Good cycling infrastructure improves cyclist behaviour

Chuchote

From this excellent piece on Copenhagen's approach to cycling infrastructure:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges?platform=hootsuite

Good design improves the behaviour of cyclists
If you want to see improved behaviour among cyclists, just build best-practice infrastructure for them – separate bikes from pedestrians and cars and give them their own space in the urban landscape. Copenhagen has the world’s best-behaved cyclists: only 7% bend or break a traffic law and only 1% do something like run a red light or ride on the pavement. Good design improves behaviour.

Also linked:

rollingscone

An inconsiderate system favours the rulebreaker

tomasrojo

... and people know when they're being treated with contempt, and in return treat the system with contempt.

Lumen

Correlation or causation?

More standard issue anti-lycra stuff from Colville-Andersen.

Even in the URL...

copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

Correlation or causation?

More standard issue anti-lycra stuff from Colville-Andersen.

Even in the URL...

copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges

Ach, he's a fashionista, hates lycra

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

... and people know when they're being treated with contempt, and in return treat the system with contempt.

Much as Colville-Anderson's contempt for leisure cyclists is regularly returned directly to him by those of us that do wear lycra, it being the most functional material for that task. In fact he seems pretty contemptuous of anyone who doesn't agree with him, comparing "self-serving vehicular cyclists to the Flat Earth Society and Pamplonan bull runners: "utterly useless for the rest of society and the Common Good," for standing in the way of getting regular citizens onto bicycles by rejecting bicycle infrastructure" here.

I've no issue with having separated cycling infrastructure, just so long as its use is optional, but I find Colville-Anderson an insufferable self-serving bore. I'd also question whether further investment in further infrastructure is the most cost effective way of getting more people out of cars and onto bikes. Seems like much more could be achieved at a fraction of the cost.

Chuchote

What's a non-vehicular cyclist. I've been waiting to buy my new bike for two… is it three…? years. Could I be doing without one altogether?

tomasrojo

Well, Vehicular Cycling is a school of thought that maintains that cyclists fare best when they're treated as road vehicles. Richard's Bicycle Book and especially John Franklin's Cyclecraft in the UK are full of opinions and advice that reflect the VC school of thought. The coiner of the term was John Forester, and his Effective Cycling book is the key text in the USA, or used to be. Forester is much more "cranky" than John Franklin, and prone to more extreme statements.

There has been a strong anti-VC backlash in the UK and the USA in recent years, with a fairly common opinion being that VC's opposition to separate facilities for cyclists has held cycling back.

Colville Andersen wrote a famous anti-VC post on his Copenhagenize blog some years back. I personally found it rather irritating, in the way I find much of his output rather irritating, while agreeing with him on quite a lot of things.

EDIT: just noticed that famous anti-VC post linked above. Saves me looking for it!

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

I've no issue with having separated cycling infrastructure, just so long as its use is optional, but I find Colville-Anderson an insufferable self-serving bore.

From some things he's said, I think MCA favours separated cycling infrastructure being mandatory to use, or at least he regards people who want to maintain the right to use the road as cranks.

He's in his own way as big a crank as John Forester.

tomasrojo

On whether the Dutch methods work, I think this graph finally convinced me.



I posted it here originally.

I actually like cycling in a vehicular fashion and I find Cyclecraft to be an excellent book, but whatever the Dutch did in the 70s, there was a clear improvement in cycling participation (an arrest of the decline and somewhat of a reverse of the decline), and a very clear improvement in the fatality rate per billion km travelled.

NamelessPhil

I think that in Ireland and the UK it makes sense to ride as a vehicular cyclist because there is not enough connected cycle infrastructure to permit protected cycling. If you are trained to ride as a vehicular cyclist you know what to do where the infrastructure fails and how to participate in an acceptable manner on the roads. Vehicular cycling trains you to identify best practice cycling infrastructure and use it as far as practicable.

The biggest issue with protected cycling infrastructure is that is deals with exit and entry points and access in a very unsatisfactory manner.

Carawaystick

Even the Netherlands falls back to Dublin style cycle lanes at times

Chuchote

tomasrojo wrote: »

On whether the Dutch methods work, I think this graph finally convinced me.



