Reinstatement of mandatory use?

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

€2m in Tallaght for a kerbed off road track that narrows the street to one tight lane, and I sat behind a cyclist most of the length of the road yesterday. Poster is correct, stop spending on infrastructures that are not used.

Have you seen the crowds of cyclists that use the Grand Canal cycleway? That's what people want and will use. Something that makes them lose right of way at junctions and places them on the left side of left-turning traffic when they want to go straight on won't be used.

I don't know what cycle track you're referring to. Do you have a Google Map link or anything like that?

Zillah

Boskowski wrote: »

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

The vast majority of supposed cycle lanes are literally just a line of paint drawn onto a road where there isn't room for one. I do not imagine they are costing considerable amounts of money.

Where they do spend money (but still not even all that much I imagine), where there are entirely separate cycle lanes with physical barriers between them and the road (even just a curb), cyclists love to use them. Look at the cycle lanes along the canal near Grand Canal Dock.

Somewhat ironically, though, I just realised in that Street View image there are a bunch of cyclists not using them so I don't know what on Earth is going on lol

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

Some

Most.

cdaly_

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think the ambiguity can be resolved with a comma.

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— ◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area, at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

I think that covers it "or an area,..."

cdaly_

Email to minister:

Minister,

I am writing to you in connection with the statement of 11th July 2016 by
the Department of Transport regarding the use of cycle tracks.

As you are no doubt aware, S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and
Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012. amends the original statute
to read as follows:

“Cycle tracks


14. (1) A cycle track....

...
(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—


(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area
at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised
street or area) is provided, or


(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number
RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow
direction on such track.
...
"

The explanatory note attached to S.I. No. 332/2012 (viewable at
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print ) clarifies
the point thus:

"
EXPLANATORY NOTE


(This note is not part of the Instrument and does not purport to be a
legal interpretation)
...

new and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of
contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is
mandatory);
...
"

The Department's statement:

"To set it out as clearly as possible, paragraph 4(a) should be read as
‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is
provided on a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a
cycle track is provided on a portion of a road. A pedal cycle shall be
driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on an area at the
entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or
area) is provided’. ..."

is a clear mis-interpretation of both S.I. No. 332/2012 and of the intent
of S.I. No. 332/2012 as detailed in the Explanatory Note.

As a commuter cyclist (I commute by bicycle year-round, 140km per week and
thereby do my bit to reduce traffic congestion in Dublin) I am
particularly concerned as many of these cycle lanes are unfit for use and,
in many cases dangerous to use (eg. leaving cyclists to the left of
left-turning motor vehicles or requiring cyclists to cross multiple side
roads instead of proceeding on the main road). Such situations put
cyclists at increased risk of collision and reduce overall road safety.

The ammendments set out in S.I. No. 332/2012 are in response to these
concerns and the erroneous statement by the Department would result in
cyclists being placed at increased risk in our cities and towns.

Would you please direct your Department to withdraw that statement?

Regards,

cdaly_ (not my real name...)

tomasrojo

cdaly_ wrote: »

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where— ◾(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area, at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

I think that covers it "or an area,..."

Yeah, maybe. It's ever more awkward phrasing, the more you look at it, but that seems to tape the meaning down more. But I don't think omitting the comma negates the interpretation that RUS 021 is required for compulsory use.

Crocked

Deleted User wrote: »

€2m in Tallaght for a kerbed off road track that narrows the street to one tight lane, and I sat behind a cyclist most of the length of the road yesterday. Poster is correct, stop spending on infrastructures that are not used.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Have you seen the crowds of cyclists that use the Grand Canal cycleway? That's what people want and will use. Something that makes them lose right of way at junctions and places them on the left side of left-turning traffic when they want to go straight on won't be used.

I don't know what cycle track you're referring to. Do you have a Google Map link or anything like that?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2897122,-6.3405011,3a,75y,270.73h,90.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVACyhV4JUwAt77tS0qpvAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's brand new, only finished in the last week or so. Its runs all the way up to the village and makes the carriageway very narrow for traffic for sections where there's no bus lane. I'm not sure why a cyclist wouldn't use it as it looks good quality although you lose priority at the roundabout and have to go around a bus stop as well. It'd be very annoying for traffic to have someone tootle along at 20kph on the road and not use the new lane as there's little opportunity to overtake safely with the narrower road.

Crocked

Here's a tweet about it last week

https://twitter.com/sdublincoco/status/748511227190611968

schemingbohemia

cython wrote: »

Fixed that for you. The most common reason for infra not being used is that it is sub-standard.

Are you saying the Tallaght cycle track is sub-standard? Presume you've used it? I have and it's not sub-standard at all. It's very similar to the Blackrock bypass cycle track.

tomasrojo

Is it the black tarmac on the left? I scrolled down it a small bit and within three seconds ran into a "Ramps" sign blocking the lane. Then it disappears at the junction and drops you back onto the road, badly positioned on the wrong side of the Stop line. Then it's not clear how you rejoin the track. Then it drops you back on the road at the next set of lights, negotiating a cage of pedestrian barriers.

