Dublin to trial cycle lanes inside parked cars

Jawgap

Is this anything than an utterly stupid idea to make sure cyclists get 'doored' easier?

Dublin city cyclists to trial new lanes inside parked cars

It sounds like there'll only be a very limited number of streets on which there'll be space enough to try this, but my initial reaction is that I'd rather take my chances in the traffic away from car doors and mindless people stepping off the footpad to get to their cars.

An initiative to improve cycling safety, by swapping the position of car parking and cycle lanes, is to be tested in Dublin’s south Georgian core.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) is to fund a feasibility study on the proposal to switch the lanes so that cyclists travel beside the footpath and are “protected” from traffic by parked cars.

The “Georgian Parkway” proposed by Fine Gael city councillor and doctor Paddy Smyth, could eventually link the Grand Canal premium cycle route, to all the south Georgian squares, creating a network of segregated cycle routes across the south east of the city.

“The concept of ‘Parking Protected Cycle Lanes’ is that parked cars, instead of being the hazard to cyclists they now are, could be used to protect cyclists from traffic,” Dr Smyth said.

Cyclists and cycle lobby groups frequently complain about cars parking in bike lanes forcing cyclists out into traffic, and the danger caused by drivers and passengers opening doors in front of oncoming cyclists. The proposed system, removes both these hazards, Dr Smyth said.

“It involves reconfiguring the road so that you put the cycle path directly adjacent to the footpath. You then have a buffer zone, just under three foot wide between the cars the and cyclists, then the parked cars, then the road.”

Pawwed Rig

On street parking needs to be looked at in many cases. Often the layout is bloody dangerous and not just for cyclists

It has to be better than the system Ive seen in Dundalk. Car doors open directly onto the cycle ways and motorists turning cant see if there are cyclists on the lanes because their view is blocked by parked cars. Its idiotic and very dangerous. At least in the Dublin plan there is a 3 foot (1m i suppose) gap between the cyclists and the cars.

ThisRegard

It'll be a pain if you're parking with kids or animals. Anyone who has brought excited toddlers and dogs to the Phoenix Park and parked on the avenue will attest to how it's pain having the cycle lane between the car and the footpath.

It is supposed to work well in other places so I'll be interested to see how it goes. When I saw the plans last week I initially thought it looked good anyway.

hardCopy

Phoenix Park and Clontarf cycle lane at the bottom of Vernon Avenue have cycle lanes between parking spaces and footpaths, both can be a nightmare to cycle on in my experience. Zombie pedestrians and unsupervised toddlers darting hither and tither.

Terrible idea imo.

ThisRegard

Lol at the timing of the two posts, one by a zombie toddler owner and the other by a crazed cyclist looking to mow them down.

But there's the issue summed up for both cyclists and people parking.

hardCopy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Lol at the timing of the two posts, one by a zombie toddler owner and the other by a crazed cyclist looking to mow them down.

But there's the issue summed up for both cyclists and people parking.

I hate criticising incident toddlers, the adults in the running club at Clontarf are worse, they stop for a chat in the middle of the lane, or even a stretch.

smacl

Deedsie wrote: »

I thought it looked like a good idea. Surely better than the current situation? There is a 1 metre gap between the parked cars and the cycle lanes so being doored shouldn't be an issue. Also nothing stopping you still using the regular traffic lanes if you choose to.

I'd be in favour of the plan. Be great if it was suggested through Donnybrook.

My only concern would be bus stops

Problem is lack of total available road space in congested area, shared by cars, buses, bikes, parking spaces, and pedestrian footpaths. Widening isn't an option, so while it is not politically popular we should really be looking to eliminate on-street parking altogether where there simply isn't the room for it. e.g. look at the picture below, and try to figure out how exactly you're going to squeeze a car, bus, bike, parking space and footpath onto this section of road. IMO, the car parking spaces should clearly be scrapped, but the political will isn't there.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

I thought it looked like a good idea. Surely better than the current situation? There is a 1 metre gap between the parked cars and the cycle lanes so being doored shouldn't be an issue. Also nothing stopping you still using the regular traffic lanes if you choose to.

I'd be in favour of the plan. Be great if it was suggested through Donnybrook.

My only concern would be bus stops

It might be salvaged to a degree if there is a kerb or some other physical barrier delineating the buffer zone. If it's just a white line, then I would have some doubts that, given the level of parallel parking skills in the city, cars would be parked in a way that respects the buffer zone.