I posted it here originally.

I actually like cycling in a vehicular fashion and I find Cyclecraft to be an excellent book, but whatever the Dutch did in the 70s, there was a clear improvement in cycling participation (an arrest of the decline and somewhat of a reverse of the decline), and a very clear improvement in the fatality rate per billion km travelled.

@tomasrojo I can't understand that graph, what does it show and where's it from?

My own opinion, for what it's worth: the private car, with one person sitting there steering tons of metal between other similar vehicles, and using up vast quantities of energy and fossil fuel to do so (between petrol and oil, road building, steel production, car building), is in its last days. It doesn't feel like that to us, because we've grown up with it as the norm, but it is.

smacl

NamelessPhil wrote: »

I think that in Ireland and the UK it makes sense to ride as a vehicular cyclist because there is not enough connected cycle infrastructure to permit protected cycling. If you are trained to ride as a vehicular cyclist you know what to do where the infrastructure fails and how to participate in an acceptable manner on the roads. Vehicular cycling trains you to identify best practice cycling infrastructure and use it as far as practicable.

The biggest issue with protected cycling infrastructure is that is deals with exit and entry points and access in a very unsatisfactory manner.

Where the infrastructure scores for me is in getting my daughter to cycle to school, where her mum isn't happy with her being on the road proper in rush hour. For her trip from Ballyboden to Kilternan she has decent infrastructure for most of the way, which gives her the opportunity to get stronger on the bike. I think vehicular cycling in traffic demands a higher level of road awareness and agility, so the cycle lanes are good for a novice getting up to speed, an occasional cyclist, or those who are simply not comfortable being in traffic.

That said, it is slow way of getting about with many more stops for pedestrian lights, slowing for dog walkers etc... who stray into the cycle lane etc.. I find the 10k with my daughter on cycle lanes takes exactly twice as long as by myself on the road. I think Colville-Anderson's model for functional cycling breaks down in lower population density cities with large sprawling suburbs, as journeys are longer and sacrificing speed for perceived safety makes longer commutes less practical. For urban areas in Ireland the average journey length is 10k and takes 23mins (source) which is comparable to what you'd achieve as a vehicular cyclist.

Chuchote

smacl wrote: »

Where the infrastructure scores for me is in getting my daughter to cycle to school, where her mum isn't happy with her being on the road proper in rush hour.

Exactly why I'm pushing for cycle lanes to all schools, which would revolutionise Irish child health, not to mention self-reliance.

Even if they're slower, what the hell - a quiet and safe cycle along looking around at what's going on is nice!

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

@tomasrojo I can't understand that graph, what does it show and where's it from?

It's from this paper:
http://www.sustainability.org.il/_/rsrc/1254491076253/home/bike-news/lessons-Holland-Denmark-Germany
It's based on data from the Ministry of Transport in the Netherlands.

Essentially, there are two trends.

1) A steep decline in the number of kilometres covered by bike per inhabitant of the Netherlands until the mid-70s, when the numbers stabilise, and then recover somewhat.

This, or some variant of it, is usually what people show when they want to say segregated infrastructure gets you mass cycling. It doesn't quite show that, because what it shows is Dutch policy (which wasn't restricted to building segregated infrastructure) stopping a mass-cycling society becoming a low-cycling society, rather than turning a low-cycling society into a mass-cycling society. But it's a clear achievement; just not quite what people often claim.

2) A steep rise in the number of cyclists killed per billion km travelled by bike, which is completely turned around, starting in the mid-70s.

It's the second trend that most impressed me. Whatever they did, they got the fatality rate down, while increasing the numbers of cyclist, and also largely preserving independent travel among the very young and very old.

That's my take on it anyway.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

I think Colville-Anderson's model for functional cycling breaks down in lower population density cities with large sprawling suburbs, as journeys are longer and sacrificing speed for perceived safety makes longer commutes less practical. For urban areas in Ireland the average journey length is 10k and takes 23mins (source) which is comparable to what you'd achieve as a vehicular cyclist.

