Mixing different types of cycle lane - unintended consequences

yaledo

On the Plassey Park Road (near University of Limerick), there are plenty of cycle lanes. Some of them are two-way cycle lanes, physically separated from the road [up a kerb, adjacent to the footpath]. Some of them are cycle lanes on the road [separated by just a white line painted on the road]

Where there is an on-road cycle-lane on both sides of the road, cyclists very frequently cycle in the wrong direction [i.e. against the flow of traffic]. At a rough guess, I'd say about 20% to 40% of the cyclists I encounter there are travelling in the wrong direction.

It seems to me that this is an unintended side-effect of having a mix of 2-way and 1-way cycle-lanes in the same neighbourhood.

The road is nice and wide, so there's [kind-of] enough space for cyclists to pass each other within a cycle lane. Most motorists drive at around 60km/h in the area, which seems more-or-less appropriate for the road. Most of the time, there's no obvious immediate danger caused by people cycling on the wrong side of the road.

Iwannahurl

yaledo wrote: »

At a rough guess, I'd say about 20% to 40% of the cyclists I encounter there are travelling in the wrong direction.

The problem can be summed up in one word: Irish.

If you you want to know why this carry-on is occurring, you just have to consider that the cycle "facilities" you see were conceived by Irish road engineers in an unholy union with Irish "planners".

While searching for Plassey Park Road on Google maps, I found this gem. Says it all really.

marno21

yaledo wrote: »

On the Plassey Park Road (near University of Limerick), there are plenty of cycle lanes. Some of them are two-way cycle lanes, physically separated from the road [up a kerb, adjacent to the footpath]. Some of them are cycle lanes on the road [separated by just a white line painted on the road]

Where there is an on-road cycle-lane on both sides of the road, cyclists very frequently cycle in the wrong direction [i.e. against the flow of traffic]. At a rough guess, I'd say about 20% to 40% of the cyclists I encounter there are travelling in the wrong direction.

It seems to me that this is an unintended side-effect of having a mix of 2-way and 1-way cycle-lanes in the same neighbourhood.

The road is nice and wide, so there's [kind-of] enough space for cyclists to pass each other within a cycle lane. Most motorists drive at around 60km/h in the area, which seems more-or-less appropriate for the road. Most of the time, there's no obvious immediate danger caused by people cycling on the wrong side of the road.

The limit on this road is 50km/h and really should be 40 or 30km/h from 07:00 to 19:00. The amount of pedestrians and cyclists on that road that think they own the road and blindly walk out/cycle in front of cars/ignore traffic lights is appalling, especially near the UL East Gate

Iwannahurl

marno21 wrote: »

The limit on this road is 50km/h and really should be 40 or 30km/h from 07:00 to 19:00. The amount of pedestrians and cyclists on that road that think they own the road and blindly walk out/cycle in front of cars/ignore traffic lights is appalling, especially near the UL East Gate

Is this the UL East Gate?

Is the junction designed to facilitate cyclists and pedestrians entering and exiting the campus? Do the traffic signals respond to cyclist and pedestrian demand and do they prioritise their mobility and access?

In Ireland a 50 km/h speed limit on a road like that is purely nominal. If it's like other such roads in our urban areas I'd say speeding is commonplace.

yaledo wrote: »

Where there is an on-road cycle-lane on both sides of the road, cyclists very frequently cycle in the wrong direction [i.e. against the flow of traffic]. At a rough guess, I'd say about 20% to 40% of the cyclists I encounter there are travelling in the wrong direction.

It seems to me that this is an unintended side-effect of having a mix of 2-way and 1-way cycle-lanes in the same neighbourhood.

That's one possible explanation. Another is the chronic lack of formal cycle training. I would also be inclined to attribute it to the general Irish culture of "feck it, it's grand" which applies to much of our behaviour on the roads.

Contradicting myself immediately, I might add that the wrong-way cyclists may also be 'non-nationals' who feel quite comfortable driving on the right.

