Can we stop officaldom from mixing cycling and walking?

monument

For a while it seemed like shared use footpaths were going out of vogue but too many councils and the NTA and NRA are still very fond of them, and if anything the use of shared use footpaths is increasing.

How do we stop them from being use?

Cyclists alone managed to get mandatory use of cycle tracks revoked... is there enough people who care to get TDs to force officialdom to stop mixing cycling and walking on streets and roads?

This is a quick outline the rule may include an exception for very exceptional cases -- and this would not apply to greenways on confined old railway alignments etc. And I don't mean that the ones which are there should be replaced overnight, but any new project should not include them and any retrofit project should include removing them.

Aard

The main impediment is one that Ciarán Cuffe recently spoke about -- and that is getting cycling "normalised". Few people cycle to work/school/college. Many people perceive it being dangerous. Local councillors, TDs... many really have no idea and cycling is not high on their agenda. Cyclists are continually treated like cars where there's no room for bike lanes, and like pedestrians where cars are to be given absolute priority. See down North Wall Quay area for a decent cycle track for the most part that suddenly sneaks back into the carriageway for a traffic light, but done in a way that just hasn't been thought through. Likewise many two-way bike tracks simply end at a junction... leaving the cyclist scratching their heads and being forced into sharing with pedestrians -- something that neither party wants.

The only reasoning I can see is that we have engineers/designers (aren't "multidisciplinary" teams meant to be working together on design these days?) who have never cycled on good infrastructure in, for example, the Netherlands. Many simply won't have cycled, full stop. Maybe consulting with actual cyclists might be an idea. No cyclist *wants* to be a pain in the ass for a driver; it decreases safety for everybody. An example is on James's Street where a cyclists slip lane has been built behind a triangle of pavement. The triangle is completely useless for public space, just a waste of 10sqm. The bike lane is frequently full of glass or leaves. And the most important thing - it's usually blocked by parked cars. I'm sure it looked all nice and dandy on the plans. My fears were realised when it was built that it's simply not fit for purpose and shoehorned in. Anybody who cycles could have predicted the same. There are many examples of bike infrastructure that "tease" cyclists -- almost done right, but not quite. No wonder the mandatory use of bike tracks was repealed.

So the easiest thing to do in many cases is to mix bikes and people. This can work in some instances, like in wide greenways. It doesn't work for commuters and pedestrians in a rush.

The awful thing about having shared-space paths is that it legitimises cycling on the footpath in general, not just in those dedicated areas. Many casual cyclists (say, Dublin Bikes users) will be given the wrong impression - you're allowed cycle on the path here, but not over there. Oh, you didn't see the fancy blue sign? Actually, that's another thing -- footpaths/shared-space is incompatible with cycling due to the number of poles along the edges of paths. There are many examples across the city of two-way bike tracks where the pole eats into the bike lane and the white painted line actually goes around it. Comical. I could go on.

hfallada

In Germany footpaths and cycling lanes are on the same footpath. It's good as there is no chance of a bus hitting you as you are off the road. The cycle lane is marked in a different color to the waking section to make it clear not to walk in the cycle lane. It works really well in Germany, with the right planning it could work in Ireland

Cookie_Monster

simply keep bikes on the roads, no need for any extra or shared lanes, there traffic lanes already that they should be using.

Carawaystick

hfallada wrote: »

In Germany footpaths and cycling lanes are on the same footpath. It's good as there is no chance of a bus hitting you as you are off the road. The cycle lane is marked in a different color to the waking section to make it clear not to walk in the cycle lane. It works really well in Germany, with the right planning it could work in Ireland

How wide are the cycle lanes?
Are they wide enough for fast traffic to pass slower traffic?

monument

hfallada wrote: »

In Germany footpaths and cycling lanes are on the same footpath. It's good as there is no chance of a bus hitting you as you are off the road. The cycle lane is marked in a different color to the waking section to make it clear not to walk in the cycle lane. It works really well in Germany, with the right planning it could work in Ireland

The Netherlands and Denmark offer better examples.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

simply keep bikes on the roads, no need for any extra or shared lanes, there traffic lanes already that they should be using.

The point is that if the powers to be want to provide something for cycling, a shared walking/cycling footpath should not be an option.

Not wanting any cycle lanes or cycle paths is a different argument -- and not one most people who cycle agree with.

Rawr

Here in Norway I have observed the following design for well-trafficked cycle-lanes.

https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9118378,10.7025619,3a,75y,229.44h,77.42t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sPzgcXmJh6w0AAAAAAAADJw!2e0!3e11

If you follow the link to the Google Photo-sphere you'll notice the pedestrian pathway has been physically separated from the cycleway with a 'slanted' curb-way.

It seems to work well, and the design of the kerb makes it fairly easy to enter or leave the cycleway with a bike.

The drawback, and criticism locally of this approach is that the cycleway is not always respected by pedestrians, and commuting cyclists may still encounter groups of pedestrians taking up the entire width of the lane, or occupying the lane with prams.

https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9209322,10.8538227,3a,66.2y,236.95h,79.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6sFRf2_Cs3v0DsVNbQ1Gyg!2e0

However after cycling on them myself, they do feel a lot better to use compared to shared pathways that have not been properly divided.

