Impact of Luas Cross City

AndrewJRenko

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Because of the speed the Luas runs at in the city center - not because of the quality of cycling.

You can blame or credit whoever you like or whatever you like. The fact remains that track record of Luas/cyclist incidents is excellent, way ahead of Luas/pedestrian or Luas/driver incidents.

Just for context when some folks want to try to tell scary stories...

Mercian Pro

Luas will rightly get a lot of stick from cyclists when the Cross City line goes live because of restrictions on cycling at certain junctions and sections of road and the increased risk of falls. Is this video just a tactic of discrediting cyclists' objections in advance or am I being too cynical?

what_traffic

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Luas will rightly get a lot of stick from cyclists when the Cross City line goes live because of restrictions on cycling at certain junctions and sections of road and the increased risk of falls. Is this video just a tactic of discrediting cyclists' objections in advance or am I being too cynical?

NO your not - but LUAS certainly is.

tomasrojo

The jarring thing is that it's not addressed to cyclists, or even dim-witted or careless cyclists. It's addressed to tram users. So the gist isn't "Cyclists, cop on!"; it's "Look what we have to put up with!".

So it's not setting out to transform behaviour, but to manage perception of what the problem is. And the problem, which is that nobody tried to accommodate cyclists on the cross-city route, becomes cyclists themselves.

OleRodrigo

They are hardly in a position to do anything about the problem.

If the Tram system is built to Internationally accepted standards and we have no reason to believe that it isn't, there is no significant problem posed for cyclists.

As for not making any provision for cyclists getting through the center, not buying that either. In the worst case scenario and there is a curtailment of through-cycling routes, it will be short term,. The medium and long term plan is for increased pedestrianization and cycling.

But, living in the inner city for nearly 20 years, I've never had a problem cycling in out or through, so I cant see it becoming a problem now.

tomasrojo

I had a look round to see what solutions the Netherlands has for this, which is also recognised as a problem there. All that anyone seems to mention is infrastructure that largely keeps clear of trams and crosses tracks at ninety degrees when the two do meet. That seems doable enough, but it would need planning at the early stages, rather than a few weeks before the lines open. And they're not planning to do it now either.

I do foresee problems. I realise that there are many cyclists who are Streetwise Hercules that can fight the rising odds, but there are more who are not good at dealing with hazards like this.

ED E

I've never had problems with the green line (lived on it) but could always cross at an obtuse angle.

BXD it was impossible to cross at any more than 10-15* at 4 points. With the college green dedicated lane thats now down to 3, possibly 2, but top of O'C is still going to be murder.

Poor initial design, you wouldnt see it in Holland.

OleRodrigo

It will be a problem if cyclists can't take the advice being dispensed by the project. There are signs at every junction warning of any hazards and reminding motorists to look out for cyclists. There are radio adverts too. There is a very thorough effort being made to make everyone aware that they will need to pay attention, initially at least.

I agree there will be issues. There are issues almost everyday on the tracks. System design or user training - a question for the times we live in.

Can we compare ourselves to Holland? They had the benefit of centuries of income from overseas colonisation. Rotterdam was the key port for trade in mainland Europe, also for centuries. They had the Marshall Plan after WW2, and an opportunity to plan from a wider vantage point with more resources.

ED E

OleRodrigo wrote: »

It will be a problem if cyclists can't take the advice being dispensed by the project. There are signs at every junction warning of any hazards and reminding motorists to look out for cyclists. There are radio adverts too. There is a very thorough effort being made to make everyone aware that they will need to pay attention, initially at least.

I agree there will be issues. There are issues almost everyday on the tracks. System design or user training - a question for the times we live in.

Can we compare ourselves to Holland? They had the benefit of centuries of income from overseas colonisation. Rotterdam was the key port for trade in mainland Europe, also for centuries. They had the Marshall Plan after WW2, and an opportunity to plan from a wider vantage point with more resources.

So just excuse crap planning then?


Did a right turn northbound off O'Connell bridge yesterday. Its straight dangerous. Radio adverts wont fix that.

It'll be a terrible "tragedy" when somebody ends up under a bus or coach.

tomasrojo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

It will be a problem if cyclists can't take the advice being dispensed by the project. There are signs at every junction warning of any hazards and reminding motorists to look out for cyclists. There are radio adverts too. There is a very thorough effort being made to make everyone aware that they will need to pay attention, initially at least.

That reminds me of the bit in software usability books where they say that if you have to add a section in a user manual with a red exclamation mark and a warning "DON'T DO THIS WITH THE SOFTWARE!" then your design failed at the earliest stage of the project.

Or those roundabouts in Galway with traffic lights where they had to add giant signs warning people to stop when the lights were red, because people don't expect roundabouts to have traffic lights, and the traffic lights weren't prominent enough to overcome this expectation.

If people are being thrown to the ground time after time, there's something completely wrong with the street design.

