Reinstatement of mandatory use?

quozl

Roadhawk wrote: »

well if its in favor of the lanes to be mandatory, count me in

Blah blah blah... I have no concern about you actually doing anything in favour of mandatory usage because you don't really care. Not like people who are actively endangered by this attempted change will care.

So, best of luck with your counter protests I look forward to seeing you there. Hah!

galwaycyclist

quozl wrote: »

I would genuinely be up for protesting this in as disruptive a manor as possible to the Dept of Transport, RSA and Dail, if it is not fixed soon.

There was a cyclist protest outside the Dept of Transport in 2004.

On that occasion the triggering event was a call by the National Safety Council (precursor to RSA) for a helmet law.

http://www.irishcycling.com/web/publish/Commuting_49/NSC_Board_did_not_approve_penalisation_of_children_425.shtml

There was a mass cycle from the Garden of Remembrance to Kildare St where an oversize P45 for Eddie Shaw (the NSC boss) was handed in to the Department.

Roadhawk

nee wrote: »

The majority of off road cycle lanes at the moment are dangerous, badly designed, badly maintained (if at all) and largely full of shyte.
They endanger the lives of cyclists and their equipment.
Any decent amount of time spent cycling in the city will tell you that.
I have commuted around the city for 10 years now, experience has absolutely confirmed the above. Decent off road lanes are an absolute rarity and an exception to the rule.
This is an absolutely regressive step, any decent time spent on a bike using them will tell anyone that.

I'd love to take these 'interpreters' on a cycling tour of Dublin's shyte cycle lanes and see how they'd interpret things afterwards.

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Cycle track maintenance was an issue back in 2010 and 2011. How convenient it was for the government in 2012 when LEO V. decided to change the law allowing cyclist to use all roads...i bet the maintenance complaints stopped

Chuchote

Perhaps the first thing to do is for each of us to write a polite letter to all TDs saying that the current cycle lanes are not fit for purpose, forcing cyclists to use them will put lives at risk, and this law is going to endanger lives, and to stop people cycling, with a knock-on effect on carbon taxes and pollution and health.

I have a list of all TDs' email addresses, broken up into a few groups, if anyone wants it — just send me a PM for it.

And perhaps we need another association besides Cycling Ireland (but in friendly alliance with it) which would deal with non-competitive ordinary road cyclists and their concerns?

cython

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Cycle track maintenance was an issue back in 2010 and 2011. How convenient it was for the government in 2012 when LEO V. decided to change the law allowing cyclist to use all roads...i bet the maintenance complaints stopped

How remarkably Leninist of you, to suggest that cyclists should be made to use unfit and unsafe infrastructure, and that when they break themselves then change will be forthcoming.....

As I have said before, reinstatement of mandatory usage with a view to this motivating change and improvement is the epitome of putting the cart before the horse. In fact you are practically suggesting that cyclists should sacrifice their own well being in order to get improvements, which is madness.

eeeee

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Cycle track maintenance was an issue back in 2010 and 2011. How convenient it was for the government in 2012 when LEO V. decided to change the law allowing cyclist to use all roads...i bet the maintenance complaints stopped

I think actively endangering people is possibly the worst course of action to change things at a bureaucratic level.

The council are well aware of the short comings of their lanes, plenty of people have complained about them. The fact remains that those commissioning, designing, and engineering cycle lanes in Ireland at present, evidenced by what they are building as recently as this year, have an obvious, and clear misunderstanding of how cyclists use the road, and are extremely car centric.

The point is the current infrastructure is dangerous and badly designed, and always has been. Efforts to improve this have failed. They continue to fail. I certainly wont be endangering my life and equipment to make that point and frankly any suggestion to do so is irresponsible at best, and displays a dangerous lack of empathy and basic understanding of the issue.

Chuchote

nee wrote: »

Efforts to improve this have failed. They continue to fail. I certainly wont be endangering my life and equipment to make that point and frankly any suggestion to do so is irresponsible at best, and displays a dangerous lack of empathy and basic understanding of the issue.

