Should cycle lanes be mandatory for cyclists?

Roadhawk

This is very simple. Use the poll to cast your opinion on whether you think cycle tracks should be mandatory for cyclist to use when there is one provided.

cython

It's not that simple when you ask a loaded question though, is it? Instead of

Should cycle tracks be mandatory for cyclist if one is provided?
Yes, should only use a cycle track when one is provided.
No, cyclist should use any road even when a cycle track is provided.

a more balanced poll question would surely be:

Should cycle tracks be mandatory for cyclists if one is provided?
Yes, cyclists should be required to use a cycle track when one is provided.
No, cyclists should have the option to use any road even when a cycle track is provided.

Also, what do you have against transparency/visibility that the poll results are hidden?

magicbastarder

how about a thread with a poll on whether there should be minimum legal standards for cycle lanes first?
it's farcical to talk about the topic in the OP when only a fool would agree that all cycle lanes are fit for purpose.

ED E

I'll just leave this here:

PS: Yes its NY not ROI, but the exact same problem exists.

SeanW

magicbastarder wrote: »

how about a thread with a poll on whether there should be minimum legal standards for cycle lanes first?
it's farcical to talk about the topic in the OP when only a fool would agree that all cycle lanes are fit for purpose.

Why not have both?

(I.E. legal standards for cycle lanes, and a requirement to use those meeting said standard).

ArmaniJeanss

Am I allowed leave a mandatory cycle lane if I wish to turn right, or do I have to continue in the left lane doing a continuous circle for all eternity?

Because that seems to be what your poll and OP is suggesting?

Orion

Roadhawk wrote: »

This is very simple. Use the poll to cast your opinion on whether you think cycle tracks should be mandatory for cyclist to use when there is one provided.

It's simple really. If they are fit for purpose I use them. If not, I don't.

Jawgap

Experience shows that well planned, well constructed and well maintained cycling infrastructure gets used almost to the point of capacity.

The problem of infrastructural deficit can't be solved by coercion - build and maintain decent cycle lanes and people will use them. Throw an ol' bit of sandy red paint on the road and people likely won't.

There are certain cycle lanes I'd always use, some I'd never use and the remainder (majority) I'll use depending on the situation - for example, starting towards the end of next month I'll tend towards not using Drumcondra (past the Archbishop's palace) and Fairview (alongside Fairview Park) because while both are ok as cycle lanes once the leaves start to fall they become lethal because no one ever removes the leaf mulch.

Likewise coming through the Phoenix Park if I want to go through at speed I'll stay on the road - if I'm not in that much of a hurry I'll take the cycle path and put up with the pedestrians, joggers etc.

Roadhawk

cython wrote: »

It's not that simple when you ask a loaded question though, is it? Instead of

a more balanced poll question would surely be:


Also, what do you have against transparency/visibility that the poll results are hidden?

Its not exactly loaded. I tried to keep the question as un-bias as possible.

The results will be visible in 7 days. Currently the "No" option is ahead.

Macy0161

Most are not fit for purpose. And some of those I would use on a commute or with the children, wouldn't be fit for purpose if I was out on a training or group spin.

I'd rather see some enforcement of Mandatory Cycle lanes the other way - the amount of cars and taxis that either park or swing through mandatory cycle lanes is ridiculous, and there has been a massive increase in motorbikes and scooters thinking it's acceptable for them to filter up mandatory cycle lanes. These are all issues that go together with the actual infrastructural problems of the current cycle lanes.

Craigevans1985

cars got priority for so long that cycle lanes are thrown in now as an afterthought. there's no reason they can't be better, just harder when you try to get them in afterwards. You get great cycleways outside of cities, more space to play with I suppose.

Seth Brundle

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

cars got priority for so long that cycle lanes are thrown in now as an afterthought. there's no reason they can't be better, just harder when you try to get them in afterwards. You get great cycleways outside of cities, more space to play with I suppose.

