Policy re cycle lanes

glacial_pace71

I'm sure that this issue has been ventilated before at length but I was just wondering if any settled consensus has emerged?

Dublin City Council are upgrading the remaining stretch of the cycle lane on the coast near St Anne's Park. The council's policy is generally on the lines that cyclists must yield to pedestrians, and that notwithstanding the existence of cycle lanes, the provisions of the Rules of the Road apply:
http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

However, in the Phoenix Park, which is a fiefdom under the control of the OPW, the cycle lanes do not appear to be the subject of any similar set of guidelines.

In fact the best running loop for many meet and train groups is the one near the magazine fort. I've never seen a cyclist attempt the sharp bends on it, let alone challenge a group of runners, 6 abreast:

http://www.phoenixpark.ie/media/Cycling%20Routes.pdf

However, I do run near Chesterfield Ave and regularly see families walk the cycle lane to the zoo on account of the road being a linear car park. The pedestrian path is inaccessible from the roadside without not only crossing the cycle lane but also having to get wet feet, squelching through long grass/drain.

I don't run with headphones and so regularly take the opportunity to include part of the cycle lanes as part of any route. The amount of abuse from cyclists is moderate but frequent enough, but I would love to know if there's any firm statement from the OPW on who has right of way in circumstances such as when you park on Chesterfield Ave and either have to walk on the road or use the cycle lane.

As for the Dublin coastal cycle path, I don't get to use it that often as a runner but it's pretty heart-stopping to see, with dogs off their leash, children toddling back and forth from buggies and generally 1,001 other nightmares for a cyclist to endure. Curiously, the cyclists seem to be a lot more good humoured about it all: I've never had abuse from any cyclist on that route, which ironically should be a prize possession for cycling groups.

68 lost souls

This is part of why I still cycle on the road and not the cycle path. Its a cycle path not a running path. A road is a road for non pedestrians. If you have a death wish or want to kill a cyclist then go ahead and run on them

rom

Get up early and the roads/bike lanes/paths will be empty and you won't have the issue.

68 lost souls

I also don't see any where on that link that it says cyclist must give way to pedestrians, only to pedestrian crossings.

Sheldons Brain

It isn't rocket science, footpaths for people on foot and cycle paths for people on cycles. Neither has any business taking a shortcut on the other, this is a selfish act whatever the law says.

ThisRegard

Comes up from time to time in the Cycling forum, but it's a Cycle Lane, end of. Someone has put out signs in the past telling pedestrians to keep off them.



Here's one big thread about it http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056883333/1

glacial_pace71

Thanks ThisRegard for the pic, which shows where the cars park (as I mentioned in my post), the barrier, the hedges etc which separate the pedestrian from where their path is hidden.

Thanks 68 Lost Souls: I'm not here to troll cyclists, but Dublin City Council's latest meeting on the Clontarf route explicitly refers to erecting signage to tell cyclists to yield to pedestrians:
http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/NorthCentralArea/NorthCentralAreaCommittee/Documents/NCACommitteeAgendaforApril.pdf
(It's about 15 pages into the document, use keyword search 'yield' or something similar).

Given that ThisRegard as pointed out that there's another thread on this issue, I suppose we can have this one locked?

menoscemo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It isn't rocket science, footpaths for people on foot and cycle paths for people on cycles. Neither has any business taking a shortcut on the other, this is a selfish act whatever the law says.

The problem is that Cycle lanes are generally nice soft tarmacaddam while walking paths are often hard concrete unsuitable for running (especially in South Dublin).
I find if I run on cycle lanes into oncoming traffic then it is fine as I can see the bikes coming and temporarily move onto the path/grass. No-one gets annoyed that way (except the odd cyclist who is cycling on the wrong side of the road ).

ThisRegard

The ones in the park can be a pain if you do have to cross them when unloading kids and dogs from a car as some cyclists try making a point out of it. There used to be a regular dick who'd cycle up behind people and blow a whistle in their ear, but most are reasonable and those training tend to stick to the roads.

average_runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

Comes up from time to time in the Cycling forum, but it's a Cycle Lane, end of. Someone has put out signs in the past telling pedestrians to keep off them.



Here's one big thread about it http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056883333/1

If cyclists use the lanes instead of the road that be ok. Until then suck it up.

