot of Urban sociology :0

@Gadetra, I commute at about 30kph on the GC cycle lane and find it manageable. It does have a lot of idiots psi though.

@Orion, The reason scobies have left Dublin bikes largely alone is because they're so sturdy it's easier to just burn someone's car.

buffalo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Speed is also an issue, is the "30kph" limit still in place? When my Garmin tells me I'm doing 30kph i see cars passing me going double that speed..

30kph zone doesn't apply to the quays, apart from two sets of two just west of O'Connell St.

Idleater

buffalo wrote: »

For me, it's not so much about the specific facility, but more of a general push to make cycling 'normal'.

This.

This facility is not to push cycle commuters out of the way of vehicular commuters, it's about general bicycle access in the city center, for everyone.

II've partaken in commute time cycling in Copenhagen and a few Dutch towns, and there are the equivalent of traffic jams for bikes.

Remember the humorous bill board "you're not in traffic, you are traffic".

The more that cycling embraces what it used to be, just another form of travel, the more accessible it becomes. But in order to achieve Copenhagen levels of accessibility and normalisation, we need it to be accessible to as many people as possible.

Lumen

Idleater wrote: »

I've partaken in commute time cycling in Copenhagen and a few Dutch towns, and there are the equivalent of traffic jams for bikes.

I don't want traffic jams for bikes. Half the reason I commute by bike is that I can do 15km in 35 minutes through traffic.

The current system is entirely fair. If you're a whiny pampered wimp*, sit in your box and enjoy jau doofy or whatever in the 90 minutes it takes to crawl to work through traffic. If you can be arsed to learn to ride a bike properly and deal with mixed traffic, enjoy the freedom to get to work quickly.

I don't want the system re-engineered so that the same set of whiny pampered wimps can then hold me up on my way to work on their stupid slow bicycles.

(* I realise there are people who are not physically able to cycle because they have some sort of disability, but they're a tiny minority)

Chips Lovell

I don't think segregated infrastructure normalises cycling. If anything, it reinforces the incorrect perception that cycling is dangerous and cyclists need to be protected from other traffic.

Johnny Jukebox

Lumen wrote: »

I don't want traffic jams for bikes. Half the reason I commute by bike is that I can do 15km in 35 minutes through traffic.

The current system is entirely fair. If you're a whiny pampered wimp*, sit in your box and enjoy jau doofy or whatever in the 90 minutes it takes to crawl to work through traffic. If you can be arsed to learn to ride a bike properly and deal with mixed traffic, enjoy the freedom to get to work quickly.

I don't want the system re-engineered so that the same set of whiny pampered wimps can then hold me up on my way to work on their stupid slow bicycles.

(* I realise there are people who are not physically able to cycle because they have some sort of disability, but they're a tiny minority)

Unless you count obesity as a disability and then they become the majority...

Caliden

As a motorist, I for one would be in favour of a congestion charge in addition to these bike lane changes so long as there is an alternative. Increased commuter services, larger car parks, Dublin west Luas line

idiottje

My take on this. I do support it, but I can cycle into work, and don't have to use the Quays. Planners in the past have looked at the issue in terms of how many cars we can get down here, as opposed to how many people can we get down here. The car is the current solution for many as public transport (park and ride facilities, etc) not only in Dublin, but also in the commuter belt are nonexistent. I feel that the long term (10/20 years) plan should be to make the city centre, Hueston down, and between the canals car free, apart from public transport (including taxis), with allotted times for deliveries. Dublin as a city is small, and relatively flat. There is no need for the city to be so reliant on private car ownership.
I know that there is a lot of investment needed regarding public transport, that is effective, and that it will take time, in conjunction with park and ride further out, but Dublin could be more attractive for people to live and shop in, and be more vibrant if the cars were simply removed. Other cities in Europe are doing this, and footfall in City Centre has gone up, not down, and people are happier to come into the city centre than out of town shopping centres.
Regarding the lane, it is a step along the path. There are plenty of people from Lucan/Palmerstown, etc use that route as well as the people from Castleknock/Blanch. It will force them to reconsider if they 100% need to take that journey by car, which should lead to not only more cyclists, but more people on public transport, meaning profits go up, which should (unless there is brown paper envelopes) lead to more investment in public transport. It is a harsh thing to do, but maybe a bit of behaviour modification is the only thing that is going to work here.
Rant over. I'll get my coat.

Tenzor07

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I don't think segregated infrastructure normalises cycling. If anything, it reinforces the incorrect perception that cycling is dangerous and cyclists need to be protected from other traffic.