I firmly believe that a lot of it has to do with councillors, engineers, planners and designers not using bicycles.
If they did, then cycle lanes wouldn't be as bad as they are!

Craigevans1985

kbannon wrote: »

I firmly believe that a lot of it has to do with councillors, engineers, planners and designers not using bicycles.
If they did, then cycle lanes wouldn't be as bad as they are!

To be fair, the main man driving (no pun) the cycling for DCC is an avid cyclist, and he does get a lot of grief for pushing bikes over cars for the city centre. But he's still trying to get is sorted retrospectively, which is hard.

savagethegoat

I voted No. I would only vote yes if it was made a heinous crime with flogging to park in them or drive in them

Roadhawk

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

To be fair, the main man driving (no pun) the cycling for DCC is an avid cyclist, and he does get a lot of grief for pushing bikes over cars for the city centre. But he's still trying to get is sorted retrospectively, which is hard.

Even more reason why cycle tracks should be efficient for cyclists.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its not exactly loaded. I tried to keep the question as un-bias as possible.

The results will be visible in 7 days. Currently the "No" option is ahead.

Based on your previous threads about cyclists it cannot be anything but bias.

Similarly the poll choices indicate a complete lack of understanding of the issues around cycle lanes. It's not practical or always the safest option to always stay in the cycle lanes.

Hence the poll is fundamentally flawed at best or a deliberate strawman at worst.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

Even more reason why cycle tracks should be efficient for cyclists.

There is a large gap between policy and how it's implemented. Particularly with regard to cycle lanes. Many of which are a joke.

Roadhawk

beauf wrote: »

Based on your previous threads about cyclists it cannot be anything but bias.

Similarly the poll choices indicate a complete lack of understanding of the issues around cycle lanes. It's not practical or always the safest option to always stay in the cycle lanes.

Hence the poll is fundamentally flawed at best or a deliberate strawman at worst.

The poll is unbiased. there is no intention to persuade any individual to participate or choose a particular option. I have not mentioned any of my views on this topic in this tread but instead there has been many other posters voicing their opinions which is ultimately "anti cycle track"

I think you would be surprised of the understanding of those participating in the poll. At present it is 24 votes for mandatory and 40 against. Thinking that the poll is flawed is ultimately wrong. You may have a different experience or interpretation around cycle lanes but that is exactly what allow you to choose your option.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

Why not have both?

(I.E. legal standards for cycle lanes, and a requirement to use those meeting said standard).

so we'd have to identify those which meet the minimum standards, in a clearly visible manner, which sounds like a difficult task. what do we then do with cycle
lanes which have been built to the minimum standard but are then not swept, so end up with broken glass or other problems with them?

Craigevans1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

so we'd have to identify those which meet the minimum standards, in a clearly visible manner, which sounds like a difficult task. what do we then do with cycle
lanes which have been built to the minimum standard but are then not swept, so end up with broken glass or other problems with them?

I'd agree with that. A lot of cycle lanes tend to be next to the gutter and debris gets in there. Fine when you're on a free bike from the Dublin City scheme but can kill my road bike.

magicbastarder

it's fairly simple - in order to justify forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes, the cycle lanes would obviously need to be fit for purpose and meet reasonable standards. which would require an engineering and maintenance framework to be set up if it's to be legally enforceable. sounds like a $50 solution to a $5 problem.

beauf

Roadhawk wrote: »

The poll is unbiased. there is no intention to persuade any individual to participate or choose a particular option. I have not mentioned any of my views on this topic in this tread but instead there has been many other posters voicing their opinions which is ultimately "anti cycle track"

I think you would be surprised of the understanding of those participating in the poll. At present it is 24 votes for mandatory and 40 against. Thinking that the poll is flawed is ultimately wrong. You may have a different experience or interpretation around cycle lanes but that is exactly what allow you to choose your option.

I'm not commenting on the understanding of those voting, but on the design of the poll itself.