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Can we compare ourselves to Holland? They had the benefit of centuries of income from overseas colonisation. Rotterdam was the key port for trade in mainland Europe, also for centuries. They had the Marshall Plan after WW2, and an opportunity to plan from a wider vantage point with more resources.

They had the Marshall Plan because they were bombed into the ground. There's a reason The Hague looks so modern.

OleRodrigo

tomasrojo wrote: »

They had the Marshall Plan because they were bombed into the ground. There's a reason The Hague looks so modern.

Well off you go then! We need a Marshall Plan for naval gazing Irish whingers.

I'll take Dublin any day of the week.

bazermc

Apparently bikes have zero stopping distance

https://www.luas.ie/assets/files/RPA%20Marketing%20Campaign/Transdev_CyclistSafety_Newspage_280x200_0717.jpg

papu

anyone else have any good ideas?

Mr. Grieves

I wonder if the fact that fatter tyres are the norm in Holland, unlike here, reduces the number of incidents.

In Amsterdam recently, it was noticeable how fast and aggressively the tram drivers drive, even around bends. It makes the Luas seem slow and cautious, and inneficient. There was a person employed at a pedestrian crossing on a bend stopping people from crossing when they didn't have the green man.

tomasrojo

road.cc reporting on the Luas campaign:
http://road.cc/content/news/226575-campaigners-slam-dublin-tram-operator-%E2%80%9Cirresponsible-cyclists%E2%80%9D-video

check_six

bazermc wrote: »

Apparently bikes have zero stopping distance

https://www.luas.ie/assets/files/RPA%20Marketing%20Campaign/Transdev_CyclistSafety_Newspage_280x200_0717.jpg

"Unlike bikes, trams need time to stop." What the hell is this nonsense? Just let that sink in. Infinite deceleration slope on bikes is now available. I must need an upgrade to my old steed because I certainly take a lot longer than no time to stop my bike.

Are they really making up for their lack of consideration for bikes by portraying bikes as "the enemy"? Maybe this was the plan all along?

Surely putting outright guff on an advertisement is against some kind of rules. Can somebody put a lot of time and effort into mounting a campaign against it. I'll make sure to "like" the campaign!

tomasrojo

The claim about stopping distance, taken literally, is nonsense. I guess you could claim that a bike's stopping distance in an urban context is negligible when compared with a tram's stopping distance.

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

The claim about stopping distance, taken literally, is nonsense. I guess you could claim that a bike's stopping distance in an urban context is negligible when compared with a tram's stopping distance.

I dunno, stopping from 35-40kph+ takes a good bit longer than a car. I previously guessed it was twice as long which may not be too far off the mark. What's a Luas' braking distances I wonder?

Doctor Bob

check_six wrote: »

I dunno, stopping from 35-40kph+ takes a good bit longer than a car. I previously guessed it was twice as long which may not be too far off the mark. What's a Luas' braking distances I wonder?

The NTA report quotes Dutch guidance that states 'the braking distance of a tram moving at 30 km/h is comparable to that of a car moving at 50 km/h', but I can't find an agreed stopping distance for cars at 50 km/h online. Somewhere between 25m and 35m in dry conditions, including reaction time, apparently.

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

I dunno, stopping from 35-40kph+ takes a good bit longer than a car. I previously guessed it was twice as long which may not be too far off the mark. What's a Luas' braking distances I wonder?

I guess I was assuming a speed of about 20km/h or less, which is most cyclists in towns. (I know many people can go 30km/h without that much bother, but it's definitely quite a bit above the average travelling speed.)

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

I guess I was assuming a speed of about 20km/h or less, which is most cyclists in towns. (I know many people can go 30km/h without that much bother, but it's definitely quite a bit above the average travelling speed.)

My average speed across the city centre is around 15kph including stopping at lights which I think is how the average commuter speed is calculated. I spend a significant amount of time at 25kph and higher.

If you discount anything above the nominal average then this does not only ignore faster cyclists but also average cyclists who have the wind with them or are on a straight wide road or a bit of a down hill. Average cyclists spend a lot of time going above the average speed.

20kph translates in to 5.5 metres per second. This means that if it takes you half a second to notice the idiot who has decided waiting in line is not for him and darts in to the bus lane you'll have gone more than 2m before you even start braking.

This is not to say I have any real sympathy for cyclists who get in the way of the Luas. Those things are not hard to see and they aren't unpredictable in their movements.

Unfortunately lots of motorists have the self-serving idea that cyclists can stop instantly which means they can pull stupid manoeuvres like pulling out of a side road right in front of them which they wouldn't try if it was a car coming. This tripe just reinforces that very wrong idea.

check_six

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The NTA report quotes Dutch guidance that states 'the braking distance of a tram moving at 30 km/h is comparable to that of a car moving at 50 km/h', but I can't find an agreed stopping distance for cars at 50 km/h online. Somewhere between 25m and 35m in dry conditions, including reaction time, apparently.

