Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I see your point. They are taking up all of the shared road. If you are in the cycle lane it you are in your designated area. If you were more rural and a vehicle passes you they should go out onto the opposite side of the road to give enough space to pass. 2 metres is believe I saw on the rsa ads?

There is no 'designated area' for cyclists.

ExMachina1000

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no 'designated area' for cyclists.

Who is the cycle lane for?

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Who is the cycle lane for?

Do you want the short answer (cyclists) or the long answer, with a detailed explanation of the difference between mandatory and non-mandatory cycle lanes, and the legal status of on-path cycle lanes?

Now it's my turn? Who is the traffic lane for?

ExMachina1000

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you want the short answer (cyclists) or the long answer, with a detailed explanation of the difference between mandatory and non-mandatory cycle lanes, and the legal status of on-path cycle lanes?

Now it's my turn? Who is the traffic lane for?

I see a narrow lane between the road and footpath with pictures of bicycles and also actual cyclists using it. I see no cars driving in it nor do I see pedestrians walking in it. I presume it must be for cyclists.

The traffic lane? It's for everyone except pedestrians I guess.

Duckjob

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I understand that. That's why I commented that everyone needs to share the road. Wonder what traffic will be like come Monday. It's been great the past few months

What I find interesting about the the "share the road" phrase that people throw around so often is this:

The true definition of sharing anything is multiple people having the use of that one thing, either at the same time, or at different times. NObody to my knowledge has ever suggested different times slots on our roads for different modes of travel, and so-

In the context of roads of cars and bikes, the definition of "sharing the road" is therefore cars, bikes, and other modes of travel all having the use of that road at the same time.

Many of the people complaining about people on bikes not "sharing the road" appear to have a very twisted version of what sharing is. Their version of sharing the road goes something along the lines of:

"we can all use it at the same time as long as you don't at any time, hold me back from travelling at the speed I think I should be able to travel at"

Why don't those people apply their special definition of sharing the road to others in cars who slow them down in traffic every single time they go out in their cars ?

Why is slow down by other cars acceptable to these people and slow down by other road users such as people on bikes unacceptable ?

AndrewJRenko

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I see a narrow lane between the road and footpath with pictures of bicycles and also actual cyclists using it. I see no cars driving in it nor do I see pedestrians walking in it. I presume it must be for cyclists.

Was there any cars or vans parking in it? Any joggers jogging in it? Any dog walkers with their extendable leads stretched across it?

If it's not a mandatory bike lane with continuous white line, there is nothing to stop vehicles driving in it, and they often do.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The traffic lane? It's for everyone except pedestrians I guess.

Correct - hence my point about there being no 'designated area' for cyclists.

ExMachina1000

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was there any cars or vans parking in it? Any joggers jogging in it? Any dog walkers with their extendable leads stretched across it?

If it's not a mandatory bike lane with continuous white line, there is nothing to stop vehicles driving in it, and they often do.


Correct - hence my point about there being no 'designated area' for cyclists.

Didn't see any Van's in it. I did see a couple of joggers . No dog walkers either.

How about mandatory cycle lanes. Nobody else is permitted in the lane at all. Cyclists can't go on the paths or out onto the traffic lane either.

ExMachina1000

Duckjob wrote: »

What I find interesting about the the "share the road" phrase that people throw around so often is this:

The true definition of sharing anything is multiple people having the use of that one thing, either at the same time, or at different times. NObody to my knowledge has ever suggested different times slots on our roads for different modes of travel, and so-

In the context of roads of cars and bikes, the definition of "sharing the road" is therefore cars, bikes, and other modes of travel all having the use of that road at the same time.

Many of the people complaining about people on bikes not "sharing the road" appear to have a very twisted version of what sharing is. Their version of sharing the road goes something along the lines of:

"we can all use it at the same time as long as you don't at any time, hold me back from travelling at the speed I think I should be able to travel at"

Why don't those people apply their special definition of sharing the road to others in cars who slow them down in traffic every single time they go out in their cars ?

Why is slow down by other cars acceptable to these people and slow down by other road users such as people on bikes unacceptable ?

That's something you'll have to take up with those people.
I can't answer those questions

CramCycle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How about mandatory cycle lanes. Nobody else is permitted in the lane at all. Cyclists can't go on the paths or out onto the traffic lane either.

They used to be and for very sensible reasons this was scrapped. Many are dangerous to cycle in, even if it may not be that obvious to someone who doesn't cycle regularly or at all.

ExMachina1000

CramCycle wrote: »

They used to be and for very sensible reasons this was scrapped. Many are dangerous to cycle in, even if it may not be that obvious to someone who doesn't cycle regularly or at all.