The choice is cycle lanes are bad, or cycle lanes are good.

No) If you know they aren't all usable or safe then you should vote no.
Yes) You can only vote yes, if you don't know the above, or don't care.

That is why is so flawed as to be useless.

PeadarCo

Jawgap wrote:

Experience shows that well planned, well constructed and well maintained cycling infrastructure gets used almost to the point of capacity.

This point sums up why the question in the poll is pointless. Surely the question should be why does an experienced cyclist avoid most/nearly all off road cycle lanes and a lot of on road ones.

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

Experience shows that well planned, well constructed and well maintained cycling infrastructure gets used almost to the point of capacity.....

.. to add to this...

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/the-dutch-love-cycling-so-much-that-their-bike-lanes-cant-cope/423492/

Danjamin1

Haha I was just thinking this could be an interesting, if not repeated thread until I realised who the op was. I'm going to predict the result as a no followed by the repeated argument as to why that's an incorrect/stupid result from some usual culprits

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

Experience shows that well planned, well constructed and well maintained cycling infrastructure gets used almost to the point of capacity.

Actually, experience teaches me that cyclists will misbehave if not controlled. There are rules saying where I can and cannot drive my car, and as a pedestrian there are rules saying where I can and cannot walk althouth these are dramatically fewer. I find it bizarre that one group should be excluded from reasonable limitations.

There are certain cycle lanes I'd always use, some I'd never use and the remainder (majority) I'll use depending on the situation - for example, starting towards the end of next month I'll tend towards not using Drumcondra (past the Archbishop's palace)

Funny you should mention this particular stretch, because I was out this way earlier today past the off-road section of cycle lane. It was being ignored by one particular cyclist, who for whatever reason decided it was more important to continue using the bus lane as opposed to using dedicated off-road cycling facilities, that by your account, should have been used at this time of year.

Whether it's lawbreaking or legal but inconsiderate behaviour, experience teaches me that cyclists will only behave if they are controlled. Like so many cyclists keep demanding of motorists.

magicbastarder wrote: »

so we'd have to identify those which meet the minimum standards, in a clearly visible manner, which sounds like a difficult task. what do we then do with cycle
lanes which have been built to the minimum standard but are then not swept, so end up with broken glass or other problems with them?

How I would guarantee this if I were writing the rules is very simple. If you are "caught" outside of a cycle lane that is below standard (broken glass, leaves or whatever) you go to court with photo evidence of the problems. The case is dismissed and the Local Authority has to pay your costs. They also have X (say 15) days to fix the problem before they are fined further. Hopefully, the Guards would know of this defence and so do not waste anyone's time enforcing the rule anywhere except where is actually enforceable.

ArmaniJeanss

SeanW wrote: »

How I would guarantee this if I were writing the rules is very simple. If you are "caught" outside of a cycle lane that is below standard (broken glass, leaves or whatever) you go to court with photo evidence of the problems. The case is dismissed and the Local Authority has to pay your costs. They also have X (say 15) days to fix the problem before they are fined further. Hopefully, the Guards would know of this defence and so do not waste anyone's time enforcing the rule anywhere except where is actually enforceable.

Lots of paper work, councils being fined, guards at the front line of enforcement.
I have to ask - what actual problem would all this solve?

beauf

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, experience teaches me that cyclists will misbehave if not controlled. ...

It applies to humans in general. Its got no relevance to the topic of cycle lanes being mandatory.

SeanW wrote: »

I find it bizarre that one group should be excluded from reasonable limitations.....

Whats bizarre is applying a sweeping unreasonable limitation to anything.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, experience teaches me that cyclists will misbehave if not controlled. There are rules saying where I can and cannot drive my car, and as a pedestrian there are rules saying where I can and cannot walk althouth these are dramatically fewer. I find it bizarre that one group should be excluded from reasonable limitations.