I have often wondered whether there is a level of cycling participation at which Ireland's traffic "model" (if that isn't too dignified a term) become dysfunctional (seriously dysfunctional, I mean). Take a case such as when there is an unending stream of cyclists passing on the left cars waiting to turn left. There are quite a few junctions where motorists wait for a gap in the stream of cyclists, but if there are hardly any gaps, you could end up with tailbacks. At this point, you think, ok, we'll add traffic lights at that junction for cyclists. Continue along these lines, and you start getting a more Dutch/Danish looking roadscape anyway.

We're not near that level anyway. I'm just projecting. Put it the other way around: what would Utrecht be like if they converted all the infrastructure to normal traffic lanes and make all the traffic share? I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible it just wouldn't work all that well with those numbers of cyclists (even assuming the numbers stayed the same). I'm not taking safety either; just general traffic flow.

Chuchote

Completely agree with tomasrojo there. The main reason (some) drivers are getting so snarly is that there are suddenly way more cyclists. We're coming to the point where separated infrastructure would be rewarding all round on main roads and rat runs.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

The main reason (some) drivers are getting so snarly is that there are suddenly way more cyclists

Whatever the reason, the cagers are revolting. Check out the comments on here...

https://lovindublin.com/pics/this-picture-perfectly-illustrates-the-problem-with-cycling-in-dublin?fb

tomasrojo

I'm too afraid.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

We're coming to the point where separated infrastructure would be rewarding all round on main roads and rat runs.

That's probably how the Nazis justified the Jewish Ghettos. #godwin

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

Take a case such as when there is an unending stream of cyclists passing on the left cars waiting to turn left. There are quite a few junctions where motorists wait for a gap in the stream of cyclists, but if there are hardly any gaps, you could end up with tailbacks.

The issue here is often caused by painting cycle lanes on the inside of left turning lanes. If local authorities really must put cycle lanes on these junctions, they should have them divide out into the outside lane for cyclists to proceeding straight on. You may get less cyclists blindly following the cycle lane into the wrong lane.

Chuchote

Lumen wrote: »

That's probably how the Nazis justified the Jewish Ghettos. #godwin

But there's a difference between forcing people into a cyclist ghetto and offering good separated cycleways which cyclists can use at will, as the Dutch do.

tomasrojo

Oh yeah, it's a rubbish design. My tiny mind can't think of a better example right now though!

Chuchote

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The issue here is often caused by painting cycle lanes on the inside of left turning lanes. If local authorities really must put cycle lanes on these junctions, they should have them divide out into the outside lane for cyclists to proceeding straight on. You may get less cyclists blindly following the cycle lane into the wrong lane.

This is the way at Christchurch coming from Patrick Street/New Street, though really it also needs the same kind of cycle lane crossing over to the right for the many cyclists who need to turn right into Lord Edward Street. At the moment, most cyclists go straight ahead then squiggle into place with the crossing traffic coming from Thomas Street.

As for ghettoes:

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm just projecting. Put it the other way around: what would Utrecht be like if they converted all the infrastructure to normal traffic lanes and make all the traffic share? I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible it just wouldn't work all that well with those numbers of cyclists (even assuming the numbers stayed the same). I'm not taking safety either; just general traffic flow.

I think this is where taking the situation in one country and trying to replicate it in another can come unstuck. For example, the Netherlands has the 30th highest population density on the planet with 413 people per KM^2 where we rank 143 with just 65 people per KM^2. Assuming broadly similar infrastructure costs per KM travelled, at a population level, infrastructure in Ireland costs 6.35 time more per person than in the Netherlands, so what is economically feasible and the right solution for them may be neither for us.

You also have terrible traffic congestion in the Netherlands, far worse than Ireland, so investment in alternate modes of transport is politically popular. Been a few years now, but last time in the Netherlands I spent a serious amount of time on the motorway between Utrecht and Breda.

I think a solution to increase the share cycling has as a mode of transport in this country demands a bit more imagination than just pointing to another place where it works better and trying to cut & paste what they've done. Very many other variables need to be considered.

Lumen

Chuchote wrote: »

But there's a difference between forcing people into a cyclist ghetto and offering good separated cycleways which cyclists can use at will, as the Dutch do.

I don't want good quality segregated infrastructure. It will put me at a serious disadvantage as I'll then be required to use it, and my 90 minute commute will take even longer because I'll be held up by people pottering along on dutch bikes.