ThisRegard

I don't get your point?

ger664

Under the Road Traffic Act

4. Sub-article (1) of article 4 of the Principal Regulations is hereby amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following for the definition of "cycle track":—

" 'cycle track' means part of a road, including part of a footway or part of a roadway, which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles ;

This would suggest that a pedestrian can use these if no footpath is available on the stretch of road as cycle track's are not exclusively for the use of pedal cycles.

average_runner

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't get your point?

Sorry it wasn't aimed at you.

But some cyclist like to have things both ways.

sconhome

average_runner wrote: »

But some cyclist like to have things both ways.

Very often they are entitled to both. As I understand it there is no obligation on cyclists to have to use a cycle lane so they can use the road or cycle lane.

Worth checking the cycling forum for the ins and outs of the SI governing the use or non use of cycling lanes

ThisRegard

Yeah, that requirement to remove the mandatory use of a cycle lane where one exists was struck out some time ago, although some gardai seem to believe it still applies.

average_runner

AKW wrote: »

Very often they are entitled to both. As I understand it there is no obligation on cyclists to have to use a cycle lane so they can use the road or cycle lane.

Worth checking the cycling forum for the ins and outs of the SI governing the use or non use of cycling lanes

Yes, but the same with walkers and runners, we are entitled to use the cycle lanes also which cyclist don't like.

orubiru

ThisRegard wrote: »

Comes up from time to time in the Cycling forum, but it's a Cycle Lane, end of. Someone has put out signs in the past telling pedestrians to keep off them.



Here's one big thread about it http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056883333/1

If we look at the photo you can see someone with a kid in a buggy/pram. So lets say, as an example, that person is the owner of the blue or grey car parked on the road. Where is the pedestrian path? How are they supposed to get there with their kid and the buggy/pram without walking on the cycle lane?

average_runner

orubiru wrote: »

If we look at the photo you can see someone with a kid in a buggy/pram. So lets say, as an example, that person is the owner of the blue or grey car parked on the road. Where is the pedestrian path? How are they supposed to get there with their kid and the buggy/pram without walking on the cycle lane?

Stop talking sense now!!!

The people that designed the Phoenix park setup, weren't the smartest in the world.

orubiru

average_runner wrote: »

Stop talking sense now!!!

The people that designed the Phoenix park setup, weren't the smartest in the world.

The only solution I can imagine is that they stop cars from parking on one side of the road, turn the lane that this would create into a cycle lane and allow pedestrians to use the existing "cycle lanes".

Its daft that people are expected to have to unpack their stuff from their car, cross the cycle lane, lift everything over the black barrier, then walk through the long grass to get to the pedestrian path. Of course people are just going to walk on the cycle lane.

Djoucer

That cycle lane is awful for all concerned, pedestrians and cyclists.

It’s testament to how cool most people are that accidents don’t happen.

Families coming out of the zoo have to cross a cycle lane, a road, and another cycle lane to get to the path on the opposite side.

I don’t use that cycle path as it’s too dangerous.

I believe a lot of families don’t realise it’s a cycle lane.

What baffles me is why people walk in it as it’s a much more pleasant path 5 metres away, between trees and away from traffic.

ThisRegard

average_runner wrote: »

Yes, but the same with walkers and runners, we are entitled to use the cycle lanes also which cyclist don't like.

I don't think you are.

orubiru wrote: »

If we look at the photo you can see someone with a kid in a buggy/pram. So lets say, as an example, that person is the owner of the blue or grey car parked on the road. Where is the pedestrian path? How are they supposed to get there with their kid and the buggy/pram without walking on the cycle lane?

I acknowledged that problem, I'm regularly that person. I just park further up were there's no fencing between the two if I have a buggy with me. Otherwise I just lift them over.

average_runner wrote: »

Stop talking sense now!!!

The people that designed the Phoenix park setup, weren't the smartest in the world.

But it's also safer to have the footpath the furthest one away from the road.

adrian522

And on a road like this where are people supposed to walk/run if that's the case?

PaulieC

adrian522 wrote: »

And on a road like this where are people supposed to walk/run if that's the case?

across the road, like the person in the picture :P

adrian522

They are cycle lanes on both sides though.

Djoucer

adrian522 wrote: »

And on a road like this where are people supposed to walk/run if that's the case?

That'a dual cycle/pedestrian lane. So bikes and pedestrians are allowed use it.

https://goo.gl/maps/tOhAa

adrian522

That's a different section of the road, part if it is clearly marked as a cycle lane. (with no pedestrian logo on it).

People just need to use a bit of cop on and learn to share the road/path IMO.