So a tram takes about exactly the same distance to stop as a bike at 30kph? That stupid advert is going down in my estimation, if that were even possible.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

My average speed across the city centre is around 15kph including stopping at lights which I think is how the average commuter speed is calculated. I spend a significant amount of time at 25kph and higher.

But most cyclists don't spend much time going above 20km/h. I know there are plenty of people who post here who do, but the average speed (including stops) for cyclists in Dublin city centre is reckoned to be 12km/h, which I think works out to an average cruising speed way below 25km/h (since they'd have to be stopped half the time to bring 25km/h cruising speed into roughly a 12km/h total average).


This link purports to calculate minimum stopping distance for a bicycle in different scenarios. The distances calculated seem very low to me (3m for 20km/h in the dry), but they're certainly a long way from 25-35m.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html

(I think the Cyclecraft figures in the next post are far more accurate than that.)

I know for a fact that I don't need 25m to stop on any of my bikes at typical city-centre speeds. That's over half the width of O'Connell Street.

HivemindXX wrote: »

If you discount anything above the nominal average then this does not only ignore faster cyclists but also average cyclists who have the wind with them or are on a straight wide road or a bit of a down hill. Average cyclists spend a lot of time going above the average speed.

That's the nature of averages. It's a simplification. Of course some cyclists go faster. And equally, I'm ignoring the slower ones, who need less stopping distance.

Dublin city centre isn't hilly overall, so I don't think it's that important. My experience there isn't of people shooting downhill.


So that's why I think the average stopping distance required by an urban cyclist is less than that required by a Luas (though not "negligible" as I wrote above). The Luas ad still implies that bikes require no stopping distance, which is far from true. It's a stupid point, part of a pretty misdirected campaign.

tomasrojo

Cyclecraft has a table of stopping distances. No idea how accurate it is, but for an alert cyclist in dry conditions it has

16km/h: 6m
24km/h: 11m
32km/h: 17m

But for a tired cyclist in the wet they are:


16km/h: 15m
24km/h: 27m
32km/h: 41m

Both sets are for 0% gradient.

ciarak7511

dude just wait till YOU crash on the luas tracks..

ciarak7511

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Today I rode right on to Eden Quay from O'Connell St bridge, followed around on to Parnell Street, turned on to Parnell Square West by the Rotunda and went down Dominick Street. There are no issues at any point that weren't there with the first Luas tracks.

Honestly, I don't know what all the fuss is about.

I'd imagine cycling is an afterthought - if that is the case, I don't see any evidence to that effect - because prioritizing public transport is a sound strategy to reduce motor traffic. Prioritizing cycling over public transport is about as realistic as wishing for world peace.

dude just wait til YOU crash on the tracks..

Mr. Grieves

So a Luas takes 30 m at 30 km/hr to stop (from Doctor Bob above)

A cyclist takes 27 m at 30 km/hr (taking average of both 32 km/hr figures from Cyclecraft above and assuming distance at 30 km/hr scales in proportion to speed).

I suspect the brakeless fixie in the picture takes much longer than that :rolleyes:

Do advertising standards apply to this sort of thing? Where was that poster used?

tomasrojo

Yeah, the stopping time is linearly proportional to the speed in the Cyclecraft figures, so it's 15m stopping distance at 30km/h for an alert cyclist on a dry flat road, and about 37m at 30km/h for a tired cyclist on a wet flat road.

Leaving aside how many cyclists will be travelling at that speed, especially when they're tired and it's wet, it doesn't take into account whether the Luas takes longer to stop when it's raining. I suspect it does.

In any case, cyclists don't stop anything like instantaneously, so the Luas poster/tweet/whatever it was is clearly wrong. But we knew that at the top of this page.

bazermc

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

So a Luas takes 30 m at 30 km/hr to stop (from Doctor Bob above)

A cyclist takes 27 m at 30 km/hr (taking average of both 32 km/hr figures from Cyclecraft above and assuming distance at 30 km/hr scales in proportion to speed).

I suspect the brakeless fixie in the picture takes much longer than that :rolleyes:

Do advertising standards apply to this sort of thing? Where was that poster used?

I am the poster who spotted it. The poster was at the junction of upper Sheriff Street and Seville Place down beside the IFSC/Spencer Dock

OleRodrigo

ciarak7511 wrote: »

dude just wait til YOU crash on the tracks..

Might happen yet. Especially on a fixie with a soy latte in one hand.

16km/h: 6m
24km/h: 11m
32km/h: 17m

But for a tired cyclist in the wet they are:


16km/h: 15m
24km/h: 27m
32km/h: 41m

Those numbers are nonsense. Tired cyclist? What does that event mean.

I braked hard last week at about 25 kmph and stopped after 1 to 2 m.