Even now a principal complaint of motorists is that we don't use the cycle facilities provided, and they have the support of the idiot civil servants and politicians trying to re-impose mandatory use.

Screw the non-cyclists using lack of facilities as an excuse for the fact that they don't cycle. It's bull****.

FWIW I would probably be in favour of high quality segregated infrastructure for children as long as it's illegal for adults to use.

the.red.baron

Chuchote wrote: »

Exactly why I'm pushing for cycle lanes to all schools, which would revolutionise Irish child health, not to mention self-reliance.

Even if they're slower, what the hell - a quiet and safe cycle along looking around at what's going on is nice!

Is this cycle lanes to all schools just from your gaff or from mine also?

Chuchote

smacl wrote: »

the Netherlands has the 30th highest population density on the planet with 413 people per KM^2 where we rank 143 with just 65 people per KM^2.

If we leave out Leitrim, etc and just look at Dublin density, how does it compare?

the.red.baron wrote: »

Is this cycle lanes to all schools just from your gaff or from mine also?

A mile to every school, main road.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

I think this is where taking the situation in one country and trying to replicate it in another can come unstuck. For example, the Netherlands has the 30th highest population density on the planet with 413 people per KM^2 where we rank 143 with just 65 people per KM^2. Assuming broadly similar infrastructure costs per KM travelled, at a population level, infrastructure in Ireland costs 6.35 time more per person than in the Netherlands, so what is economically feasible and the right solution for them may be neither for us.

That's true, but Dublin's population density from the centre out to the inner suburbs is rather like a Dutch city. irishcycle.com did a post on it a while back. Cork and Galway could probably benefit.

I guess I'm not saying that Ireland necessarily has to copy and paste what the Netherlands does or did in the past, but I have to say that, based on that graph, they really did a great job of turning around a deteriorating situation. Unless I've missed something.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

Oh yeah, it's a rubbish design. My tiny mind can't think of a better example right now though!

Basically it is a matter of space. To have enough space for a cycle lane at a junction with two lanes you need a cycle lane beside each car lane, as can be seen here;



The worst thing you can do is draw in cycle lanes where there simply isn't space for them. They shouldn't be anywhere near junctions where the lanes split if they can't be accommodated, as this leaves the cyclist in the wrong lane if they go all the way to the junction, or encourages late lane changing if they simply disappear near the junction.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Screw the non-cyclists using lack of facilities as an excuse for the fact that they don't cycle. It's bull****.

I do remember work colleagues telling me that cycling sounded great (cheap! fast!), but they couldn't do it because there were no cycle tracks on their route. I had a think about their route and said there were. So they changed the reason for not cycling to the the weather.

Similarly I remember people telling me they'd only use the bus when it had a pre-paid ticketing system, like in a civilised country. At that time, Dublin Bus did have a pre-paid ticketing system, so I pointed that out. I never saw those people on the bus.

Admittedly, that old Rambler system had many flaws, but it was ok for people doing a return journey of moderate length.

the.red.baron

Chuchote wrote: »

If we leave out Leitrim, etc and just look at Dublin density, how does it compare?



A mile to every school, main road.

So only if the schools on a main road, you want to put in a bike lane for the last mile.

Give us an example of a school on a main road so I know what you mean

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Basically it is a matter of space. To have enough space for a cycle lane at a junction with two lanes you need a cycle lane beside each car lane, as can be seen here;

You really need a better advocate here than me, because I don't have enough experience or practical knowledge of the Dutch system, but I don't think a Dutch urban system would place cyclists in the right lane there. The bicycle traffic, from designs I've seen, often doesn't go into larger junctions but takes an alternative route, or uses refuges.

I assume their solution would also be slower than just using the car lane there.

I guess the best thing is to ask people who've used it extensively. Feedback from users here has usually been positive.

Chuchote

the.red.baron wrote: »

So only if the schools on a main road, you want to put in a bike lane for the last mile.

Give us an example of a school on a main road so I know what you mean

The main road leading to the school.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's true, but Dublin's population density from the centre out to the inner suburbs is rather like a Dutch city. irishcycle.com did a post on it a while back. Cork and Galway could probably benefit.