Subpopulus

hfallada wrote: »

In Germany footpaths and cycling lanes are on the same footpath. It's good as there is no chance of a bus hitting you as you are off the road. The cycle lane is marked in a different color to the waking section to make it clear not to walk in the cycle lane. It works really well in Germany, with the right planning it could work in Ireland

German cycle lanes look rubbish to be honest - http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/cycling-in-berlin/

Rawr wrote:

Here in Norway I have observed the following design for well-trafficked cycle-lanes.

If you follow the link to the Google Photo-sphere you'll notice the pedestrian pathway has been physically separated from the cycleway with a 'slanted' curb-way.

They're called 'forgiving curbs'.

monument

Posts moved. This thread is about stopping shared use being used, it's not about why -- that discussion already happened when the previous thread linked to was brought widely off-topic.

This warning is mainly aimed at stopping off-topic, disruption postings which happened in the previous thread and that discussion came to its natural conclusion there. Please to not take this warning to stop you from talking about the pros and cons of shared use in the context of stopping it.

-- moderator

Cookie_Monster

Is there any understanding available in the public realm as to why all of the planning authorities / NTA etc think it's a good idea in the first place? Like concrete facts and statistics that they're using
Challenging whatever assumptions are held is the only way to get the issue looked and and changes in policy made to stop their implementation. Otherwise it'll take many years and probably a few accidents with high speed cyclists injuring or maybe even killing pedestrians before it gets highlighted by the media or gov.

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Is there any understanding available in the public realm as to why all of the planning authorities / NTA etc think it's a good idea in the first place? Like concrete facts and statistics that they're using
Challenging whatever assumptions are held is the only way to get the issue looked and and changes in policy made to stop their implementation. Otherwise it'll take many years and probably a few accidents with high speed cyclists injuring or maybe even killing pedestrians before it gets highlighted by the media or gov.

The only justification I've ever got for it was that it was "standard practice". It's copied from the UK and for a long time it was not legal, it was only made legal relatively recently -- councils were using UK-designed signs and these were only adopted legally long after they were first used here.

Mandatory use was revoked without such accidents and without the need to understand the stance of officialdom -- indeed, it's known that the move was opposed by the RSA, and likely other too.

Aard

It's funny that we take our cues from the British, ostensibly on account of their speaking English, while we routinely ignore Dutch, Danish, or even German/Austrian best practice even though their guidelines are often translated. Do designers/engineers not visit these places? Does nobody raise a hand and suggest that shared use might be inappropriate?

monument

Aard wrote: »

Do designers/engineers not visit these places?

Yes, many do.

I'm looking into how feasible it would be to organize a Dutch cycling study trip for councilors and campaigner but I'm at the eairly stages -- one of the things I'd love to be able to highlight is how our compromises are not needed and are oftened not justified on many of the reasons given.

Aard wrote: »

Does nobody raise a hand and suggest that shared use might be inappropriate?

Some / many campaigners do, it's also likely that some engineers do, and recently Danish consultants reviewing the Dodder Greenway study did.

But on the other hand one of the strongest defenders of shared use on the Grand Canal route was a pro-cycling councilor.

flyingsnail

Could you clarify a point for me please, when you are talking about shared use paths are you talking about the type here

https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.6307544,-8.6352861,3a,75y,303.55h,69.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sapc7VIV5UPZ2OTzfZek-Cw!2e0

Carawaystick

flyingsnail wrote: »

Could you clarify a point for me please, when you are talking about shared use paths are you talking about the type here

https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.6307544,-8.6352861,3a,75y,303.55h,69.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sapc7VIV5UPZ2OTzfZek-Cw!2e0

Nope, there you have a cycle lane and a footpath.
the nta want to have no segregation, not even a line to mark out sides...
like https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4045095,-6.2398024,3a,75y,207.32h,74.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOeLM30ReL1Vo6lsrab57zg!2e0?hl=en

Rawr

flyingsnail wrote: »

Could you clarify a point for me please, when you are talking about shared use paths are you talking about the type here

https://www.google.ie/maps/@52.6307544,-8.6352861,3a,75y,303.55h,69.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sapc7VIV5UPZ2OTzfZek-Cw!2e0

I think it's more along the lines of this:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3439024,-6.3067292,3a,75y,70.25h,80.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLPH9OKQl2ewehYcdCgFcJQ!2e0

That particular one is odd, as there is a cyclelane marked out beside the shared cycle/ped pathway.

Further down the road you see this:

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3442721,-6.3050695,3a,41.6y,358.54h,75.19t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snDoKnMtXV8GjC0dv65ASVQ!2e0

The on-road cycle lane suddenly disappears leaving just a shared cycle/ped pathway indicated. The 'cycle' icons also appear to be removed from the buslane information panels, suggesting that cyclists must leave the Bus Lane at this point.

Really bad design IMO, added to the fact that if cyclists are really expected to follow the on-road cycleway initially...how are they supposed to get up onto that pathway without dismounting?