Also with no kerb I'd suggest a significant number of numpties will just park in the lane, especially if they're delivering or unloading......

.......however, I also thought Dublin Bikes would flop within 6 months, so what do I know about cycling in the city

Stitch09

is it not somewhat similar to the protected bike paths in Cork? motorists down here (of which i am also one) give out about them for taking up too much space etc, but its great. You still have to keep an eye on car doors with parallel parked cars but its still far safer than being on the road imo. and sure what harm in trialling it, if it works it would be great. If they propose on just using paint long term though and not putting in curbs, i'm going to guess that you'll have people pulling in on them the whole time for deliveries/bad parking/ jumping in to grab something and all the usual, forcing cyclists back onto the road??

degsie

OP starts discussion in a negative tone. Is it generally the case that cyclists think that any initiative to improve their situation is just not good enough?

Uriel.

degsie wrote: »

OP starts discussion in a negative tone. Is it generally the case that cyclists think that any initiative to improve their situation is just not good enough?

This.

The council bring forward an initiative that appears to have enjoyed some success elsewhere and decided a trial would be worth exploring.

Worst idea ever for some it seems. This is not an issue confined to cyclists though.

traprunner

Deleted User wrote: »

It has to be better than the system Ive seen in Dundalk. Car doors open directly onto the cycle ways and motorists turning cant see if there are cyclists on the lanes because their view is blocked by parked cars. Its idiotic and very dangerous. At least in the Dublin plan there is a 3 foot (1m i suppose) gap between the cyclists and the cars.

It could never be as bad as Jocelyn street Dundalk. https://www.instantstreetview.com/@54.004926,-6.395332,-290.07h,8.3p,1z

Developed by the same local authority that installed this: http://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/uturn-on-bike-lanes-26965129.html

The DCC solution may work if implemented correctly but I do not think that 1 metre is enough. 1.5m would be far better but would probably mean that there would be less parking. If we are to meet emission targets then reducing the number of available parking spaces is a must anyway to discourage people driving.

smacl

degsie wrote: »

OP starts discussion in a negative tone. Is it generally the case that cyclists think that any initiative to improve their situation is just not good enough?

And you respond in a negative tone and continue by characterizing cyclists as a homogeneous bunch of whingers without addressing the topic raised on its merits. Pot? Kettle?

Jawgap

degsie wrote: »

OP starts discussion in a negative tone. Is it generally the case that cyclists think that any initiative to improve their situation is just not good enough?

Just following the general idea on boards that the OP should express an opinion rather than engage in news dumping. I read it, and thought it not a great idea in Dublin. Maybe it works in other countries with wider streets and/or a much more mature general cycling culture, both of which Dublin lack.

Originally I picked up the article from 'Negative' Dick Ahlstrom

https://twitter.com/dickahlstrom/status/724727868685713408

ThisRegard

Jawgap wrote: »

Also with no kerb I'd suggest a significant number of numpties will just park in the lane, especially if they're delivering or unloading......

Well take a look at the grand canal cycle track, with a kerb, and you see vans and trucks parking in it. So it's a given that this new one will be seen as an extra row for parking.

ThisRegard

degsie wrote: »

OP starts discussion in a negative tone. Is it generally the case that cyclists think that any initiative to improve their situation is just not good enough?

The biggest factors in improving things for cyclists begin with motorists.

Seaswimmer

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2997285,-6.1721048,3a,75y,80.54h,70.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slzxVruKORfUEIwhvXyHE4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


they have it in Newtown Avenue in Blackrock and it seems to work quite well despite all the initial fears of disaster. However the cyclists are coming towards the parked cars so it may be easier to see them rather than having to check your wing mirror.

Peterx

hardCopy wrote: »

I hate criticising incident toddlers... a stretch.

Incident toddlers. My phrase of the day and it's only 10am.

I love it, that's exactly what they are, walking incidents, especially in the Phoneix Park. Whoever thought it would be a good idea to put a cycle lane beside cars and a zoo just does have any incident toddlers of their own.
And that one makes exactly no sense as their is another lane further back that the cyclists should be on (heading out of town)

ThisRegard

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree completely, every initiative to improve cycling facilities in this country are pissed all over. Never a counter suggestion of what might be better just piss and moan about whatever it is. The council provide and maintain infrastructure, citizens have to use it the way it was intended. A few fines for people parking in these lanes might stop people parking there.