Is segregated not what there is now? Currently, the primary aim in the design of any of the dis-jointed cycle paths around the city is to remove bike-users from the road and thus out of the way of the motor-vehicle?

So what we need is an integrated cycle infrastructure with raised kerbs, direct routes, bicycle specific traffic light signals?

Chips Lovell

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Is segregated not what there is now?

Not really, the lanes there currently are painted on the road and you can easily move in and out of them from the regular traffic lanes. I don't feel the need for them, but I don't think they do that much harm either.

Tenzor07

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Not really, the lanes there currently are painted on the road and you can easily move in and out of them from the regular traffic lanes. I don't feel the need for them, but I don't think they do that much harm either.

True, there is a lot of that, sometimes i feel better about the painted line as it serves as a reminder to drivers that they should give more space...

Though we have a lot of off-road segregated stuff, fairview cycle path(disaster), marlay park/grange road cycle path, the cycle-path around by the O2/East wall road, sections on the Malahide road particularly by roundabouts which divert you off to the side roads almost...

Idleater

Lumen wrote: »

I don't want traffic jams for bikes...

I don't want the system re-engineered so that the same set of whiny pampered wimps can then hold me up on my way to work on their stupid slow bicycles.

My point albeit slightly hidden or badly explained, wasn't that you now must commute using the new infrastructure, more that there is an accessible infrastructure in place for anyone wishing to use it.

My point explicitly stated that the new infrastructure should be designed to be accessible to everyone, to make a city accessible for people to use bikes as a mode of transport, not just a realm of the enlightened few who brave the busses trucks et al on the quays.

Chips Lovell

Yes, the off-road stuff is usually worse.

magicbastarder

will cyclists on the south quays be shunted onto the north quays now?
what's to stop you continuing to cycle down the south quays anyway?

Chips Lovell

Nothing. You're not obliged to use cycle lanes.

mirrormatrix

Idleater wrote: »

My point albeit slightly hidden or badly explained, wasn't that you now must commute using the new infrastructure, more that there is an accessible infrastructure in place for anyone wishing to use it.

My point explicitly stated that the new infrastructure should be designed to be accessible to everyone, to make a city accessible for people to use bikes as a mode of transport, not just a realm of the enlightened few who brave the busses trucks et al on the quays.

Wait, hang on. So you would advocate building this cycle path, which takes up one whole lane of the north side of the quays, and then suggest that cyclists have the option of using it or not at their discretion?

I may be wrong, but I think that if they do end up going to the trouble of building this lane, there is going to be a legal obligation to use it.

Telecaster58

This will only work if some funds are expended on seperating traffic from bicycles. The deterrent effect of a painted white line is minimal viz. buslanes.

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

will cyclists on the south quays be shunted onto the north quays now?
what's to stop you continuing to cycle down the south quays anyway?

Just like the grand canal cycle path, you can use the road on the opposite side of the canal..(usually much quicker)

Tenzor07

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Wait, hang on. So you would advocate building this cycle path, which takes up one whole lane of the north side of the quays, and then suggest that cyclists have the option of using it or not at their discretion?
I may be wrong, but I think that if they do end up going to the trouble of building this lane, there is going to be a legal obligation to use it.

Why you think a cycle path should be legally compulsory?

The M7 for example was built and drivers have no obligation to use it over the old side roads...a lot of truck drivers are told to use the old roads to avoid tolls!

mirrormatrix

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Why you think a cycle path should be legally compulsory?

The M7 for example was built and drivers have no obligation to use it over the old side roads...a lot of truck drivers are told to use the old roads to avoid tolls!

I don't think that cycle lanes should be legally compulsory. I just think that this would be a likely result of this cycle path being developed.

Think about it - on one hand we're saying that we want measures in place to encourage cycling, protect cyclists and give nervous cyclists a place to cycle. Then we're also saying "oh, well i'm not one of those slow nervous cyclists, i'll just go ahead and use the main road thanks very much"

This is why i'm against this. Most of us on here are pretty experienced cyclists and from what I gather many wouldn't go near the majority of the cycle lanes in ireland (this type of segregated lane included). So should we build a cycle lane and then have cyclists using the main road beside it on the north side of the quays? Do you think that any driver would be happy with that situation?