Well your experience must be somewhat limited - if you look at the Netherlands and Denmark you see decent cycling infrastructure swarmed with cyclists.

London recently opened a cycling 'superhighway' - not only did it quickly reach capacity, it's bumping property prices along it.

There are also rules regulating cyclists and as things stand there is no requirement to use a cycle lane.

SeanW wrote: »

Funny you should mention this particular stretch, because I was out this way earlier today past the off-road section of cycle lane. It was being ignored by one particular cyclist, who for whatever reason decided it was more important to continue using the bus lane as opposed to using dedicated off-road cycling facilities, that by your account, should have been used at this time of year.

Again, nothing illegal in what he was doing - the main reason was probably because he didn't fancy cycling up the hill - and it's not a 'Bus Lane' it's a bus and cycle lane.....



The sign makes it clear he was doing nothing wrong.

SeanW wrote: »

Whether it's lawbreaking or legal but inconsiderate behaviour, experience teaches me that cyclists will only behave if they are controlled. Like so many cyclists keep demanding of motorists.

Again, a broader base of experience might help you here.

SeanW wrote: »

How I would guarantee this if I were writing the rules is very simple. If you are "caught" outside of a cycle lane that is below standard (broken glass, leaves or whatever) you go to court with photo evidence of the problems. The case is dismissed and the Local Authority has to pay your costs. They also have X (say 15) days to fix the problem before they are fined further. Hopefully, the Guards would know of this defence and so do not waste anyone's time enforcing the rule anywhere except where is actually enforceable.

Sounds like a productive use of Garda and court time - after all the Guards and the courts have always loads of time on their hands.

Look, even with the recently introduced FCPNs enforcement is very low - do you seriously think a Garda is going to stop a cyclists, question him, go back along a cycle lane to assess it's condition and then prosecute? Seriously?

And who is going to go out and check that the LA have fixed / cleaned the cycle lane? And what happens if the lane is cleared but new detritus finds it's way there?

I don't think you've thought this through

Jawgap

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Lots of paper work, councils being fined, guards at the front line of enforcement.
I have to ask - what actual problem would all this solve?

....and what happens when it's a City Council employee putting the stuff in the cycle lane

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

How I would guarantee this if I were writing the rules is very simple. If you are "caught" outside of a cycle lane that is below standard (broken glass, leaves or whatever) you go to court with photo evidence of the problems. The case is dismissed and the Local Authority has to pay your costs. They also have X (say 15) days to fix the problem before they are fined further. Hopefully, the Guards would know of this defence and so do not waste anyone's time enforcing the rule anywhere except where is actually enforceable.

i was trying to highlight the absurdity of trying to enforce laws in your ideal scenario. i thought your role in this debate was to provide non-absurd solutions?

Carawaystick

SeanW wrote: »

Funny you should mention this particular stretch, because I was out this way earlier today past the off-road section of cycle lane. It was being ignored by one particular cyclist, who for whatever reason decided it was more important to continue using the bus lane as opposed to using dedicated off-road cycling facilities

There are 4 lanes on the road, 2 each way. Faster moving traffic could overtake in the overtaking/non-bus lane.
There is also, as pointed out, a picture of a person cycling on the sign for the bus lane.

magicbastarder

i'm still curious as to whether the interest in forcing cyclists to use cycle lanes is intended for their benefit, or the benefit of motorists?
i don't commute by bike - the vast majority of my cycling is around NCD of an evening, and i'm happy to use the cycle lanes from the house in glasnevin, up the ballymun road and out past the airport, so typically the only cycle lane i ignore is the one which starts roughly as you're passing IKEA, and goes over the M50. it turns cyclists into pedestrians, and is an off-road lane, so is not swept. am i placing myself in more danger by staying on the road? i'm usually quicker out of the junctions than motorists, so i rarely hold anyone up. what benefit - to anyone - is there in forcing me onto the cycle lane?