RayCun

adrian522 wrote: »

And on a road like this where are people supposed to walk/run if that's the case?

I knew before opening the link which path you were going to post
The bridge crossing on both sides of the road is marked as mixed use
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.298459,-6.297108,3a,75y,78.61h,67.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shyxoVq0fXyTN4wQDifxZZw!2e0
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.298459,-6.297108,3a,75y,147.47h,66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shyxoVq0fXyTN4wQDifxZZw!2e0

But if you continue down the route of the Rathfarnham 5k, pedestrians on the Bushy Park side should be on the path by the river because the path by the road is bikes only (except for the short, marked sections which are for both, where the riverside path joins the roadside path)

On the Rathfarnham side of the road there are separate bike and pedestrian lanes

Djoucer

adrian522 wrote: »

That's a different section of the road, part if it is clearly marked as a cycle lane. (with no pedestrian logo on it).

People just need to use a bit of cop on and learn to share the road/path IMO.

Agreed.

Just another example of **** planning. According to the road markings, that's a dual lane but 5 metres later, it suddenly ends.

Hence why cyclists don't use some cycle paths and why the requirement to do so was removed.

adrian522

RayCun wrote: »

I knew before opening the link which path you were going to post
The bridge crossing on both sides of the road is marked as mixed use
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.298459,-6.297108,3a,75y,78.61h,67.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shyxoVq0fXyTN4wQDifxZZw!2e0
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.298459,-6.297108,3a,75y,147.47h,66t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shyxoVq0fXyTN4wQDifxZZw!2e0

But if you continue down the route of the Rathfarnham 5k, pedestrians on the Bushy Park side should be on the path by the river because the path by the road is bikes only (except for the short, marked sections which are for both, where the riverside path joins the roadside path)

On the Rathfarnham side of the road there are separate bike and pedestrian lanes

But the path by the river only goes a little bit of the way, then you come back on the road, then back onto the river again and then back onto the road. That's not silly at all.

sconhome

average_runner wrote: »

we are entitled to use the cycle lanes also which cyclist don't like.

I don't think this is true.

AFAIK if a footpath is provided a pedestrian must use it in priority over a road for example. Cycle paths are provided for cyclists and unless demarcated as dual use, pedestrians walkers or runners are meant to use the footpath.

As per your original posts cyclists can have it both ways

average_runner

AKW wrote: »

I don't think this is true.

AFAIK if a footpath is provided a pedestrian must use it in priority over a road for example. Cycle paths are provided for cyclists and unless demarcated as dual use, pedestrians walkers or runners are meant to use the footpath.

As per your original posts cyclists can have it both ways

Boooooo

williestroker1

adrian522 wrote: »

But the path by the river only goes a little bit of the way, then you come back on the road, then back onto the river again and then back onto the road. That's not silly at all.

Unfortunately the footpath beside the river is poorly maintained, over-grown and muddy, down towards the dodder bridge. Very few use it especially in the dark evenings. Pedestrians use the narrow cycle lane, can cause some friction. IMO this section was badly planned and was a box ticking exercise from the council to be able to claim they are providing so many miles of cycle lanes.

adrian522

To be honest when walking/running I use the cycle path. When cycling I use the road. I've never encountered much aggro from anyone thankfully.

RayCun

adrian522 wrote: »

But the path by the river only goes a little bit of the way, then you come back on the road, then back onto the river again and then back onto the road. That's not silly at all.

you left out one 'back to the river and then back to the road'

I think there are very few pedestrians that go from one end of the road to the other. Most pedestrians in the area want to walk by the river, or into the park. (but a more direct footpath is available, on the other side of the road)

ger664

AKW wrote: »

I don't think this is true.

AFAIK if a footpath is provided a pedestrian must use it in priority over a road for example. Cycle paths are provided for cyclists and unless demarcated as dual use, pedestrians walkers or runners are meant to use the footpath.

As per your original posts cyclists can have it both ways

So where dos a runner go when there is no footpath ?

As per my previous post 1998 act states cycle lanes are primarily for pedal cycles not exclusively. So yeah dont get jam on both sides

sconhome

ger664 wrote: »

So where dos a runner go when there is no footpath ?