Nee, what do you think is the best approach?

(What life- and equipment-endangering thing has been suggested, by the way?)

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

Nee, what do you think is the best approach?

(What life- and equipment-endangering thing has been suggested, by the way?)

I imagine nee was referring to the likes of this (specifically the bolded), posted very shortly before her own:

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Cycle track maintenance was an issue back in 2010 and 2011. How convenient it was for the government in 2012 when LEO V. decided to change the law allowing cyclist to use all roads...i bet the maintenance complaints stopped

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

How remarkably Leninist of you, to suggest that cyclists should be made to use unfit and unsafe infrastructure, and that when they break themselves then change will be forthcoming.....

As I have said before, reinstatement of mandatory usage with a view to this motivating change and improvement is the epitome of putting the cart before the horse. In fact you are practically suggesting that cyclists should sacrifice their own well being in order to get improvements, which is madness.

my god, these lanes are not hell on earth. They may not be ideal but they are usable. if there's a bush go around it, if there's a pole go around it, if there is a pedestrian on the cycle track slow down and go around them. If there are any other weird or wonderful obstacles just deal with it. Slowing down, going around or dismounting for a second are the only things i have had to do when using a cycle lane.

NiallBoo

Roadhawk wrote: »

my god, these lanes are not hell on earth. They may not be ideal but they are usable.

"hell in earth" isn't the comparison

The point is that they're less safe than just using the road.

Roadhawk

nee wrote: »

I think actively endangering people is possibly the worst course of action to change things at a bureaucratic level.

The council are well aware of the short comings of their lanes, plenty of people have complained about them. The fact remains that those commissioning, designing, and engineering cycle lanes in Ireland at present, evidenced by what they are building as recently as this year, have an obvious, and clear misunderstanding of how cyclists use the road, and are extremely car centric.

The point is the current infrastructure is dangerous and badly designed, and always has been. Efforts to improve this have failed. They continue to fail. I certainly wont be endangering my life and equipment to make that point and frankly any suggestion to do so is irresponsible at best, and displays a dangerous lack of empathy and basic understanding of the issue.

I take on board your point and the same can be said about a lot of roads for motorised vehicles. So many roads are badly designed for cars, busses, trucks, etc but you adapt to the road and just use it or choose another route.

galwaycyclist

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused.

I think we already had this point on the other thread. Cyclists like other road users have a legal duty to avoid injury and damage to property - including personal property. If you want to be reckless of your own property you don't get to do it lawfully on public roads - you have go somewhere else.

If you are telling people to do something that will damage their bikes then in effect you are telling them to break the law.

eeeee

Roadhawk wrote: »

I take on board your point and the same can be said about a lot of roads for motorised vehicles. So many roads are badly designed for cars, busses, trucks, etc but you adapt to the road and just use it or choose another route.

It is absolutely not reasonable in my opinion to force people to use a lane that is dangerous when safer options (the road) exist. It literally makes no sense.

Chuchote wrote: »

Nee, what do you think is the best approach?

(What life- and equipment-endangering thing has been suggested, by the way?)

As cython pointed out above, making the use of cycle lanes mandatory is both life and equipment endangering due to their design and (lack of) maintenance.


I think cycle lanes should be gotten rid of completely, it's not a view everyone shares though. Or just exist as lines on the road. Cyclists are traffic, the more of them on the road the more other traffic can get used to and adjust themselves to them. I think taking them off the road removes the necessity of motorised traffic to consider cyclists. It also makes cyclists consider themselves as traffic and act accordingly. I know for a fact that if off-road lanes didn't exist I wouldn't get anywhere near the amount of punishment passes and threatening behaviour off drivers who take it upon themselves to put me off the road and onto the ****ty, badly designed, dangerous cycle lane.

However this does not help those who are nervous to start out, or very young or very old. However I do think that traffic would be a lot more considerate to cyclists if it was always used to sharing the road with them (cyclists), thus negating the above. I think this because we have routinely and regularly failed, and continue to fail to build decent off road cycle lanes, so I would rather nothing than a dangerous and animosity causing something.