I don't know what ye want so. Sorry

Could you lay it out

magicbastarder

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How about mandatory cycle lanes. Nobody else is permitted in the lane at all.

correct. a mandatory cycle lane is not one that it is mandatory for cycles to use, but a cycle lane that motorists are not allowed use.

the only cycling infrastructure that cyclists are compulsorily required to use are cycle paths in pedestrianised areas, or contra-flow cycle lanes on one way streets.

as to what cyclists want; decent cycle lanes, not lanes designed to prevent cyclsts from inconveniencing motorists.

Duckjob

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's something you'll have to take up with those people.
I can't answer those questions

I know, sorry I wasn't directing those questions at you - it's just when you mentioned sharing the road you reminded me about this alternate definition of sharing held by certain people.

CramCycle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I don't know what ye want so. Sorry

Could you lay it out

I don't want anything other than motorists to drive safely and to the conditions.

If this occurred, those who want cycling infrastructure wouldn't need it, so that's it. Basically I want everyone to stop being a d1ck. Some people never did, some people have stopped but the rest of them need to stop.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

If this occurred, those who want cycling infrastructure wouldn't need it, so that's it

question is - has any country achieved this? the netherlands became the yardstick for everyone else by infrastructural change, not by behaviour change. i know a few people who have lived in NL and said their motorists have every bit as much capacity to be dicks as irish motorists, but it's the infrastructure which means they're just dicks and can cause much less hassle for everyone else.

Seth Brundle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I don't know what ye want so. Sorry

Could you lay it out

There is next to no adequate cycling infrastructure. Much of what is there is a token effort designed to make it look like the council's are doing something. There's no joined up thinking. There's no overall ambition to help make it safer to commute by bike. Christ, it's not that long since the RSA published an article.in the Indo which was, from what I could tell from its massive bias, designed to discourage cycling.
As was mentioned, the majority of cycling infrastructure is designed to keep the roads free for cars, not for the safe and convenient use by cyclists. I don't believe cyclist opinions are even sought at the design stage so how could it work?

magicbastarder

the other day i realised that a road i find myself on occasionally is one of the few with a bus lane which is not *also* a specified cycle lane, the swords road past the airport. it's fairly new, has wide combined footpath/cycle path, and yet still manages to get priority wrong.

for example here - cyclists are still expected to yield to car traffic entering and exiting a car park. which is mind bending; you're expecting the traffic which is maintaining its course, on a major road, to yield to someone exiting a car park. i've seen this cycle lane held up a couple of times as one where the designers got it right, but...

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4246817,-6.2296796,3a,75y,331.12h,73.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx8jY2pyABWyBvbf846DeQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i suspect they did this because they were worried if they asked cars to yield, the car may not yield and you'd end up with an 'accident'. if that is the case, i guess it's a tacit admission that bike lanes can't be properly designed for cyclists 'because motorists'.
that stupid yield happens several times along that road.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

question is - has any country achieved this? the netherlands became the yardstick for everyone else by infrastructural change, not by behaviour change. i know a few people who have lived in NL and said their motorists have every bit as much capacity to be dicks as irish motorists, but it's the infrastructure which means they're just dicks and can cause much less hassle for everyone else.

None that I have visited, although there are probably one or two small places. It's human nature. The question was to layout what "ye" want. Cyclists are as different to each other in their opinions as any other group of people who as far as I know have SFA in common. I don't know what other cyclists want but as a road user who uses my feet, scooter, skateboard*, bicycle, car, van, bus, and so on, I know what would solve the majority of issues that are being brought up.

Drive to the conditions, be aware, don't speed, only drive when necessary and no other alternatives exist, don't get annoyed if you get delayed by other road users, just accept it.

Basically, don't be a d1ck. If someone accuses you of being a d1ck, take a moment and assess the situation. Even though you may not ave realised it, you may have accidentally been a d1ck, here is an opportunity to own it and change for the better.

ExMachina1000

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't want anything other than motorists to drive safely and to the conditions.

If this occurred, those who want cycling infrastructure wouldn't need it, so that's it. Basically I want everyone to stop being a d1ck. Some people never did, some people have stopped but the rest of them need to stop.

Fair enough. You just want yourself and other cyclists to be safe. Nobody can hold that against you nor is it an unreasonable request.

I spend much of my working day driving and see more and more cyclists out and about. It is scary enough out there sometimes I would imagine with the traffic and especially buses turning in and stopping. There are is no shortage of aszholes driving around too.

Cycling in cities is inevitably going to increase. It's clear to see which way its going.

