Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

is_that_so wrote: »

It's parked at a bus stop with an advertising poster, that's what they do. Common sense suggests he'll next get out and replace it or has just done so. Not disputing the others but all road users have to deal with that nonsense. No journey is as simple as pointing a wheel or wheels in the direction you want to go.

I'm truly astounded that the Gardai aren't doing more to stop people who are working at a bus stop parking at that bus stop, or men working cutting a hedge parking with all their work equipment at that hedge.
I mean the Kinahane and Hutch fued has nothing on these guys....

I was out for a run this morning and I saw a couple of Electricians parked up changing bulbs in street lights, there was a woman walking on the same side of the road. I gasped in horror wondering what would happen next...then...she crossed the road to the path on the other side of the road and went about her business....

Tarabuses

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Lr Kilmacud Road Part 2

Thank you for posting the photos of the Lower Kilmacud Road. I walk from Drummartin to Stillorgan at least 3 times a week and am very familiar with the inconvenience caused by this inconsiderate parking. Why is it that you always encounter another pedestrian walking in the opposite diection at the very point where these vehicles are parked on the footpath?

I have to say that there has been a large reduction in the number of cyclists I have encountered on the footpath recently but the incidence of vehicles parked on the footpath is increasing. It seems that many motorists think that they must have at least two wheels on the footpath to park properly.

TaurenDruid

You go away from boards for a day and there's another few pages! Luckily most of the posts were from Andy! So looking at Andy's holiday snaps, I'm going to take it on faith there were phones in most of those photos. Your camera is not as good as you think it is. And using a dash-mounted phone for navigation is not illegal. https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Mobile%20Phone/RSA_Mobile_DL.pdf (and jaysus, that really needs an update!)

No excuse for the majority of the parking on footpaths/bike lanes, obviously, but jaysus, Andy, how exactly would you propose they do the hedge-cutting? Double the workforce and put in a one-lane contraflow with stop-go signs?! Pedestrians can use the coned-off road. Cyclists can use the road, like, y'know, they often do.

There I go again, being all reasonable and agreeing with Andy!

But I will finish off with "But sure at the end of the day nobody was hurt," as is now traditional, such as when a deliveroo cyclist on the phone (phone in hand, not forearm mounted, not handlebar mounted, apparently this matters for cyclists but not drivers?) and cycling on the footpath suddenly has to brake when he realises there's someone in front of him not getting out of the way...

AndrewJRenko

ewc78 wrote: »

I'm truly astounded that the Gardai aren't doing more to stop people who are working at a bus stop parking at that bus stop, or men working cutting a hedge parking with all their work equipment at that hedge.
I mean the Kinahane and Hutch fued has nothing on these guys....

I was out for a run this morning and I saw a couple of Electricians parked up changing bulbs in street lights, there was a woman walking on the same side of the road. I gasped in horror wondering what would happen next...then...she crossed the road to the path on the other side of the road and went about her business....

The initial responsibility on relation to JC Decaux fans lies with Dublin Bus, as they contract JCD to provide the service. It should be a clear requirement within the contract for JCD vans not to impede the bus services.

But there is certainly a broader issue about blocking of bus services. Pre lockdown, any day I travelled through Camden/Wexford/Aungier/Georges St, there were multiple commercial vehicles blocking the bus lane. So hundreds, probably thousands of bus passengers are held up on their commutes for the convenience of a couple of drivers.

This absolutely is a significant traffic flow issue, worthy of Garda attention.

If you think that parking at bus stops is a trivial matter, you might want to engage with disability organisations to find out the impact on wheelchair users;

Here's a sample; https://twitter.com/search?q=bus%20stop%20parking%20wheelchair&src=typed_query

In relation to works like the hedge cutting and bulb changing, there are safe and legal ways to do this. If any contractor needs to take public space to do commercial works, whether road or path or bike lane, they need to apply for a road closure order. As part of this, they submit a plan for providing alternative routes, signage, management of traffic.

That's how you do these works safely, minimising the impact on people who need footpaths and don't have the flexibility to hop out into the road - older people, wheelchair users, parents pushing buggies, people using walking frames and more.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

You go away from boards for a day and there's another few pages! Luckily most of the posts were from Andy! So looking at Andy's holiday snaps, I'm going to take it on faith there were phones in most of those photos. Your camera is not as good as you think it is. And using a dash-mounted phone for navigation is not illegal. https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Mobile%20Phone/RSA_Mobile_DL.pdf (and jaysus, that really needs an update!)

Yeah, not the best pictures all right. I save the best ones for the Gardai, and none of these were good enough quality for that, so I'm happy to share them here instead.