Doctor Bob

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Orrrr...

Build cycle facilities that are of such good quality that only a fool (or a deeply principled individual) would choose not to use them.

I've long believed that the very existence of the 'mandatory use' concept implies that the facilities are, de facto, not attractive to use. If they were attractive, why would you need to compel people to use them?

So the fact that DTTAS is considering reintroducing this law suggests to me that there is an awareness that the facilities are sub-standard; or, perhaps, that there is no intention to improve them.

***

Two comments on earlier posts-

Re the following statement:

the Department will have to satisfy itself that any such measures strike an appropriate balance between the views of some in the cycling community and the views of those stakeholders from a road safety perspective

I resent the implication that those who favoured the removal of 'mandatory use' have no interest in road safety. It is a false dichotomy, and is a worrying statement from the Department with responsibility for promoting sustainable transport.

Also, re the discussion on this representing a change in policy, it is worth noting that DTTAS doesn't have a National Cycle Policy, it has a National Cycle Policy Framework.

Chuchote

Mmm, I don't know, Nee. The countries generally considered best for cycling — Denmark, Netherland, etc — have good separated cycling infrastructure on most main roads, plus smaller roads that cyclists use safely without lanes. Maybe it's that mixture that we need.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Also, re the discussion on this representing a change in policy, it is worth noting that DTTAS doesn't have a National Cycle Policy, it has a National Cycle Policy Framework.

This is true but the reason for this is relevant.

As I understand it if the National Cycle Policy Framework had been adopted as policy then that would have implied a commitment to funding for the measures proposed. So this would have made it hard to get past the Dept. of Finance.

However, as an observation, ending compulsory use does not have any funding implications.

NiallBoo

nee wrote: »

I think cycle lanes should be gotten rid of completely, it's not a view everyone shares though. Or just exist as lines on the road. Cyclists are traffic, the more of them on the road the more other traffic can get used to and adjust themselves to them. I think taking them off the road removes the necessity of motorised traffic to consider cyclists. It also makes cyclists consider themselves as traffic and act accordingly. I know for a fact that if off-road lanes didn't exist I wouldn't get anywhere near the amount of punishment passes and threatening behaviour off drivers who take it upon themselves to put me off the road and onto the ****ty, badly designed, dangerous cycle lane.

However this does not help those who are nervous to start out, or very young or very old. However I do think that traffic would be a lot more considerate to cyclists if it was always used to sharing the road with them (cyclists), thus negating the above. I think this because we have routinely and regularly failed, and continue to fail to build decent off road cycle lanes, so I would rather nothing than a dangerous and animosity causing something.

I think if I had never gone for a cycle in Copenhagen then I might agree with you.

I'm not a nervous cyclist and don't hesitate to cycle on the road in Dublin.
Using good cycle infrastructure is just so nice though. It's relaxing. It's probably slightly slower but It's really worth it to get from a to b smoothly and consistently without having to have so many risks on your mind all the time.

If I'm being honest, I don't think we'll get anywhere near it in the next 50-100 years. We can and will do better, and that's good but the barrier between us and a good system is huge. And only a small amount is down to actually building the infrastructure.

AlreadyHome

Just emailed Shane Ross (who is also my local TD) asking for clarity on mandatory use of bike lanes and pointing out the current necessity of a cyclist's right to choose where they ignore lanes that are provided.

If it becomes mandatory, I would definitely commit to disruptive and repeated protest. I would also stubbornly persist with choosing where I ignore lanes, regardless of how many fines I rack up.

sdanseo

They need to reword it. A cycle track should be used where one is provided and is SAFE - this is common sense. From what I've been told on here cyclists are against this rule however because many cycle paths are obstructed or in poor condition.

How about it being worded "shall be driven on a cycle track where one is provided on or beside a road, or portion of a road, when accompanied by sign number RUS021, and provided that the cycle track is in reasonable condition, clear of obstruction and safe to use."

Ambiguous? A little. But allows Gardaí to apply discretion sensibly.