Chips Lovell

To the best of my knowledge, they'd need to change the law to force cyclists off the road and make them use it. I doubt that's going to happen.

magicbastarder

i know it's a different council area, but the cycle lanes put in around the blanchardstown centre in the recent roads redevelopment are laughable. so that would not give me confidence they'd do a good job here anyway.

dave_o_brien

mirrormatrix wrote: »

Do you think that any driver would be happy with that situation?

The job of the council is not to make motorists happy, it's to improve the county/city under it's care.

Tenzor07

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I don't think that cycle lanes should be legally compulsory. I just think that this would be a likely result of this cycle path being developed.
Think about it - on one hand we're saying that we want measures in place to encourage cycling, protect cyclists and give nervous cyclists a place to cycle. Then we're also saying "oh, well i'm not one of those slow nervous cyclists, i'll just go ahead and use the main road thanks very much"
This is why i'm against this. Most of us on here are pretty experienced cyclists and from what I gather many wouldn't go near the majority of the cycle lanes in ireland (this type of segregated lane included). So should we build a cycle lane and then have cyclists using the main road beside it on the north side of the quays? Do you think that any driver would be happy with that situation?

"Cyclist" is someone who races, who trains, who may have 2 or more bikes, all the gear - helmets- lycra etc..

A "Bike-user" is someone who has an old singlespeed for getting around on, wears everyday clothes and just wants to get from A > B

This is ONE CYCLE LANE in the city center, aimed at improving life for the city, and bike users, as well as pedestrians.
"Any-Driver" could turn into any bike-user now that there is a option for them to use there bike and not have to dice with cars/trucks/vans doing 60kph+ inches from there elbows..

It's a start, we are about 30 years behind the Dutch or the Danes, so we have a lot of catching up to do...

Doctor Bob

There was a workshop in Dublin recently, as part of the ECF AGM, at which Kevin Mayne, Development Director of the ECF, said that growing cycling to 6-7% is pretty easy, but getting it to 10% and beyond is where the hard work starts.

According to a slide he showed that outlined opinions on cycling, 1% of the population is 'strong & fearless', 6% is 'enthused & confident', but 60% is 'interested but concerned' (and 33% is 'no way no how').

http://www.cyclist.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Kevin-Mayne.pdf

I'm not aware of any city or country that has achieved a cycling mode share of 10% or more without significant investment in infrastructure (with some micro-local exceptions, e.g. Hackney in London, certain streets in Stoneybatter).

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

Tenzor07

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

Why not? Sure within Cycling, you have utilitarian cyclists, commuters, mountain bikers, road racers, sportive riders, triathlon cyclists, cyclocrossers, downhill mtb'ers, Cross country mtb'ers, Enduro Mtb'ers, touring cyclists, unicyclists, BMX'ers, time triallists, dirt jumpers....

Many different "Tribes" within cycling itself...

dave_o_brien

Doctor Bob wrote: »

There was a workshop in Dublin recently, as part of the ECF AGM, at which Kevin Mayne, Development Director of the ECF, said that growing cycling to 6-7% is pretty easy, but getting it to 10% and beyond is where the hard work starts.

According to a slide he showed that outlined opinions on cycling, 1% of the population is 'strong & fearless', 6% is 'enthused & confident', but 60% is 'interested but concerned' (and 33% is 'no way no how').

http://www.cyclist.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Kevin-Mayne.pdf

I'm not aware of any city or country that has achieved a cycling mode share of 10% or more without significant investment in infrastructure (with some micro-local exceptions, e.g. Hackney in London, certain streets in Stoneybatter).

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

No, but conversations about commute modality miss the point of discussions like this.

Private car use is causing enormous congestion on a small city. We have a vast network of improperly used roads. The North Quays is uniquely located within our city to provide for an urban riverside environment benefiting from an unobstructed southerly aspect with a diverse existing mix of restaurants, historical and cultural establishments, and great potential for commercial use also. Instead we have a dual carriageway. Well done us.

If one were to analyse this purely from the perspective of the benefit to cycling, it likely wouldn't get far. The advantages of this proposal are far more wide reaching. They might also have a modest impact on cycle use in the area, but why anyone would focus on that (other than because the Times did, and Mr. Keegan rides a bike) is beyond me. Of course where such urban interventions occur there will be an impetus to provide cycling infrastructure, but to paint this as a move to improve cycling in the city as opposed to this being a move to improve the city itself is wrong.

seamus

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

Ability, I suppose, desire, not necessarily.

I believe that everyone should view cycling as a typical/normal/viable transport option and not one associated with any image or stereotype. I don't want everyone to go, "Cycling! Fuck yeah!", just for cycling to be on their radar when they think, "How will I get over there tomorrow?"