And yes, it's not illegal to be tapping the dash mounted phone, or to be having a Facetime chat or Zoom call on a dash mounted phone, which is absolutely insane, and needs urgent addressing.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No excuse for the majority of the parking on footpaths/bike lanes, obviously, but jaysus, Andy, how exactly would you propose they do the hedge-cutting? Double the workforce and put in a one-lane contraflow with stop-go signs?! Pedestrians can use the coned-off road. Cyclists can use the road, like, y'know, they often do.

I suppose the first question is why do you need to plonk a jeep and trailer on a path to cut a hedge. Can you not use ladders?

If you used a ladder, it would take up most of the footpath, but not the bike lane. So you could route pedestrians onto the bike lane (making sure they have a dropped kerb to go up and down, for wheelchair users, and either coned off section of the road as a bike lane, or just closed the bike lane.

To be honest, it looks it was the handiest parking for them to do the job, which is completely unacceptable.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

Your insults got a lot more personal lately. I like it when hypocrisy is gone and true personality is revealed.

Cool, can I book myself in with you for a counselling session?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for asking. The point is that the frequency and extend of illegal pavement parking is a much more significant inconvenience and danger for pedestrians than the pavement cycling mentioned by the OP.

Ah. So it's more whataboutery. Thanks.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

It was explained to you, you're forced by the letter of the law to get off your bike, push a button, wait for a green man, walk across a couple of roads, then get on your bike again. Ironically on the street view there's a lady cycling on the pedestrian crossing which would outrage people. And that's just that one junction.

So AGAIN you are demanding that all cycle lanes never stop for anyone else. How far should this continues cycle Lane be?

And AGAIN I point out that cars using the road also have to stop at junctions and see other people to use the road.

All I see is cyclists who think they should be placed above all others, not cyclists looking for equality and in defence of the argument, Andrew posting cars committing offences which can only be described as complete whatsboutery.

To have equality, it includes junctions and yield signs. What you want, isn't feasible in a city.

magicbastarder

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I don't think so. I pointed out a nice cycle Lane and it was dismissed because it's not absolutely continuous. Was that not correct? 2 users both complained that there's an entrance and exit to a carpark. The entrance bring st the same location as a pedestrian crossing and junction was ignored.

it's simple, assuming we're still talking about the airport road - if i cycle on the road, i don't have to yield to traffic from a car park, but if i use the cycle path, i do - which inverts the usual (and sensible) convention that traffic on the lesser route yields to traffic on the main route. it's a stark illustration that cycling is considered a lesser form of transport. that cars must take priority, even if it means upending sensible traffic handling conventions.

so i use the road. it's perfectly legal, and it's faster.

i've yet to see an argument that can adequately explain why the current layout is better than having the cars yield to the cyclists at the above sections.

magicbastarder

there's a hypothetical situation i've wondered about. let's take this example, what appears to be a maintenance entrance not that far away (one i've never seen being used, but maybe it's used at specific times).

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4208599,-6.2332932,71m/data=!3m1!1e3

if i am cycling on the cycle path at say 25km/h, and a vehicle comes up behind me and cuts across me - am i in the wrong for failing to have yielded? in normal circumstances, traffic making a turn has to yield to any parallel traffic which is not turning or maintaining lane, so in this instance, despite me intending to go straight on, i've to check behind me to see if there's someone who has right of way over me. it's nuts. far easier to go with the convention that everyone is used to; this configuration would not be tolerated were it carrying motorised traffic.

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

To have equality, it includes junctions and yield signs. What you want, isn't feasible in a city.

Speaking of equality, have you ever seen a traffic lane with yield signs every 2m or 3m like the cycle lane that you couldn't see any problem with?

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh dear, picking on 78 year olds set in their way will really win you battles for better infrastructure. What are other strategies? Kicking an odd dog or stealing sweets from kids?

Never underestimate the entitlement level of the well off older Irish lady

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1279161309930668034?s=19

Hurrache

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So AGAIN you are demanding that all cycle lanes never stop for anyone else. How far should this continues cycle Lane be?

You're a clown. You have to be, I mean why else would you be displaying a spectacular failure to grasp a very very simple bit of logic.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Never underestimate the entitlement level of the well off older Irish lady

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1279161309930668034?s=19

Do you really think I'm that dumb that I need some Twitter explanation. I was perfectly able to read the original article which clearly states she can apply for one of the parking spots. The complaint is nonsense (and article nonstory as someone said) but if you think it's sensible to pick on some 78 year who is doing a bit of whinging then go ahead.