It's hardly the councils responsibility to control other people's children? What parent would allow a child step out into a cycle lane without checking it was 100% safe. Ridiculous reason not to provide a cycle lane separate to traffic. Park elsewhere if you feel it's unsafe.

Again you seem personally hurt that people can have an opinion on something and be critical in their analysis of it.

Compare it to the motor forum, what percentage of posts over there are critical of road design? More so than you get here. And for the record, I'm more of a motorist these days than a cyclist but it doesn't mean I can't point out flaws in infrastructure as I see them, as I said in my first post on this I initially thought it would be a good idea.

smacl

Deedsie wrote: »

What parent would allow a child step out into a cycle lane without checking it was 100% safe. Ridiculous reason not to provide a cycle lane separate to traffic.

Where you have unsegregated cycle lanes on the footpath, lots of parents let their kids walk in the cycle lanes, many walk in them themselves as do joggers, dog walkers etc... As a parent, I take my younger daughter walking up to Marlay park regularly with her puppy in tow, and it takes and effort to keep one or both of them from wandering to the cycle lane. Many people don't make the effort, and cycling the same route with my daughter we're constantly weaving around people. Not really a problem, as once we get to the park, cyclists and pedestrians seem to manage to share the paced spaces without issue. I think the problem arises because that type of cycling infrastructure which is well suited to low speed family friendly cycling is often not suited to higher speed road cycling. This causes issues with motorists getting frustrated with sharing the road with cyclists while there is apparently suitable adjoining cycling infrastructure.

I applaud the NTA for trying out new approaches, as it is the only way we'll eventually get one that works for all concerned. I don't think it is a trivial problem to solve.

ThisRegard

I am thinking of other road users, I'm thinking it's not always a good situation for either cyclist or pedestrian to risk coming in conflict with each other by the simple fact of stepping out of a car.

At the risk of repeating myself over and over, I've said that I thought it was a good idea, just pointing out the obvious risks of such infrastructure. Do you want everyone to sit on their hands and say yes sir, that's great, and not have any sort of critical thinking regarding it?

Chips Lovell

Rather than constantly trying to corral cyclists off the road, I wish they'd just leave well enough alone.

ThisRegard

Deedsie wrote: »

There is 1 metre of space between the cycle lane and parking space. Why is it safe to step out of the traffic side but not the cycle lane side even though there is a metre of space separating that side and the cycle lane?

I don't know if you have any, but I never let my kids step out traffic side.

Carawaystick

I could see this working if there was a wide enough cycle lane and a buffer zone for cars but with a sane treatment for approaching junctions, i.e. banning parking much further back so cyclists can turn right or go straight on safely.

I don't think the Phoenix park issue is applicable - that's just a badly laid out arrangement of car parking in the hard shoulder, grass, cycle lane, grass, iron fence, grass, footpath.

There's have to be some enforcement to stop cars parking in the cycle lanes - unlike now where the cops go bananas if someone tweets a picture of unlawful behaviour.

Fian

Deedsie wrote: »

There is 1 metre of space between the cycle lane and parking space. Why is it safe to step out of the traffic side but not the cycle lane side even though there is a metre of space separating that side and the cycle lane?

Most people (young children excepted) if opening a car door on the "traffic" side will look before they open it so that they don't risk having the door ripped off by a passing car.

Most people getting out of the passenger side just throw the door open, not out of malice but because it doesn't occur to them/they don't expect people to be passing inside them on the left. So having a cycle lane flowing to the left of car parking spaces gives rise to a greater risk of being flattened by a suddenly opened door than having cyclists pass on the driver side.

Plus there is more room to be safe on the road side - cyclists on the road side have the option of giving parked cars a wide berth so that they won't be hit by opening doors, which most experienced cyclists do. There is no space on the left side to do this. On the right there is no space without encroaching onto the "car lane" but at least the car lane is there to move into.

This scheme will be relying on cars parking properly and not encroaching into the "buffer zone". If there is a physical separator to the buffer zone, maybe poles spaced periodically, i think it should work, if they manage reintegration of cyclists with traffic at junctions appropriately.