That is, when someone is considering how to get to work, then bus, drive, luas or walk are all options they will consider. There is nothing exceptional about any of these. Train is exceptional, but only insofar as trains are what you use when you have 100km to travel.
Cycling (or indeed motorcycling) are exceptional. Apparently you have to be a certain kind of person, or have (or not have) a special kind of workplace that allows/encourages that mode of transport, or be an "independent thinker".

The public perception is that if you have a normal 9-5 job in a typical company, then cycling is not possible for you. Anyone who cycles knows that this is complete nonsense, but saying it is so and proving it is so, are very different.
Until this changes, you can't build cycling into a large proportion of your commuters.

One thing I did think about this morning though was how many ladies I saw out on their bikes this morning. All different bikes and different styles, it was very Copenhagen. Some girls in cycling gear on road bikes, others in long flowing dresses on stylish bikes. Aesthetically pleasing aside, it made me consider how important female cycling commuters are in changing attitudes about cycle commuting.

That is, if we encourage women to commute on bikes, then that should in theory have a dragging effect on male commuters; appealing to their baser, "Well Jane in Finance does it, therefore you have no excuse" sexism.
At present, sport in general and cycling specifically is considered a very male pursuit, which makes it difficult to encourage women to get on their bikes.
The effect of getting women to commute would be to remove the "sport" aspect from it, and change it into a "how you get from point A to point B" transport mode. Nobody thinks of walking as a sport. Yet, walking is a sport. People easily separate out the difference between olympic speedwalking and normal walking. If they can do the same between leisure (or commuting) cycling and road racing, then I believe it would be very effective in making the leap to a greater modal share.

cython

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, they'd need to change the law to force cyclists off the road and make them use it. I doubt that's going to happen.

Especially since they just repealed that kind of requirement in the last 2 years

Short of them putting in a specific section in a bill about that one section of cycle lane (exceedingly unlikely), there almost certainly won't be a legal obligation to use this cycle lane if/when it is built. Reintroducing the general requirement to use cycle lanes would be a massive retrograde step over the October 2012 changes, given that the remaining 99% of cycle lanes will still be muck, and as above I sincerely doubt a scenario will arise where individual cycle lanes are made mandatory use in laws.

CramCycle

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I think that if they do end up going to the trouble of building this lane, there is going to be a legal obligation to use it.

Not a hope, there is no enforceable legal obligation and to do so would be idiotic, there are some reasons why it would be impractical including those who are stopping elsewhere on the quays other than turning at a junction that would be the main impetus not to make it mandatory if such a thing were possible.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Many different "Tribes" within cycling itself...

Don't be confusing the issue, the person who beeps me for stopping at a red light has every right to lump me in with the single homogenous group known as cyclists who all act and behave in the same manner, after all we are not individuals, we are simply numbers in a production line

Lumen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

I don't care about the cycling needs of non-cyclists.

Not giving a purple shíte about other people is why I'm unqualified to be an urban planner. God help those who have to make the world idiot-proof.

Chips Lovell

Has any country attempted to boost cycling numbers by significant investment in anything other than infrastructure?

At the moment we have a perception that cycling is dangerous and that deters potential cyclists (or least they say it deters them). Yet the message the public constantly receives from state agencies such as local authorities, the RSA, the Guards, even from cyclists themselves, serves to reinforce and not dispel that perception. We constantly hear about helmets, high viz jackets, and taking cyclists away from other traffic with cycle lanes. This is despite the fact that accident statistics show cycling isn't in any way as hazardous as the public thinks.

Yet two of the most successful public policy initiatives to promote cycling (Dublin Bikes and Bike to Work) had nothing to do with safety. Indeed, there was huge safety hysteria about Dublin Bikes. Yet look at us now. Its the most successful bike scheme in the world and is being built out into the suburbs.

Instead pouring money into something that only reinforces fearfulness (and hardens the attitude among motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road), I'd prefer to see investment in initiatives that highlight the positive aspects of cycling.

dreamerb

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Does every experienced cyclist think that everyone has/should have the ability and/or desire to be a vehicular cyclist?

By Tenzor07's definition, I am neither a cyclist nor a bike user, but, you might say, some kind of (experienced) hybrid. I'm mostly comfortable as a vehicular cyclist, but not always. I think that if you're going to be a vehicular cyclist, you benefit significantly if you can cycle comfortably and consistently at at least 20kph - including while indicating, shoulder-checking, changing lanes.