And finally, it may be because there's a roundabout at one end of Plassey Park Road. Irish roundabouts are inherently cycle-hostile, and since Irish road engineers don't know how to adapt them properly for cyclists and pedestrians, cyclists and pedestrians adapt to the roundabouts in any way they can.

In Galway City there's a route (Seamus Quirke Road, modified a couple of years ago and not updated on Google Maps) which has roundabouts at both ends and is heavily used by students at NUI Galway. If they are cycling from student accommodation here to the university, for example, they have to traverse the two roundabouts. At the university end, if they follow the stupid and dangerous cycle "facilities" through the roundabout, they have to cross a total of seven traffic lanes to turn right, or else mix it with fast-moving traffic on the road. In order to avoid that hassle, foreign students especially cycle the whole way down on the right, crossing a number of junctions against the flow of traffic. It's wrong in legal terms, risky in statistical terms and relatively easy in practical terms.

monument

Two way cycle paths should (1) follow the normal road design rules and always have peoe cycling to the left of the two-way path, and (2) end with clear directions and connections back to the correct side of the road.

Limerick I'm informed fails on these requirements.

All cycle lanes and paths should be marked with painted arrows besides the painted bike logos.

Iwannahurl

Lines and signs are merely serving suggestions in this country, for pretty much all classes of road user.

Here in Galway there was a small bit of fuss a few years ago about the directional arrowns on the Quincentenary Bridge cycle paths. The belief was that, if only they were repainted and more were added, cyclists would suddenly decide to cycle on the 'correct' side of the road. No attention whatsoever was paid to why the cyclists are routinely on the 'wrong' side in the first place. The answer, naturally, is that it makes more sense given the origin and destination of their journeys, and the traffic/roads they have to negotiate in between.

The truth is that you have to be dedicated, principled, anal or all three to insist on following the 'rules', as indicated by arrows etc, rather than to take the most convenient and practical route. Most people take the easiest option, which gives the lie to the Council's claim that they are providing cycle "facilities". Clearly the engineers do not fully understand the meaning of the word "facility".

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Lines and signs are merely serving suggestions in this country, for pretty much all classes of road user.

Here in Galway there was a small bit of fuss a few years ago about the directional arrowns on the Quincentenary Bridge cycle paths. The belief was that, if only they were repainted and more were added, cyclists would suddenly decide to cycle on the 'correct' side of the road. No attention whatsoever was paid to why the cyclists are routinely on the 'wrong' side in the first place. The answer, naturally, is that it makes more sense given the origin and destination of their journeys, and the traffic/roads they have to negotiate in between.

The truth is that you have to be dedicated, principled, anal or all three to insist on following the 'rules', as indicated by arrows etc, rather than to take the most convenient and practical route. Most people take the easiest option, which gives the lie to the Council's claim that they are providing cycle "facilities". Clearly the engineers do not fully understand the meaning of the word "facility".

That's an example of an outer connector road which should have two-way paths on both sides.

Limerick's issue, I'm open to correction, is that all of their two-way paths are marked to tell people to cycle on the righthand side of the path, rather than the normal 'drive/cycle to the left'.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

That's an example of an outer connector road which should have two-way paths on both sides.

Limerick's issue, I'm open to correction, is that all of their two-way paths are marked to tell people to cycle on the righthand side of the path, rather than the normal 'drive/cycle to the left'.

That is indeed the case when I was recently in Castletroy. Madness.

Godge

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Lines and signs are merely serving suggestions in this country, for pretty much all classes of road user.

Here in Galway there was a small bit of fuss a few years ago about the directional arrowns on the Quincentenary Bridge cycle paths. The belief was that, if only they were repainted and more were added, cyclists would suddenly decide to cycle on the 'correct' side of the road. No attention whatsoever was paid to why the cyclists are routinely on the 'wrong' side in the first place. The answer, naturally, is that it makes more sense given the origin and destination of their journeys, and the traffic/roads they have to negotiate in between.