07Lapierre

Maybe the real problem here is on street parking? Most Dublin streets are narrow.. Remove parked cars and the road width is instantly doubled.

smacl

07Lapierre wrote: »

Maybe the real problem here is on street parking? Most Dublin streets are narrow.. Remove parked cars and the road width is instantly doubled.

Has to be part of the solution to congestion where ever there is high traffic density. I suspect the spaces are kept as they're considered an earner by city councils and local authorities, but for the greater good of most road users they need to go. People getting in and out of them also cause delay to other road users and a certain amount of hazard.

EricPraline

smacl wrote: »

suspect the spaces are kept as they're considered an earner by city councils and local authorities, but for the greater good of most road users they need to go.

I think you've identified the crux of the problem there. A change won't happen if it means a loss of revenue to the council in question.

petethedrummer

So putting them under parked cars didn't work. Now they're going inside?

Just fix/remove the rubbish that is already there and in 10 years time contemplate new ideas.

Jawgap

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree completely, every initiative to improve cycling facilities in this country are pissed all over. Never a counter suggestion of what might be better just piss and moan about whatever it is. The council provide and maintain infrastructure, citizens have to use it the way it was intended. A few fines for people parking in these lanes might stop people parking there.

It's hardly the councils responsibility to control other people's children? What parent would allow a child step out into a cycle lane without checking it was 100% safe. Ridiculous reason not to provide a cycle lane separate to traffic. Park elsewhere if you feel it's unsafe.

Well I think if you look at the Twitter feeds of the various bodies active in promoting cycling you'll see that the generality of your statement is not supported by the facts.

And yes, people's behaviour is not the Council's responsibility but engineering is. And if they decline to use the best engineering possible (not entailing excessive cost) then it's no wonder certain of their initiatives draw a negative reaction.

Macy0161

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree completely, every initiative to improve cycling facilities in this country are pissed all over. Never a counter suggestion of what might be better just piss and moan about whatever it is.

Or maybe people have genuine concerns? There's no less risk of a dooring without a significant gap, and a more significant gap encourages it to become a defacto parking space (or at least a breakdown space). The guards aren't interested in policing mandatory cycle lanes - in fact they'll push a broken down car into them, pull people over for bus lane offences into them, even park their gatso in them.

There is also an issue of grade separated cycle lanes becoming multi use. Runners use them because they're too fast for the pavement, or the theory about tarmac having more give. You can see the canal cyclepath has become a wider footpath in reality. Motorists don't see that, they only see cyclists not using "the perfectly good cycle lanes that cost x hundred thousand", and it actually puts cyclists on the road in danger.

I think the money would be better spent on driver awareness, or pushing the minimum passing requirements (the more I cycle the more I see the need for this). Stuff that could potentially have a greater impact on all cyclists. Or more actual greenways around the state and city.

Think of the infrastructure costs that could be saved if we could just get motorists to treat cyclists with respect on the roads!

josip

Having considered this for a couple of minutes I think it's a good idea.
We'll get doored more often but killed or maimed less often.

murf

Macy0161 wrote: »

You can see the canal cyclepath has become a wider footpath in reality.

Not that I've seen. I expect during low-bike-volume periods people do wander into it, but then people tend to walk on the roads if there's no cars either - in general, people will take the path of least resistance.

Macy0161 wrote: »

Motorists don't see that, they only see cyclists not using "the perfectly good cycle lanes that cost x hundred thousand", and it actually puts cyclists on the road in danger.

Yes, that expensive cycle lane! Only cost multiples less than the road the cars are on but sure there you go.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think the money would be better spent on driver awareness, or pushing the minimum passing requirements (the more I cycle the more I see the need for this). Stuff that could potentially have a greater impact on all cyclists. Or more actual greenways around the state and city.

Think of the infrastructure costs that could be saved if we could just get motorists to treat cyclists with respect on the roads!

Yes, if everyone was nice we could save so much, but we need to design for the people we have

Driver awareness only goes so far. Minimum passing distance laws are not going to really help - there's a good article on singletrack dot com about this : "Passing Laws Bad For Cyclists"

Chips Lovell

Minimum passing laws are great in theory but unenforceable in practice.

stecleary

There's an easy way to remove half the cars from Dublin city center and i'm amazed it hasn't been done yet.

A congestion charge like there is in London.

€15 to drive you car in the same zone the is a 5 axle ban and it would soon free up the streets, It would cover the loss on parking spaces too.