I guess I'm not saying that Ireland necessarily has to copy and paste what the Netherlands does or did in the past, but I have to say that, based on that graph, they really did a great job of turning around a deteriorating situation. Unless I've missed something.

The Dutch did a good job, in that it provided the desired solution for their requirements and budget. I think the lesson here is to do a good job, which is more that just copying what someone else did. I don't have any hard information to hand, but I think apartment living in multi-storey blocks is at a much higher level in most major Dutch cities than Dublin. Worth remembering that we're talking about a country here that has spent vast amounts of money reclaiming land from the sea in order to increase its available area.

Chips Lovell

smacl wrote: »

The worst thing you can do is draw in cycle lanes where there simply isn't space for them. They shouldn't be anywhere near junctions where the lanes split if they can't be accommodated, as this leaves the cyclist in the wrong lane if they go all the way to the junction, or encourages late lane changing if they simply disappear near the junction.

The other issue about cycle lanes and advanced stop boxes at junctions is that the encourage needless overtaking. If you arrive at a junction and there's two or three cars waiting, you join the traffic at the back of the queue, because you're still going to make it through the lights. Cycle lanes running up the inside encourage most cyclists to move right up to the front when they don't have to.

Chuchote

Surely the main thing is that we take the hard-won lessons of the Dutch, Germans and Danes:

Key policies and innovative measures used in Dutch, Danish and German cities to promote safe and convenient cycling

Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding regions.
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists.
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars.
• Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections.
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and quicker crossings and turns.
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety.
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections.
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists (green wave).
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next intersection at a green light.
Traffic calming
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical infrastructure deterrents for cars.
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars.
• 'Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using the road.
Bike parking
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city.
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance and priority parking for women.
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations.
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute and left at any busy intersection in the city.
• Bike rentals at most train stations.
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting, music, repair services and bike rentals.
Traffic education and training
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic police.
• Special cycling training test tracks for children.
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
Traffic laws
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists.
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with cyclists.
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts.

mjsc1970

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the main thing is that we take the hard-won lessons of the Dutch, Germans and Danes:

Key policies and innovative measures used in Dutch, Danish and German cities to promote safe and convenient cycling

Extensive systems of separate cycling facilities
• Well-maintained, fully integrated paths, lanes and special bicycle streets in cities and surrounding regions.
• Fully coordinated system of colour-coded directional signs for bicyclists.
• Off-street short-cuts, such as mid-block connections and passages through dead-ends for cars.
• Intersection modifications and priority traffic signals
• Advance green lights for cyclists at most intersections.
• Advanced cyclist waiting positions (ahead of cars) fed by special bike lanes facilitate safer and quicker crossings and turns.
• Cyclist short-cuts to make right-hand turns before intersections and exemption from red traffic signals at T-intersections, thus increasing cyclist speed and safety.
• Bike paths turn into brightly coloured bike lanes when crossing intersections.
• Traffic signals are synchronized at cyclist speeds assuring consecutive green lights for cyclists (green wave).
• Bollards with flashing lights along bike routes signal cyclists the right speed to reach the next intersection at a green light.
Traffic calming
• Traffic calming of all residential neighbourhoods via speed limit (30 km/hr) and physical infrastructure deterrents for cars.
• Bicycle streets, narrow roads where bikes have absolute priority over cars.
• 'Home Zones’ with 7 km/hr speed limit, where cars must yield to pedestrians and cyclists using the road.
Bike parking
• Large supply of good bike parking throughout the city.
• Improved lighting and security of bike parking facilities often featuring guards, video-surveillance and priority parking for women.
Coordination with public transport
• Extensive bike parking at all metro, suburban and regional train stations.
• ‘Call a Bike’ programmes: bikes can be rented by cell phone at transit stops, paid for by the minute and left at any busy intersection in the city.
• Bike rentals at most train stations.
• Deluxe bike parking garages at some train stations, with video-surveillance, special lighting, music, repair services and bike rentals.
Traffic education and training
• Comprehensive cycling training courses for virtually all school children with test by traffic police.
• Special cycling training test tracks for children.
• Stringent training of motorists to respect pedestrians and cyclists and avoid hitting them
Traffic laws
• Special legal protection for children and elderly cyclists.
• Motorists assumed by law to be responsible for almost all crashes with cyclists.
• Strict enforcement of cyclist rights by police and courts.