(Disclaimer: not a cyclist, but not trolling. Not here to upset your apple cart, merely to offer a suggestion as a motorist who'd like not to kill a cyclist one day due to poor road design).

tomasrojo

sdanseo wrote: »

How about it being worded "shall be driven on a cycle track where one is provided on or beside a road, or portion of a road, when accompanied by sign number RUS021, and provided that the cycle track is in reasonable condition, clear of obstruction and safe to use."

Ambiguous? A little. But allows Gardaí to apply discretion sensibly.

You should try some cycle tracks described by non-cyclists as "perfectly good".

RobertFoster

sdanseo wrote: »

Ambiguous? A little. But allows Gardaí to apply discretion sensibly.

Just like how the discretion of some Gardaí has lead to racing issues in Dublin? Gardaí are individuals and infallible like the rest of us, so I'd rather not be punished and made use inadequate infrastructure just because I come across someone who disagrees with how good or bad a track is.

Kaisr Sose

sdanseo wrote: »

They need to reword it. A cycle track should be used where one is provided and is SAFE - this is common sense.

Ambiguous? A little. But allows Gardaí to apply discretion sensibly.

I am not having a go. All suggestions welcome.
However, ambiguity just leads to trouble. The RTA and RSA state motorists should pass cyclists at a safe distance but gives no minimum distance that is safe. Therefore it's impossible to police.

Cyclists shall have front and rear lights lit during the hours between dusk and dawn but specifies no min or max output from the lights. Thus a single key ring type led light front and rear, that emits almost zero light will comply with the law. No max value means cyclists going around with lights that dazzle drivers.

Ambiguity on what cycle lanes are mandatory and which are not is the last thing we need.

Carawaystick

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am not having a go. All suggestions welcome.
However, ambiguity just leads to trouble. The RTA and RSA state motorists should pass cyclists at a safe distance but gives no minimum distance that is safe. Therefore it's impossible to police.

Cyclists shall have front and rear lights lit during the hours between dusk and dawn but specifies no min or max output from the lights. Thus a single key ring type led light front and rear, that emits almost zero light will comply with the law. No max value means cyclists going around with lights that dazzle drivers.

Ambiguity on what cycle lanes are mandatory and which are not is the last thing we need.

There are regulations on the brightness of bike lights

2RockMountain

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well making the cycle lanes mandatory will only force cyclists to raise issues with the council that will have to be dealt with especially if accidents or damage is caused. I dont see any council spending to improve infrastructure that is not primarily used by cyclists(for whatever reason) because the law indicated they didn’t have to.

Cycle track maintenance was an issue back in 2010 and 2011. How convenient it was for the government in 2012 when LEO V. decided to change the law allowing cyclist to use all roads...i bet the maintenance complaints stopped

Have a look at fixmystreet.ie if you want to see details of all the cycle lane issues that have been raised over and over again with councils by cyclists and studiously ignored.

Have a look for #freethecyclelanes on Twitter if you want to see details of the daily blockages of cycle lanes that have been raised over and over again with Gardai by cyclists and studiously ignored.

Roadhawk wrote: »

my god, these lanes are not hell on earth. They may not be ideal but they are usable. if there's a bush go around it, if there's a pole go around it, if there is a pedestrian on the cycle track slow down and go around them. If there are any other weird or wonderful obstacles just deal with it. Slowing down, going around or dismounting for a second are the only things i have had to do when using a cycle lane.

I presume you'd take the same attitude if cyclists just moved all those obstructions from the cycle lane into the car lane. Cars can just go round these obstructions, right? No biggie....

Kaisr Sose

Carawaystick wrote: »

There are regulations on the brightness of bike lights

The RTA says a light visible at night time in clear weather for a distance of 500 feet. It's not enforceable as there is no measurable standard (Lux). In Germany or Switzerland, the Police can and do stop cyclists who have lights that are emiting less than or more than the specified lux. The Gardaí cannot do this as a conviction under the RTA is not possible.