07Lapierre

stecleary wrote: »

There's an easy way to remove half the cars from Dublin city center and i'm amazed it hasn't been done yet.

A congestion charge like there is in London.

€15 to drive you car in the same zone the is a 5 axle ban and it would soon free up the streets, It would cover the loss on parking spaces too.

eh the whole point is to discourage people bringing cars into the city centre. If they pay the €15 congestion charge, and drive into the city centre (and park on the street) then we're back to square one right?

stecleary

07Lapierre wrote: »

eh the whole point is to discourage people bringing cars into the city centre. If they pay the €15 congestion charge, and drive into the city centre (and park on the street) then we're back to square one right?

nope make them pay for parking on top

07Lapierre

stecleary wrote: »

nope make them pay for parking on top

Fine with me! go for it!

Stitch09

I know its great to suggest removing on street parking as a solution, but generally there is residential parking included in this. People have bought their homes with the idea that they have somewhere to park their car in the evening. generally will a little bit of creativity there is plenty of space for everyone if the changes are thought out logically. If curbs/dividers are brought in and the car parking spaces are angled instead of parallel, then nobody is opening doors in front of anybody. it may take a bit of creativity on the part of the councils and the introduction of one way systems to ensure adequate road width. this could even have the benefit of increasing the amount of on street parking for residents... Also while people may infringe on cycle tracks, most people using these for leisure walks with kids are not doing so during peak bike commuting times, generally.
Introducing congestion charges is not going to happen, it'd be like irish water all over again. And i don't think its a cure to the problem.
This classic thing of "bloody motorists" and "bloody cyclists" is rubbish, many people use both modes of transport, few are exclusive. theres always going to be a bit of give and take. The main thing the councils should be doing is ensuring that new developments, road resurfacing etc and any infrastructure planning in the works, both aligns with a solid local integrated plan, and puts in place from the beginning a system for all users. That said if you can get a bunch of elected officials to do anything like that id be impressed!!

07Lapierre

Stitch09 wrote: »

I know its great to suggest removing on street parking as a solution, but generally there is residential parking included in this. People have bought their homes with the idea that they have somewhere to park their car in the evening.

Maybe there are roads that have marked parking for disc holders..that's fine. but I'm talking about all those roads with parking meters for public use. Example: along the north Quays at the four courts.

But your right, no need to worry as it'll never happen.

Pepijn89

Not the worst idea in the world I think. Especially if it could be arranged that cars would park on the right hand side of the road so they would be able to see cyclists coming without having to check the mirrors... plus hitting a door from the front isn't quite as bad as hitting it from the inside.

Or I guess have the cycle lane on the right hand side of the road but I think that'd be much more confusing.

All in all I like they running a pilot for this, it should at the very least provide some interesting data. Baby steps!

Wishbone Ash

Deedsie wrote: »

I agree completely, every initiative to improve cycling facilities in this country are pissed all over. Never a counter suggestion of what might be better just piss and moan about whatever it is. The council provide and maintain infrastructure.....

Many of these so call 'initiatives' are designed by people who don't cycle and see cyclists as a nusiance to motorists. I don't want any 'protected' areas for me to cycle on. I'm quite happy to share the road with other traffic. If there was money to be allocated, I'd prefer if it was spent on education of all road users

nomdeboardie

Seaswimmer wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2997285,-6.1721048,3a,75y,80.54h,70.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slzxVruKORfUEIwhvXyHE4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


they have it in Newtown Avenue in Blackrock and it seems to work quite well despite all the initial fears of disaster. However the cyclists are coming towards the parked cars so it may be easier to see them rather than having to check your wing mirror.

Yes, works well enough for this contraflow-only bike lane. The 'artist's impression' in the article shows a bidirectional cycle path, so that complicates things, unless you have cycling 'on the right' within the cycle path, which would be too confusing to work I suppose.
Edit: Now I realise the diagram actually does show cycling-on-the-right, and, contrary to what I wrote above, this is the 'bad' direction anyway!!!

Pepijn89 wrote: »

Not the worst idea in the world I think. Especially if it could be arranged that cars would park on the right hand side of the road so they would be able to see cyclists coming without having to check the mirrors... plus hitting a door from the front isn't quite as bad as hitting it from the inside. ...