Milly33

I wouldn't think so as in fairness it would take ages, but I do think they should obey the same rules as cars. The goes for going around the roundiebouts and going cycling down one way streets

PeadarCo

Milly33 wrote:

I wouldn't think so as in fairness it would take ages, but I do think they should obey the same rules as cars. The goes for going around the roundiebouts and going cycling down one way streets

Cyclists already have to. The thing is bar the odd occasion and the occasional one day/week campaign most guards can't be bothered enforcing them. Their reasoning can be seen in the yearly road safety statistics. I'm not advocating cycling rule breaking and most people more involved in the sporting end of cycling understand the image, issues that red light breaking etc create.

Cycling is both a utility and a sport. Its very hard for cycling lanes to cater for both before you even consider other road users.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

traprunner

Excellent. It must be 3 days since we had a topic like this! If you rephrase your poll answers I'll answer. At the moment it's biased against cyclists.

magicbastarder

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what of lanes where the 'benefit' is actually negative for cyclists?

Craigevans1985

I can see the benefit of this one

Sam Russell

Is it mandatory for buses and coaches to have to use the bus lane?

traprunner

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

I can see the benefit of this one

That's exactly the type many motorists would love.

I drive a lot in the city as well as cycle. Yesterday I drove, today I cycled for example. I was behind them a few times but I knew that there was no point in speeding up to pass them in order to win the race to the next set of traffic lights. They didn't bother me at all. They are a more efficient mode of transport where everything is stop start over short distances in the city. Anyone who gets angry because they can't speed to the next set of lights must have anger issues that should be dealt with. Cities and towns are not designed for speed...motorways are. No point in getting hot and bothered when the journey time will more or less the same with or without cyclists on the city roads. Share the roads and relax. Calmness does the heart and mind a world of good.

Roadhawk

That picture looks like a cycle "Cul De Sac"

Seth Brundle

A few more images of why cycle lanes aren't the be-all and end-all...
http://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes/

Craigevans1985

That cycle lane to pedestrian clash on the Samuel Beckett Bridge causes a few near misses (pic 13). The guards have given out tickets to cyclists on the bridge who they thought were reckless...

Mortpourvelo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm usually quicker out of the junctions than motorists, so i rarely hold anyone up. what benefit - to anyone - is there in forcing me onto the cycle lane?

Would that be because they wait for the appropriate green light ?

Orion

Nice assumption there Mortpourvelo if completely wrong. I'm quicker getting out of junctions that motorists too. Guess what? I wait for the green light then up on the saddle and cycle.

magicbastarder

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Would that be because they wait for the appropriate green light ?

wait - you mean motorists always obey the lights?

traprunner

Craigevans1985 wrote: »

That cycle lane to pedestrian clash on the Samuel Beckett Bridge causes a few near misses (pic 13). The guards have given out tickets to cyclists on the bridge who they thought were reckless...

Funny, that corner is also dangerous going north bound because of drivers driving in the wrong lane and then crossing a ghost island to go onto the bridge. Also dangerous by left turning cars from North Wall Quay onto the bridge where there are 5 signs to signify that there is no left turn. The guards have also targeted both.

PeadarCo

Mortpourvelo wrote:

Would that be because they wait for the appropriate green light ?

A lot of cyclists particularly trained ones can out accelerate the average car/driver up to speeds between 30-40 km/hr on a flat roads. Traffic lights are good for sprint training in medium to low levels of traffic. ;-). In heavy traffic there are too many cars blocking the way.

Roadhawk

37 yes votes vs 72 no votes - looking good

Macy0161

PeadarCo wrote: »

A lot of cyclists particularly trained ones can out accelerate the average car/driver up to speeds between 30-40 km/hr on a flat roads. Traffic lights are good for sprint training in medium to low levels of traffic. ;-). In heavy traffic there are too many cars blocking the way.

Don't even have to be that trained. By the time the front car notices the lights are changed, puts down their phone or finishes their make-up...