I may be looking at the wrong thing, as I'm not seeing any cycle track signage or road surfacing!

tomasrojo

Crocked wrote: »

Here's a tweet about it last week

https://twitter.com/sdublincoco/status/748511227190611968

That looks pretty good at first glance. Not sure what I was seeing the Google Map link! Doesn't look like that anyway.

Crocked

Google streetview will be too old to show the new cycle lane, apologies I should have made that clear in the original post. I meant that google maps link just to show the location.

They've been working on the road for about a year so it's all different now. That pic on the tweet is all I've seen in terms of the finished design online

I'll try drive up the road over the next few days and upload a vid of it.

niceonetom

Crocked wrote: »

I'll try drive up the road over the next few days and upload a vid of it.

Do you own a bike?

How about you ride along that way and see if that challenges your opinion?

It might surprise you to learn that a car is not the ideal tool for assessing the quality of cycling infrastructure, though I'm continually amazed at how few motorists see their lack of cycling experience as any impediment to their ability to form strong, intransigent opinions.

tomasrojo

Crocked wrote: »

Google streetview will be too old to show the new cycle lane. They've been working on the road for about a year so it's all different now. That pic on the tweet is all i've seen in terms of the finished design.

I'll try drive up the road over the next few days and upload a vid of it.

Yeah, I must say that small bit in the Tweet looks like the Churchtown cycle track (towards Dundrum direction) and I think that's fine and I use it with no problem (the away from Dundrum direction I can't use in places, as it makes junctions too awkward).

galwaycyclist

Boskowski wrote: »

Not blaming cyclists or the government but the current situation is s bit silly with cycling lanes totally being ignored by cyclists but yet government continues to spend considerable money on these. It has to be one or the other.

Just to correct your impression on this. Central government distributes funds to local authorities. It is the local authorities who spend the money. The department of transport does not accept that it has any supervisory role in governing how this money is spent. They only check that it is spent on items consistent with what it was allocated for and within the allocated time period.


In the case of local authorities the cycle track money is often being spent by council engineers who have dedicated their working lives to promoting car travel and trying to find new ways to make motoring more attractive and convenient.

Can you see the conflict of interest?

It is a bit like giving a group of foxes a budget to provide a new security system for the hen house.

radia

Elsewhere in Irish legislation they make this kind of thing clear through layout on the page. They could solve this easily by laying it out as follows:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on:
- a road,
- a portion of a road, or
- an area
at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

The Minister making the regulations (Varadkar) clearly thought he was making regulations withdrawing mandatory use.
This is therefore presumably what the parliamentary draughtsmen were tasked with doing, and it is also reflected in the explanatory note. Surely no responsible Minister would sign regs without at least scanning the explanatory note to see if it said what the regs were intended to accomplish.

The regs are certainly not definitive in saying the opposite, but if there is perceived ambiguity the interpretation should remain the intended one (removal of mandatory use) while awaiting amendment to an unambiguous form of words.

tomasrojo

niceonetom wrote: »

Do you own a bike?

How about you ride along that way and see if that challenges your opinion?

It might surprise you to learn that a car is not the ideal tool for assessing the quality of cycling infrastructure, though I'm continually amazed at how few motorists see their lack of cycling experience as any impediment to their ability to form strong, intransigent opinions.

I think Crocked was just helping me see what it looked like. I don't remember him or her offering an opinion on whether it was "perfectly good".

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the case of local authorities the cycle track money is often being spent by council engineers who have dedicated their working lives to promoting car travel and trying to find new ways to make motoring more attractive and convenient.

Can you see the conflict of interest?

This sums it up quite well.

Crocked

niceonetom wrote: »

Do you own a bike?

How about you ride along that way and see if that challenges your opinion?

It might surprise you to learn that a car is not the ideal tool for assessing the quality of cycling infrastructure, though I'm continually amazed at how few motorists see their lack of cycling experience as any impediment to their ability to form strong, intransigent opinions.

I do cycle but I wouldn't be passing that way on the bike. However I pass near that way in the car and have a dashcam, so it'd be easy to detour to record it.

Also there are also two sides to everything. The new cycle lane also affects motorists, so no harm is seeing what they see either. I'll try do it by car and bike as a compare and contrast exercise.

edit: I never expressed any strong or intransigent opinion. The strongest I got was saying it looks good quality and not sure why a cyclist would avoid it.

tomasrojo

radia wrote: »

Elsewhere in Irish legislation they make this kind of thing clear through layout on the page. They could solve this easily by laying it out as follows:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on:
- a road,
- a portion of a road, or
- an area
at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.

[...]

The regs are certainly not definitive in saying the opposite, but if there is perceived ambiguity the interpretation should remain the intended one (removal of mandatory use) while awaiting amendment to an unambiguous form of words.

I think that's perfect.

niceonetom

Fair enough - I'm probably conflating a few different contributions there.