There are lots of people who can't do that, and vehicular cycling at lower speeds requires high degrees of confidence and assertiveness which, again, many people don't have. Many of these are the target market for proper segregated infrastructure.

I have some sympathy for the view that cycling shouldn't require full segregated infrastructure, and certainly experience shows us that a lot of the "segregated infrastructure" that is there is both substandard and not actually segregated (off-road beside footpaths, crossing driveways, etc). However, if we are to increase cycling rates further, I think dedicated high-quality segregated infrastructure is a necessary element in achieving that.

I don't know that DCC's North Quays suggestion is the right way to do that, but depending on how they intend to implement it, it might be. It certainly shouldn't be off the table on the grounds that it inconveniences car-commuters - part of any strategy for sustainable transport *has to* make commuting by car less attractive than other options, and not merely by making everything else easier or better while leaving car-commuting unaffected (in a city which mostly has road-based public transport, that's not really possible). Think of the Stillorgan QBC, for example. I knew that was a success when a former colleague told me of hiding behind other people at a bus-stop to avoid being offered a lift by a neighbour because it would take so much longer by car.

seamus

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I don't think that cycle lanes should be legally compulsory. I just think that this would be a likely result of this cycle path being developed.

Think about it - on one hand we're saying that we want measures in place to encourage cycling, protect cyclists and give nervous cyclists a place to cycle. Then we're also saying "oh, well i'm not one of those slow nervous cyclists, i'll just go ahead and use the main road thanks very much"

This is why i'm against this. Most of us on here are pretty experienced cyclists and from what I gather many wouldn't go near the majority of the cycle lanes in ireland (this type of segregated lane included). So should we build a cycle lane and then have cyclists using the main road beside it on the north side of the quays? Do you think that any driver would be happy with that situation?

This is a reasonable assumption, but from my experiencing using the grand canal cycle lane, it doesn't bear out this way. Certainly between Rathmines and Grand Canal dock, where I use it anyway.
The grand canal cycle lane follows along roads on which by and large traffic is rarely exceptionally heavy, and yet usage of the cycle lane is for all intents and purposes, 100%. Guys on racing bikes, people on cruisers, five year olds cycling to school in front of their parents, sometimes even skateboarders. They all manage to use the lane with the minimum of aggro. If you're faster, you just overtake everyone else and at the next lights you're at the front anyway.
Yeah, sometimes people use the road, and sometimes I'll do a sneaky transition if the road is empty and I want to catch a green light, but for every one bike on the road, there are 20 people on the bike lane.

On the quays where traffic can be intimidating at the best of times, everyone will use the cycle lane. Of that I have zero doubt.

The only question is whether westbound cyclists will use the lane. I would say yes, on the whole, for cyclists who are going the entire length of the quays.

Doctor Bob

seamus- I'd agree with most of what you've said, particularly regarding the growth in female cyclists (which I see as a sort of 'canary in the mine' for cycling culture [for want of a better term]).

But in that regard, I think it's interesting to see where they choose to cycle. Along the Grand Canal, the proportion of women is far higher on the segregated two-way track than it is on the Grand Parade-Mespil route outside the canal, despite the numerous shortcomings of that particular route- they are choosing a segregated route that takes longer to use rather than the parallel on-road option. (Not across the board- there are female VCs too, obviously.)

I supose what I'm angling at is this: it strikes me that there is a perception among the 'strong and fearless' (which is where a significant proportion of Boardsies would be categorised) that everyone should be just like them - scorning dedicated infrastructure as though it emasculates them or treats them as second class citizens, embracing adrenalin on a daily basis, claiming their rightful place in traffic ('a bicycle is a vehicle in Irish law' etc.) etc. - or indeed will be just like them once they've had a bit of practice.

However, it would seem to be the case that a lot of the people who don't currently cycle (the 'interested but concerned') need more than a just practice; they actually want good quality, dedicated cycle infrastructure. It's not the case that they inevitably 'graduate' to vehicular cycling; they - we, because I'm in this group too (although I'm also 'strong and fearless', because RAWR!) - actually want to continue to use good facilities. We don't grow out of that phase.

The ability to be a vehicular cyclist is very useful, and will continue to be so for a while yet, but it is a coping mechanism for many, not a preferred state.

(dave- I'll get back to you after lunch!)

Edit: Uh, that should read 'dave and everyone else'! Why did I post that question when I'm busy and it's lunchtime...