This'd be some fairytale if it were ever to happen here. 'T'wud be beyond amazing. I could see the motoring fraternity self combusting left right and centre.

NamelessPhil

smacl wrote: »

Where the infrastructure scores for me is in getting my daughter to cycle to school, where her mum isn't happy with her being on the road proper in rush hour. For her trip from Ballyboden to Kilternan she has decent infrastructure for most of the way, which gives her the opportunity to get stronger on the bike. I think vehicular cycling in traffic demands a higher level of road awareness and agility, so the cycle lanes are good for a novice getting up to speed, an occasional cyclist, or those who are simply not comfortable being in traffic.

Ballyboden to Kilternan via Grange Road is pretty good in terms of protected infrastructure, Ballyboden to UCD via Nutgrove Avenue is pretty appalling. I'll happily use the Grange Road cycle track; the"cycle facilities" provided on Nutgrove Avenue I'll happily ignore!

Corca Baiscinn

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the main thing is that we take the hard-won lessons of the Dutch, Germans and Danes:

Key policies and innovative measures used in Dutch, Danish and German cities to promote safe and convenient cycling

Yeaay! Have you sent this to Minister Ross, the NTA, and Dublin City Co for their consideration? And the Cycling Campaign groups? Implemented at eh rate of two a year some of us would live to see the new dawn!

smacl

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Ballyboden to Kilternan via Grange Road is pretty good in terms of protected infrastructure, Ballyboden to UCD via Nutgrove Avenue is pretty appalling. I'll happily use the Grange Road cycle track; the"cycle facilities" provided on Nutgrove Avenue I'll happily ignore!

Yep, used to be back and forward to UCD a couple of times a week. I love the way the Nutgrove cycle lane ends in mid flow in places, forcing you re-enter traffic that doesn't want you there. Much safer to ignore it, which is unfortunately the case with quite a few cycle lanes. The genius who designed this particular stretch needs to be taken to one side and left there.

dub_skav

Ouch, you're bringing back horrible memories. I used to cycle that way every day for work. I too ended up ditching the cycle lanes.

I used to be somewhat against cycle lanes and with the vehicular cyclist view, but as I've gotten older I see that the problem is the poor design and thought that goes into our cycle lanes.
For relatively low speed commuting and transport, cycle lanes are perfectly appropriate, but not with the on road, off road, dumped at junctions and randomly ending approach that we have in so many places here.

Charles Babbage

It seems probable that proper facilities would improve cycling in many ways and there is absolutely no doubt that many so called cycling facilities in Ireland are a disgrace.

However the opposite contention is not justified, poor cycling facilities do not in any way justify delinquent behaviour by cyclists, especially towards pedestrians.

tomasrojo

http://irishcycle.com/2015/11/03/is-dublin-a-low-density-city/

That's the article about Dublin's population density and how it compares to Amsterdam. It's pretty similar until you get fairly far out from the city centre.

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cycle lanes running up the inside encourage most cyclists to move right up to the front when they don't have to.

Yeah, if there are only a couple of cars, I tend to just join the queue. Especially turning right. Nice to let someone else clear the way.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/2015/11/03/is-dublin-a-low-density-city/

That's the article about Dublin's population density and how it compares to Amsterdam. It's pretty similar until you get fairly far out from the city centre.

Not a bad article (though ad hock made me cringe just a little). I still think there is a huge amount that could be done in Dublin in terms of improved functional cycling as a mode of transport without such a huge spend as would be incurred with a full Colville-Anderson approach. Things like clamping those parking in cycle lanes for example would be largely self funding and contribute to the cleaning of those lanes. Removing danger zones, as per the Nutgrove example shown previously, from the existing lanes, and similarly take an consistent approach to cycle lanes at junctions (e.g. if cyclists are going to be treated like pedestrians at junctions and roundabouts take them onto the path at that point, don't leave them on the inside of left turning traffic). Close off rat runs to cars but leave them available to bikes, such that people naturally cycle less busy roads.