As for entitled old ladies, they know who to vote to get their voices heard.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you really think I'm that dumb that I need some Twitter explanation. I was perfectly able to read the original article which clearly states she can apply for one of the parking spots. The complaint is nonsense (and article nonstory as someone said) but if you think it's sensible to pick on some 78 year who is doing a bit of whinging then go ahead.

As for entitled old ladies, they know who to vote to get their voices heard.

The purpose of the post wasn't just for you. The fact of the existence of the car park just three minutes walk away was new information, worthy of sharing IMHO.

You're dead right about the voting strength.

Idleater

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a hypothetical situation i've wondered about. let's take this example, what appears to be a maintenance entrance not that far away (one i've never seen being used, but maybe it's used at specific times).

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4208599,-6.2332932,71m/data=!3m1!1e3

if i am cycling on the cycle path at say 25km/h, and a vehicle comes up behind me and cuts across me - am i in the wrong for failing to have yielded? in normal circumstances, traffic making a turn has to yield to any parallel traffic which is not turning or maintaining lane, so in this instance, despite me intending to go straight on, i've to check behind me to see if there's someone who has right of way over me. it's nuts. far easier to go with the convention that everyone is used to; this configuration would not be tolerated were it carrying motorised traffic.

This.

In the Netherlands, there are two stop lines, one before the cycle lane, and one before the road. The (mandatory) cycle lane continues with the priority of the roads. A junction from a road that has lower priority must yield twice. Exiting the road that crosses a cycle lane, must give way to cyclists on that lane, even if it is set back N number of meters (to allow for two safe yield lines). For cyclists, such an S diversion at a junction is the small price to pay for (almost) equal status with vehicular traffic. As well as the mandatory aspect of the cycle lanes, there is protection from being designated vulnerable road users and benefit from safer (and less) interactions with vehicular traffic.

On roads (such as that back road at the airport) where say there is no need (due to lower traffic demand) or space, roadways are marked with a cycle lane in each direction, and no central lane divider. This establishes one driving lane for both directions, and vehicles may cross (dashed) lines when encountering an oncoming vehicle. This is often how country roads are demarcated.

That is how mandatory cycle lanes can and do work.

devnull

A reminder that all posters should be focusing on the post that has been made and not on the poster who has been making it. All posters should also be civil to each other and avoid getting too emotionally charged.

- Moderator

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's simple, assuming we're still talking about the airport road - if i cycle on the road, i don't have to yield to traffic from a car park, but if i use the cycle path, i do - which inverts the usual (and sensible) convention that traffic on the lesser route yields to traffic on the main route. it's a stark illustration that cycling is considered a lesser form of transport. that cars must take priority, even if it means upending sensible traffic handling conventions.

so i use the road. it's perfectly legal, and it's faster.

i've yet to see an argument that can adequately explain why the current layout is better than having the cars yield to the cyclists at the above sections.

Ok, I see your point and there's validity to it but pedestrians are also supposed to give way to the same traffic because the path ends at the kerb.

My point to you is that using the road isn't quicker because at that same location there is both a pedestrian crossing and a crossroads controlled by lights. As a result, you need to stop for either other traffic or pedestrians.

So no matter what option, you may need to stop for other people.

Moving on, let's be realistic about it. The city can only accommodate so much and there's junctions, lights, crossings and entrances all over the place. No matter what cycle Lane is utilised, they will involve stopping for others.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Speaking of equality, have you ever seen a traffic lane with yield signs every 2m or 3m like the cycle lane that you couldn't see any problem with?

Your point means nothing when you need to exaggerate to make it.

magicbastarder

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So no matter what option, you may need to stop for other people.

Moving on, let's be realistic about it. The city can only accommodate so much and there's junctions, lights, crossings and entrances all over the place. No matter what cycle Lane is utilised, they will involve stopping for others.

having to stop was never the issue.

the issue is that they turn standard logic on how those interactions should happen on their head.
either it's an intentional 'cars are more important than you and we can't have cars yielding to you'; or a more likely 'no-one who worked on how this road layout should look, actually cycles so we don't even stop to consider that this is nonsensical'.
i.e. that layout was designed by professionals who were given a brief to design a nice wide shared cycle path and footpath, and they made basic mistakes in how yields at 'junctions' work, deliberate or not. and that stretch of cycle path is held up as a *good* example of one.

like i mentioned, if motorised traffic was treated like that there'd be derision.

and as previously mentioned in the thread, if you are heading on to swords, the cycle path becomes one of the most derisory ones in the entire county, the other side of the main airport roundabout.

Idleater

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your point means nothing when you need to exaggerate to make it.