But I do stand by my point though - threads like this inevitably attract strong opinions on cycle lanes from people who do not themselves use them but feel completely comfortable deeming those lanes "perfectly good" from the vantage point of their car seat.

Brian?

Crocked wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2897122,-6.3405011,3a,75y,270.73h,90.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVACyhV4JUwAt77tS0qpvAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

It's brand new, only finished in the last week or so. Its runs all the way up to the village and makes the carriageway very narrow for traffic for sections where there's no bus lane. I'm not sure why a cyclist wouldn't use it as it looks good quality although you lose priority at the roundabout and have to go around a bus stop as well. It'd be very annoying for traffic to have someone tootle along at 20kph on the road and not use the new lane as there's little opportunity to overtake safely with the narrower road.

You've answered your own question there. The number 1 problem I have with cycle lanes is the loss of right of way. It means cyclists are now separate to traffic instead of part of traffic.

Check this junction out. Why would anyone in their right min use the cycle lane.

Dropped pin
near R449, Co. Kildare
https://goo.gl/maps/7pycs7Aw4wT2

godtabh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In the case of local authorities the cycle track money is often being spent by council engineers who have dedicated their working lives to promoting car travel and trying to find new ways to make motoring more attractive and convenient.

Don't agree with that. As a highways engineer I have to deal with many LA and cycling and related infrastructure is very often top of the agenda. Dun Laoghiare is very proactive. South Dublin are also another good example.

Its national policy to reduce car numbers which is reflected in simple things like the number of car parking spaces can be put in a housing estate, or retailer center etc. Roads must be cycle friendly (the design manual for urban roads and streets has seen a consistent approach on this).

They dont always get it right but to say they are purely car focused is wrong.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Revoked or not I will not use the cycle lanes in letterkenny which were a afterthought and simply white lines in footpaths which are littler with humps and kerbs at exits/entrances and sinokt downright dangerous to use. Let whoever prosecute me for it if they wish but I doubt anyone is that bothered to be honest as no one could justifiably require anyone to use them, ever.

tomasrojo

godtabh wrote: »

Its national policy to reduce car numbers which is reflected in simple things like the number of car parking spaces can be put in a housing estate, or retailer center etc. Roads must be cycle friendly (the design manual for urban roads and streets has seen a consistent approach on this).

Is compliance with DMURS compulsory or policed though? I keep hearing about new road designs that aren't compliant with DMURS.

amcalester

godtabh wrote: »

Don't agree with that. As a highways engineer I have to deal with many LA and cycling and related infrastructure is very often top of the agenda. Dun Laoghiare is very proactive. South Dublin are also another good example.

Its national policy to reduce car numbers which is reflected in simple things like the number of car parking spaces can be put in a housing estate, or retailer center etc. Roads must be cycle friendly (the design manual for urban roads and streets has seen a consistent approach on this).

They dont always get it right but to say they are purely car focused is wrong.

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/doughiska_galway.jpg

I'm not trying to be a dick and taking what you saw to be true how does the above situation arise?

Edit: I realise that is not SDCC but just curious is a general sense.

AlreadyHome

For my own safety, I tend to be selective about what cycle lanes I use. Rule of thumb is anything that directs me to flirt with pedestrians or weave in and out of traffic with little warning is to be ignored. Anything that allows me a logical or equal right of way akin with cars on the road, I will adhere to.

I regularly cycle out towards Sally Gap via the Yellow House from Goatstown, and will always ignore the stretch of cycle path through Churchtown and past Nutgrove. Cars are regularly parked on it, uneven surfaces that rise and fall with driveway entrances, differing kerb heights, broken glass, bus stops that sit on it (have had a couple of incidents where elderly folks have (understandably) stepped out in front of me to hail a bus) and sudden ends to the track where you need to re-enter the road without warning.

As a driver and cyclist, I genuinely think that stretch would be safer with no cycle path offered at all.

mrcheez

Borderfox wrote: »

The cycle lanes are not fit for purpose

They're just enough of a fit for delivery vans though

https://twitter.com/hashtag/freethecyclelanes

tomasrojo

The cycle track that goes past the fire station and the Harry Corry's and all that? Yeah, not a good one. I do use it for a small stretch of about fifteen meters, but only to get into an estate to get away from it.

godtabh

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is compliance with DMURS compulsory or policed though? I keep hearing about new road designs that aren't compliant with DMURS.

Context is important. For consultancy its a good framework to have a consitent and adopted approach with the LA. Before your design was at the whim of a local area engineer. Now its more consistent and understood.

I've been involved recently in an application that was refused primarily because it didn't conform to DMURS.

amcalester wrote: »

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/doughiska_galway.jpg

I'm not trying to be a dick and taking what you saw to be true how does the above situation arise?

Edit: I realise that is not SDCC but just curious is a general sense.

While not involved I'd say it came down to money. White paint is a lot cheaper than rekerbing and/or new redtop. As I said they dont always get it right.

Dun Laoghaire now employ external consultants for there cycle track work. I;ve seen a lot of improvements as a result