The truth is that you have to be dedicated, principled, anal or all three to insist on following the 'rules', as indicated by arrows etc, rather than to take the most convenient and practical route. Most people take the easiest option, which gives the lie to the Council's claim that they are providing cycle "facilities". Clearly the engineers do not fully understand the meaning of the word "facility".

That is the equivalent of car drivers heading down one-way streets on the basis they are more convenient.

ardmacha

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The truth is that you have to be dedicated, principled, anal or all three to insist on following the 'rules', as indicated by arrows etc, rather than to take the most convenient and practical route. Most people take the easiest option, which gives the lie to the Council's claim that they are providing cycle "facilities". Clearly the engineers do not fully understand the meaning of the word "facility".

Most people take the easiest option,
Lawbreakers take the easiest option, other people respect the rules, few of them on 2 wheels.

This excuse of "its OK for me to break the law, everyone does it", is the weakest arguments ever.

lucernarian

ardmacha wrote: »

Most people take the easiest option,
Lawbreakers take the easiest option, other people respect the rules, few of them on 2 wheels.

This excuse of "its OK for me to break the law, everyone does it", is the weakest arguments ever.

It's worth remembering there are examples of cycle lanes which, for instance, simply stop dead in the middle of a footpath. I don't know of any car lanes which suddenly terminate with nowhere to go, on top of a footpath. Whatever about it being easier to be a law-abiding motorist than a cyclist, it's certainly easier to be a law-abiding and safe motorist than the equivalent cyclist. It's a bit of a straw man to say Iwannahurl or anybody really is advocating/saying it was OK to break the law, when there are very strong arguments to say that planners and local authority engineers have abandoned their common sense in the design of some cycle lanes.

yaledo

monument wrote: »

Limerick's issue, I'm open to correction, is that all of their two-way paths are marked to tell people to cycle on the righthand side of the path, rather than the normal 'drive/cycle to the left'.

I thought that sounded too daft to be true - so I took a closer look yesterday... sure enough - the cycle lanes are marked instructing cyclists to cycle on the right.

Iwannahurl

lucernarian wrote: »

It's worth remembering there are examples of cycle lanes which, for instance, simply stop dead in the middle of a footpath. I don't know of any car lanes which suddenly terminate with nowhere to go, on top of a footpath. Whatever about it being easier to be a law-abiding motorist than a cyclist, it's certainly easier to be a law-abiding and safe motorist than the equivalent cyclist. It's a bit of a straw man to say Iwannahurl or anybody really is advocating/saying it was OK to break the law, when there are very strong arguments to say that planners and local authority engineers have abandoned their common sense in the design of some cycle lanes.

An important consideration is that the design of Irish "facilities" often has no relation to road traffic law or to established conventions.

What law am I following if I yield in the situation below? What law am I breaking if I don't yield? If I was driving in the left lane of a two-lane road, for example, would I be expected to yield to a vehicle in the right-hand lane that was about to take a left turn at a junction? How would such a situation even arise in the course of normal traffic?



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057007635

loyatemu

Iwannahurl wrote: »

An important consideration is that the design of Irish "facilities" often has no relation to road traffic law or to established conventions.

What law am I following if I yield in the situation below? What law am I breaking if I don't yield? If I was driving in the left lane of a two-lane road, for example, would I be expected to yield to a vehicle in the right-hand lane that was about to take a left turn at a junction? How would such a situation even arise in the course of normal traffic?



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057007635

what law would you be breaking if you veered into the road from the cycle lane to avoid the Yield sign? None AFAIK... Cycle lanes are optional, therefore all cycle lane-specific signage is effectively optional.

what_traffic

loyatemu wrote: »

what law would you be breaking if you veered into the road from the cycle lane to avoid the Yield sign? None AFAIK... Cycle lanes are optional, therefore all cycle lane-specific signage is effectively optional.

No laws at all. I am pretty sure the markings in the cycle lane have zero meaning as there is no sign beside it? Just causes confusion, it is a poor design. I don't know if IWH has a picture taken further north of that point looking South may explain the layout a little better?