SantryRed

Even some of the 'good' cycling tracks (ie smooth surface) are ridiculous. I'm sure people are familar with the old airport road immediately outside the airport. There's a lovely smooth cycle lane, but it's ridiculous when it comes to a junction and you have to basically go around the corner, cross the road halfways, cross the road again, and then retake the corner to get back onto the road. I outright refuse to use these things as it's ridiculous and adds to the time, especially when there's no need when there's two road lanes on either side anyways.

Oh, and the bike lanes go straight through bus stops. Perfect situation again! Obviously designed by people who have never cycled a bike.

beauf

Carawaystick wrote: »

There are regulations on the brightness of bike lights

Don't leave us all hanging....

HivemindXX

How are we to know which ones are safe beforehand though? Should we have to experiment the first time and only after that be let off? What if the lane has been cleaned up since the last time we were on it, could we be done for a road traffic offence then?

Is a lane that dives down every side road and requires you to make a sharp turn to cross traffic as a pedestrian safe? I don't think so but I wouldn't want to bet a random guard or judge would agree.

I'm more interested in what "where provided" means. Take this example on Templeogue Road.

https://goo.gl/maps/ycHcWfiLBXu

It's fine all up along the road, of course it's not mandatory for some reason. Then when the road narrows it becomes mandatory (solid white line) briefly and dives across the footpath in to a housing estate. Am I required to follow that one? I like to experiment, so I can tell you that once you get through the chicane there is no more cycle path. You can parallel Templeogue Road for a couple of hundred metres and then either go through the park (I don't know whether that actually lets you get to Templeogue, I don't like to experiment that much) or rejoin the main road (by making a couple of turns and waiting for a gap in traffic. Is this a cycle facility 'provided'? Should everyone be required to cycle over what is, let's face it, a footpath and down a quiet residential street, complete with speed bumps and lots of cars stored on the road despite the large driveways, rather than stay on the main road?

I can't really see how anyone can argue against the self evident point that if cycle lanes were better you wouldn't have to compel people to use them.

randomname2005

Roadhawk wrote: »

I take on board your point and the same can be said about a lot of roads for motorised vehicles. So many roads are badly designed for cars, busses, trucks, etc but you adapt to the road and just use it or choose another route.

But, if cycle lanes become mandatory they will HAVE to be used. There is an off road cycle lane in front of my mother's house, (and on the opposite side of the road) which is full of rubbish, people, and dogs. If she does not want to use that cycle lane she can use the road at present. If it becomes mandatory then she must use the cycle lane, engandering her and the people walking and crossing it, her wheels and tyres on the brambles and other rubbish, or push her bike the guts of 1km or more in order to get to the end of the cycle lane so she can start cycling. She (like many others with cycle lanes/tracks in front of their houses) would have no alternative route to use without massive insignificance.

What about putting the shoe on the other foot and consider these points with respect to forcing motorists to do something similar:

Forcing drivers to use a specific route from point A to B (I do admit some of these might be a little facetious!). There is a motorway but you don't want to pay the toll. Tough, you must use it. There is a massive hole in the road, or a tree down, or a flood, well you have to use that road and wait until the obstruction is cleared, because the law says that this is the single way that must be used. If you can't get past in your car, sure just get out of your car and walk. There would be uproar, and rightly so.

If cyclists are forced to use cycle lanes which are in a shared area with pedestrians, and cyclists are required to adapt to the condition of the cycle lane and slow down when pedestrians (especially those which are accompanied by dogs on or off leads) are nearby, then it will surely follow that cars must adapt to the roads when cyclists, horse riders or pedestrians are using them. This will require all cars and motorised vehicles to slow down to a speed where they can safely avoid the slower road user and will pass leaving a safe distance (safe in this case should be 1.5m but even 0.75m would be nice). Sure you will only be slowing down and going around for a second.

Chuchote

I've emailed all TDs and got autoresponses from a couple of ministers and the Sinn Feiners. Offer is still open of all TDs' email addresses if anyone wants to PM me for it. Easy to send yourself a clear, polite email and add TDs as BCC.