CramCycle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Fair enough. You just want yourself and other cyclists to be safe. Nobody can hold that against you nor is it an unreasonable request.

Nor is it a cyclign specific request, it would make walking safer, it would make driving safer. Its an all round win, for everyone, with very little required.

hesker

magicbastarder wrote: »

snip

for example here - cyclists are still expected to yield to car traffic entering and exiting a car park. which is mind bending; you're expecting the traffic which is maintaining its course, on a major road, to yield to someone exiting a car park. i've seen this cycle lane held up a couple of times as one where the designers got it right, but...

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4246817,-6.2296796,3a,75y,331.12h,73.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx8jY2pyABWyBvbf846DeQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i suspect they did this because they were worried if they asked cars to yield, the car may not yield and you'd end up with an 'accident'. if that is the case, i guess it's a tacit admission that bike lanes can't be properly designed for cyclists 'because motorists'.
that stupid yield happens several times along that road.

That is so incredibly infuriating. That they would spend good public money in such a manner and demonstrate that they couldn’t give a flying **** about anyone who isn’t in a car.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Was I in the wrong to cycle in the middle of the lane?

I was on a road with an adjacent footpath with a cycle lane with joggers in it. I took the lane as I was advised to do by someone.

I was beeped at, punish passed and a man slowed down and opened his window and told me the cycle lane is mandatory and if it's there I have to use it.

I felt guilty blocking traffic but I just want to force motorists to pass safely.

magicbastarder

hesker wrote: »

That is so incredibly infuriating. That they would spend good public money in such a manner and demonstrate that they couldn’t give a flying **** about anyone who isn’t in a car.

yep. and i've posted about it before, but that cycle lane, just north of the main roundabout at the airport (so a few hundred metres north of that, on the same road) turns into this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4323695,-6.2299007,3a,73.2y,278.32h,76.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1TgHZQAJ6ZkQqssYD382Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

that is the main footpath on the swords road. and not just main footpath, it's only footpath (there's none on the other side of the road), *plus* it's the cycle path too. for both directions. so it's meant to carry all cyclists and all pedestrians between swords and the city.
if you want to cycle from swords to the city centre, and don't want to use that stretch, you've to go west of the airport (i.e. to finglas) or out to kinsealy.

mvt

Can you not cycle on the other side coming from swords?

So that you end up on the cycle lane at the airport car parks?

I know that path is nuts & two way but isn't the cycle lane at the couchmans one way towards swords?

It was very early in the morning heading to air side so I could be wrong but I always cycled back on the other side.

magicbastarder

I always cycle back southbound on the main road, but the cycle path is directed across the road at a set of pedestrian lights.

CramCycle

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Was I in the wrong to cycle in the middle of the lane?

I was on a road with an adjacent footpath with a cycle lane with joggers in it. I took the lane as I was advised to do by someone.

I was beeped at, punish passed and a man slowed down and opened his window and told me the cycle lane is mandatory and if it's there I have to use it.

I felt guilty blocking traffic but I just want to force motorists to pass safely.

Nothing wrong with what you done and the driver is incorrect. Also in the current climate and trying to maintain social distancing, you were not only legally correct but morally you had the high ground too. The driver on the other hand took time to shout out a window at someone while presumably looking at you and still moving. At the very least it's driving without due care and attention. He'll go home and see nothing wrong with jai behaviour. Thankfully by holding the lane he had to make a proper overtake, that poor awareness he would probably not have given any space if you were in the gutter.

mvt

magicbastarder wrote: »

I always cycle back southbound on the main road, but the cycle path is directed across the road at a set of pedestrian lights.

I'm not sure if you've noticed but there is an airport there which tends to complicate things

It also sounds like you are going against the direction of the cycle lanes but I might be picking you up wrong.

magicbastarder

mvt wrote: »

I'm not sure if you've noticed but there is an airport there which tends to complicate things

s'ok, i'm not trying to cross the runway.
and it's not complicated at all. it's the road past the airport, i don't see why providing a cycle lane becomes any more difficult there. it may as well be a shopping centre it's passing.

anyway, outbound i use the bus lane, and inbound i use the opposite bus lane.

mvt

But you said a few posts back that if you want to use that route coming from swords you have to use the multi use path but now you say you use the bus lane.

magicbastarder

I said it's meant to carry the cycle traffic, not that I use it.

mvt

You might want to read the last two paragraphs of your post #233 again .

As cyclists I feel we have to learn to pick our battles & after spending eight months cycling this route from Dublin 8 before 7am & after 6pm I never really had any issues with this route but fully accept that's just my opinion.