This is what I would imagine also (hope I don't get to put it to the test...roaring in terror a few days ago during a near-inside-hit has recalibrated my passing instincts)

Pepijn89 wrote: »

... Or I guess have the cycle lane on the right hand side of the road but I think that'd be much more confusing.

That's another idea, but yes, multiple levels of confusion possible there

Carawaystick wrote: »

I could see this working if there was a wide enough cycle lane and a buffer zone for cars but with a sane treatment for approaching junctions, i.e. banning parking much further back so cyclists can turn right or go straight on safely. ...

Yes, the situation at junctions will always complicate things. + Especially if the cycle path itself is bidirectional, as in the mock-up

omri

If something works in bike oriented cities such as Copenhagen why would it not work here. Any new solution will always need some tweaking and it will take time to convert Dublin to much more bike friendly place - if this ever happens. So I guess thumbs up.

Pepijn89

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I don't want any 'protected' areas for me to cycle on. I'm quite happy to share the road with other traffic.

Deedsie wrote: »

...some of the rest of us would like to have a good standard of separate cycle lanes.

I guess it's always going to be a combination of both. In the Dutch cities I grew up in most roads have separate cycle lanes - but by no means all of them, as anyone here who has been to Amsterdam can confirm! Part of why it usually works well is because bikes are such a common feature on the roads, especially in city centers. Motorists know they're everywhere and know to look out for them. That being said, the two "groups" still get mad at each other over misunderstandings.

Going slightly off-topic for a second: I find on the Irish country lanes I've been using for a few weeks now (east of Galway city, specifically) motorists tend to give you a wide berth when overtaking and don't seem annoyed by having to hang back for a few hundred meters if the road is too narrow to overtake safely. So far I have met only very good motorists. *touch wood*

Wishbone Ash

Deedsie wrote: »

... How would this in anyway impact on your right to cycle in the traffic lane?

Because it perpetuates a belief among many that cyclists are 2nd class citizens who should be segregated and not in any way impede the progress of motorists on public roads. It also gives the impression, to the uninitiated, that cycling is dangerous and should be avoided if there are no dedicated cycling facilities.

traprunner

traprunner wrote: »

It could never be as bad as Jocelyn street Dundalk. https://www.instantstreetview.com/@54.004926,-6.395332,-290.07h,8.3p,1z

Developed by the same local authority that installed this: http://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/uturn-on-bike-lanes-26965129.html

Thats the one I meant! I saw it one day and was amazed that the powers that be considered it safe. Its dangerous both for the cyclists who have a high risk of being doored and for the motorists turning left who can't see if cyclists are coming up behind the parked cars...
It seems a wide street so there should have been safer options.
I see it was designed by a 'consultant' so I suppose that the LA thinks that absolves them from responsibility to apply their common sense.

ED E

This can't work without parking enforcement. It'll be worse than a regular blocked lane/qbc.

smacl

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Because it perpetuates a belief among many that cyclists are 2nd class citizens who should be segregated and not in any way impede the progress of motorists on public roads. It also gives the impression, to the uninitiated, that cycling is dangerous and should be avoided if there are no dedicated cycling facilities.

Deedsie wrote: »

Many other people think it provides breathing space for less confident cyclists and gives school children for example facilities they would be more comfortable commuting to school on. It could encourage new cyclists to begin commuting before they build confidence to cycle in the main traffic lanes.

I think both of these are true even though contradictory and illustrates that cyclists are not a single homegeneous group. For example, I use the off road cycling lanes when I'm with my kids, but not when I'm cycling by myself. Even at a modest commuting speed of 20-30kph, cycling on lanes that are on the footpath is often more hazardous than cycling with the traffic. Similarly, navigating many junctions and roundabouts will be much slower, as the cycle lanes treat cyclists effectively as pedestrians. You also have problems where cycle lanes end abruptly, either by design or illegally parked car, forcing the cyclist to enter traffic in a potentially dangerous manoeuvre that could be avoided if they'd been part of the traffic to start with. So while cycle lanes may provide confidence, I wonder at times whether they provide that much more safety, and whether they prepare the novice cyclist for the road.

Like stabilisers on a kids bike, much of our cycling infrastructure seems to be there to provide peace of mind to the concerned non-cyclist.

Chiparus

Will it be a two lane cycle path? ie cyclists will be allowed to travel in both dirrections?

If so it will be woth looking at. Any initiative which recognises the difficulties facing cyclists and tries to overcome these is welcome.