As per my previous post 1998 act states cycle lanes are primarily for pedal cycles not exclusively. So yeah dont get jam on both sides

I'm trying to picture where there would be a cycle path and no footpath provided. Trying to think of the way Irish roads are set up. I'm just glad I run on country roads with no paths or cycle paths to confuse things, though some drivers need to learn the concept of 'sharing' :rolleyes:

If there is only a road - then all ped (runners included) /cycle/motor users will share with regard to each other.

If road and footpath - ped on path, cycle / motor on road.

If road and shared foot / cycle path - obviously motor on road, the rest share but cycles get to use road too!

If footpath + cycle path + road - ped on path, motor on road and cycle on cycle path or road.

So yep, both sides, buttered, jammed and with cream!!

ger664

AKW wrote: »

I'm trying to picture where there would be a cycle path and no footpath provided. Trying to think of the way Irish roads are set up. I'm just glad I run on country roads with no paths or cycle paths to confuse things, though some drivers need to learn the concept of 'sharing' :rolleyes:

Old N18 between Clarecastle and Newmarket has cycle lane both sides of the road with no footpath. It is marked as a cycle lane (Clare County Council what do u expect) :rolleyes:

sconhome

ger664 wrote: »

Old N18 between Clarecastle and Newmarket has cycle lane both sides of the road with no footpath. It is marked as a cycle lane (Clare County Council what do u expect) :rolleyes:

I think you are safe enough considering you'll run as fast as most cyclists there.

average_runner

AKW wrote: »

I'm trying to picture where there would be a cycle path and no footpath provided. Trying to think of the way Irish roads are set up. I'm just glad I run on country roads with no paths or cycle paths to confuse things, though some drivers need to learn the concept of 'sharing' :rolleyes:

If there is only a road - then all ped (runners included) /cycle/motor users will share with regard to each other.

If road and footpath - ped on path, cycle / motor on road.

If road and shared foot / cycle path - obviously motor on road, the rest share but cycles get to use road too!

If footpath + cycle path + road - ped on path, motor on road and cycle on cycle path or road.

So yep, both sides, buttered, jammed and with cream!!

Drive along the N4 from liffey valley to Celbridge, there is a cycle lane and no footpath.

Lately they put a sign up saying they are now for both!!

sconhome

average_runner wrote: »

Drive along the N4 from liffey valley to Celbridge, there is a cycle lane and no footpath.

Lately they put a sign up saying they are now for both!!

Curious now!

Was that not all hard shoulder along the dual carriageway previously? So no footpath anyway. The cycle lane turns dead space into a safer area for cycling.

If it is where I remember I would be running in the hard shoulder anyway, towards the traffic, same as on country roads.

average_runner

AKW wrote: »

Curious now!

Was that not all hard shoulder along the dual carriageway previously? So no footpath anyway. The cycle lane turns dead space into a safer area for cycling.

If it is where I remember I would be running in the hard shoulder anyway, towards the traffic, same as on country roads.

The part down towards to texaco station was footpath but then converted to cycle lane and the same across the way at Hermitage. I got a lecture off one cyclist one day for running on it, I let him rant and when done I pointed at the sign where it said it was for cyclist and pedestrians. He wasn't impress and told me where to go. You always get one though.

glacial_pace71

Thanks guys/gals for all the info, quite helpful.

I suppose the chap who invented the cycle loop near the Magazine Fort managed to eke out a few km of additional distance, so they could claim X amount of cycle lanes in the Phoenix Park:

http://irishcycle.com/routes/phoenix-park-cycle-tracks/

No disrespect to our cycling colleagues but I can't see how someone could do circuits on those hairpin bends! It's basically used as a running loop, but someone got a bonus for reaching the requisite amount of off-road cycle track.

68 lost souls

This track?

http://belparktri.com/duathlon-series/the-course/

glacial_pace71

68 lost souls wrote: »

This track?

http://belparktri.com/duathlon-series/the-course/

That's it alright!

The term 'track' might be a bit optimistic a definition though.

As you can see, in the 6:40 video he can't safely take the first bend (c 1:45), as it'd be a Fido-squashing, pram-overturning event. He/she does take the other bends (c. 3 mins and 5 mins) with some considerable panache. However, as you'll have also seen, about 2/3 of that loop has no foothpath, hence pedestrians being seen occasionally, e.g. see person with buggy in final stretch.

It still contributed towards a target of x amount of km of off-road cycle track though.

68 lost souls

I think perhaps part of that section may have been made a bike lane to allow bikes travel that way as opposed to being a footpath which would be illegal for the bikes to travel on and there is not enough space for both so they made it a bike lane.