The analogy made earlier in the thread with the left hand lane of a dual carriageway being directed up and over is equivalent. Given that "keep left" is not constantly being enforced, how many vehicles would comply?

Hurrache

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ok, I see your point and there's validity to it but pedestrians are also supposed to give way to the same traffic because the path ends at the kerb.

My point to you is that using the road isn't quicker because at that same location there is both a pedestrian crossing and a crossroads controlled by lights. As a result, you need to stop for either other traffic or pedestrians.

So no matter what option, you may need to stop for other people.

Moving on, let's be realistic about it. The city can only accommodate so much and there's junctions, lights, crossings and entrances all over the place. No matter what cycle Lane is utilised, they will involve stopping for others.

If you're on the cycle lane you have to yield and cede priority to every single side and minor road and premises entrance and exit, not withstanding having to use pedestrian crossings to cross junctions.

If you cycle in the road two or thee feet away you have priority over all these, just like motorised traffic.

It has nothing to do with not wanting to stop at traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or when you want to join a road of greater importance.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

having to stop was never the issue.

the issue is that they turn standard logic on how those interactions should happen on their head.
either it's an intentional 'cars are more important than you and we can't have cars yielding to you'; or a more likely 'no-one who worked on how this road layout should look, actually cycles so we don't even stop to consider that this is nonsensical'.
i.e. that layout was designed by professionals who were given a brief to design a nice wide shared cycle path and footpath, and they made basic mistakes in how yields at 'junctions' work, deliberate or not. and that stretch of cycle path is held up as a *good* example of one.

like i mentioned, if motorised traffic was treated like that there'd be derision.

and as previously mentioned in the thread, if you are heading on to swords, the cycle path becomes one of the most derisory ones in the entire county, the other side of the main airport roundabout.

It was I that pointed that out. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm asking what logical and realistic solutions people have.

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It was I that pointed that out. I'm well aware of the issues, I'm asking what logical and realistic solutions people have.

A good start would be for Gardai to start enforcing traffic laws, so the pavement parking shown earlier doesn't happen as a matter of routine.

Tea drinker

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Too many times that has happened to me, saw s cyclist and a driver get into a serious dust up as a result, thankfully I "wasn't able to identify" the cyclist for the popo as the driver was 100% in the wrong driving like a 5 year old

It's fairly stupid inexcusable driving. But shoe on the other foot it's not unusual to see a vehicle having to stop while a series of cyclists illegally undertake a car turning left (and indicating left in good time) before one decent person lets the car pass.

The other thing I hate is when cyclists start hammering cars roof or mirror when there is no cycling lane or room for 2 road users (unless cyclists 2 abreast)
Ridiculous to see a car stopped at a light, with good road positioning only for some lunatic to arrive trying to beat their way into non existent space on the left of the car.

Casey78

Tea drinker wrote: »

It's fairly stupid inexcusable driving. But shoe on the other foot it's not unusual to see a vehicle having to stop while a series of cyclists illegally undertake a car turning left (and indicating left in good time) before one decent person lets the car pass.

The other thing I hate is when cyclists start hammering cars roof or mirror when there is no cycling lane or room for 2 road users (unless cyclists 2 abreast)
Ridiculous to see a car stopped at a light, with good road positioning only for some lunatic to arrive trying to beat their way into non existent space on the left of the car.

Careful now, you are not allowed to say things like that on this thread...
A big dose of whataboutery about to come your way I reckon....

Hurrache

Tea drinker wrote: »

cyclists illegally undertake a car turning left (and indicating left in good time) before one decent person lets the car pass.

Illegal you say...

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's simple, assuming we're still talking about the airport road - if i cycle on the road, i don't have to yield to traffic from a car park, but if i use the cycle path, i do - which inverts the usual (and sensible) convention that traffic on the lesser route yields to traffic on the main route. it's a stark illustration that cycling is considered a lesser form of transport. that cars must take priority, even if it means upending sensible traffic handling conventions.

so i use the road. it's perfectly legal, and it's faster.

i've yet to see an argument that can adequately explain why the current layout is better than having the cars yield to the cyclists at the above sections.

There is none. Crazy that a cyclist in a cycle lane should have to yield to someone coming in or out of a car park.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's how you do these works safely, minimising the impact on people who need footpaths and don't have the flexibility to hop out into the road - older people, wheelchair users, parents pushing buggies, people using walking frames and more.

Pretty much the point we've been making about cyclists on footpaths, too. You may finally be getting it?

magicbastarder

Hurrache wrote: »

Illegal you say...

overtaking on the left is legal, but not if the motorist has indicated their intention to turn left and if you would not be able to complete the overtake in time before they start turning.