First and foremost, make it mandatory for anyone involved in design, development and maintenance of cycling infrastructure to actually cycle it on a regular basis. Might actually end up with something that works.

smacl

Chuchote wrote: »

Surely the main thing is that we take the hard-won lessons of the Dutch, Germans and Danes

No offence but we're neither Dutch nor Germans nor Danes. The people who need to buy into this idea are by and large Irish motorists who already seem pretty peed off at all the cycle lanes out there that don't get used, and are maybe less than keen on lashing out for more cycle lanes that may also end up empty. Before blowing the budget on the latest Colville-Anderson fantasy vision of the future, we could perhaps hire a few more traffic police, enforce our traffic laws, and fix some of the infrastructure that's already there.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Close off rat runs to cars but leave them available to bikes, such that people naturally cycle less busy roads.

Yes, this already has been shown to work in Dublin. Make estates permeable to pedestrians and cyclists, but not to cars.

Balally/Dundrum has reasonable levels of school children cycling, and I assume it's because of this restricted permeability.

There are some nice riverside cycles, such as along the Slang, too. More of these shouldn't be too controversial. They actually are used, unlike the Potemkin cycle tracks elsewhere.

boardbeer

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The other issue about cycle lanes and advanced stop boxes at junctions is that the encourage needless overtaking. If you arrive at a junction and there's two or three cars waiting, you join the traffic at the back of the queue, because you're still going to make it through the lights. Cycle lanes running up the inside encourage most cyclists to move right up to the front when they don't have to.

One of the stated goals for advanced stop lanes that is given in France, is to take cyclists out of the exhaust zone, and for that reason I will always take advantage of the ASL where present. Who needs the extra respiratory problems, cancers and cardiovascular damage that vehicle exhausts cause?
Mostly, though, the front car has stopped in the box.

Chuchote

smacl wrote: »

Not a bad article (though ad hock made me cringe just a little).

Love their white wine, the Dutch

I still think there is a huge amount that could be done in Dublin in terms of improved functional cycling as a mode of transport without such a huge spend as would be incurred with a full Colville-Anderson approach. Things like clamping those parking in cycle lanes for example would be largely self funding and contribute to the cleaning of those lanes. Removing danger zones, as per the Nutgrove example shown previously, from the existing lanes, and similarly take an consistent approach to cycle lanes at junctions (e.g. if cyclists are going to be treated like pedestrians at junctions and roundabouts take them onto the path at that point, don't leave them on the inside of left turning traffic). Close off rat runs to cars but leave them available to bikes, such that people naturally cycle less busy roads.

First and foremost, make it mandatory for anyone involved in design, development and maintenance of cycling infrastructure to actually cycle it on a regular basis. Might actually end up with something that works.

All absolutely true. We need to put the money back into the Mountains-to-the-Sea greenways from Glenasmole to Ringsend/Sandymount, and the two canal greenways, for a start - these three would provide a lot of off-road routes for cyclists. And then we need to do things a little gradually, learning as we go.

But I do think it's important to make protected cycleways to schools, so that worried mammies (and I use the word in a non-sex-linked sense) will let their kids cycle.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, this already has been shown to work in Dublin. Make estates permeable to pedestrians and cyclists, but not to cars.

Balally/Dundrum has reasonable levels of school children cycling, and I assume it's because of this restricted permeability.

There are some nice riverside cycles, such as along the Slang, too. More of these shouldn't be too controversial. They actually are used, unlike the Potemkin cycle tracks elsewhere.

Making estates car-run-through-free but cycleable and walkable is a great idea. Where's the Slang?

boardbeer wrote: »

One of the stated goals for advanced stop lanes that is given in France, is to take cyclists out of the exhaust zone, and for that reason I will always take advantage of the ASL where present. Who needs the extra respiratory problems, cancers and cardiovascular damage that vehicle exhausts cause?
Mostly, though, the front car has stopped in the box.

Yeah, as a semi-professional wheezer myself, I prefer to be ahead of the diesel and petrol fumes. I actually don't find the cars are in the bike lane that much.

Someone said "We are not Germans or Danes or Dutch" - but neither were the Germans and Danes and Dutch, in the cycling sense, until they started making nice car-free cycleways so that cyclists could sweep through their cities without taking their lives into their hands.