Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

magicbastarder wrote: »

i, for one, am heartened that a thread and about cycling safety is still going after over two and a half thousand posts. you must have a lot of constructive feedback to present, it's great to see people so interested and invested in cycling.

Funny, I thought the thread was about pedestrian safety from cyclists on footpaths?

magicbastarder

satire, it is dead.

GT89

07Lapierre wrote: »

Making cycle lanes mandatory? The vast majority of our cycle lanes are not safe, not fit for purpose etc. That's why they are not mandatory.

Also, sometimes cyclists have to turn right...that's easier to do if your in the right hand lane.

I'm talking about where the cycle lanes are safe eg in the case I'm talking about where half the road is now a cycle lane. This can be decided on a case by case basis in conjunction with cycling groups and enforced by local bylaws

TaurenDruid

GT89 wrote: »

I'm talking about where the cycle lanes are safe eg in the case I'm talking about where half the road is now a cycle lane. This can be decided on a case by case basis in conjunction with cycling groups and enforced by local bylaws

Indeed. Like, for example, Stephen's Green South. Five foot wide cycle lane, in excellent condition. Still, we get muppets on the footpath. North Strand Road, concrete wall separating a decent concrete cycle path going up a hill from traffic, cyclists still on the bus lane, holding up 70+ people. (This is apparently fine, because sometimes delivery trucks might park on the cycle lane).

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver.

Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?

This is a thread about cyclists, so maybe we should actually be focusing on getting cyclists to take responsibility for their cycling, rather than deflecting.

Thargor

How do these cycle lanes end though? Irish cycle lanes are beyond pathetic, even an ultra-rare "good" one only ever lasts for about 30 seconds of actual riding before they encounter an obstacle/yield/unsafe reentry onto road/parked cars/delivery trucks/bus stops or just a good old unexplained end of lane because of the non-joined up piecemeal way they're designed and built in this country, what kind of situation does the cyclist find themselves forced into at the end of these amazing cycle lanes? Please give examples. Would it by any chance be easier and safer to just stay on the road and enjoy the actual joined up and planned routes that we are perfectly entitled to use?

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

This is a thread about cyclists, so maybe we should actually be focusing on getting cyclists to take responsibility for their cycling, rather than deflecting.

What problem would we be trying to solve with that approach? The one death per decade at the hands of cyclists? Though indeed one of the two deaths in the past two decades occurred on the road, so it's actually half that rate - one death every twenty years.

So more people are killed by motorists in the average week than are killed by cyclists in the past twenty years. More people are killed by bees and wasps than are killed by cyclists.

Do you think we're focusing on one of the important issues of our time here?

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

This is a thread about cyclists, so maybe we should actually be focusing on getting cyclists to take responsibility for their cycling, rather than deflecting.

Who says cyclists aren't? What is it even supposed to mean taking responsibility?

Should we ask motorists to take responsibility for their "actions" what ever that is supposed to mean? Should motorists(which most cyclists are also) take responsibility for some drivers using motorways as race tracks, killing people on weekly basis, breaking the law every day on mass? The same for any other subset of people? Should we be going out doing a citizens arrests? Should good landlords go out and take responsibility for bad landlords by doing citizens arrests of bad landlords etc etc?

Your post is fairly meaningless when you look at the implications of what you are saying.

07Lapierre

GT89 wrote: »

I'm talking about where the cycle lanes are safe eg in the case I'm talking about where half the road is now a cycle lane. This can be decided on a case by case basis in conjunction with cycling groups and enforced by local bylaws

That one lane you refer to is pretty good in fairness. There are lots of video's on line that show it is used by the vast majority of cyclists taking that route.

TaurenDruid

Thargor wrote: »

How do these cycle lanes end though? Irish cycle lanes are beyond pathetic, even an ultra-rare "good" one only ever lasts for about 30 seconds of actual riding before they encounter an obstacle/yield/unsafe reentry onto road/parked cars/delivery trucks/bus stops or just a good old unexplained end of lane because of the non-joined up piecemeal way they're designed and built in this country, what kind of situation does the cyclist find themselves forced into at the end of these amazing cycle lanes? Please give examples. Would it by any chance be easier and safer to just stay on the road and enjoy the actual joined up and planned routes that we are perfectly entitled to use?

The North Strand one brings you into a bus lane right before a junction with traffic lights and excellent visibility. No reason whatsoever to not use the cycle path.

The Stephen's Green South one turns onto an equally wide Stephens Green East lane, which continues on to Stephen's Green North, where it narrows to normal cycle lane width. Admittedly there is danger on Stephen's Green North - I've mentioned the frequency of people going the wrong way down the one-way Stephen's Green North before. Though that's all cyclists.

TaurenDruid

PeadarCo wrote: »

Who says cyclists aren't? What is it even supposed to mean taking responsibility?

Should we ask motorists to take responsibility for their "actions" what ever that is supposed to mean? Should motorists(which most cyclists are also) take responsibility for some drivers using motorways as race tracks, killing people on weekly basis, breaking the law every day on mass? The same for any other subset of people? Should we be going out doing a citizens arrests? Should good landlords go out and take responsibility for bad landlords by doing citizens arrests of bad landlords etc etc?

Your post is fairly meaningless when you look at the implications of what you are saying.

Agreed, it's exactly as meaningless as the post from Andy that I was parodying.

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

<Delete lies, damn lies and statistics nonsense>

Do you think we're focusing on one of the important issues of our time here?

My cake is very big and can have many slices.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Indeed. Like, for example, Stephen's Green South. Five foot wide cycle lane, in excellent condition. Still, we get muppets on the footpath. North Strand Road, concrete wall separating a decent concrete cycle path going up a hill from traffic, cyclists still on the bus lane, holding up 70+ people. (This is apparently fine, because sometimes delivery trucks might park on the cycle lane).

We've been here before.. the fact that you give the excuse for a bike lane at North Strand as an example of a "descent cycle path" speaks volumes.

TaurenDruid

07Lapierre wrote: »

We've been here before.. the fact that you give the excuse for a bike lane at North Strand as an example of a "descent cycle path" speaks volumes.

It is a decent cycle path. Most cyclists manage to use it, just fine. A significant minority would rather hold up buses.

magicbastarder

are you still talking about the north strand cycle lane which drops cyclists going straight on, on the inside of left turning traffic, from behind a wall?

Effects

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you still talking about the north strand cycle lane which drops cyclists going straight on, on the inside of left turning traffic, from behind a wall?

You mean at Newcomen Bridge? Half the time you can't use that section as there's cars or trucks parked on the footpath/cyclepath.

TaurenDruid

Effects wrote: »

You mean at Newcomen Bridge? Half the time you can't use that section as there's cars or trucks parked on the footpath/cyclepath.

Half the time? Lol, no, that's a massive exaggeration!

Even if there is a truck parked there, is it still not easier and safer to cycle up the path and around a stationary truck than on the road with, what is it again, "2.5 tonne death machines"?

magicbastarder wrote:

are you still talking about the north strand cycle lane which drops cyclists going straight on, on the inside of left turning traffic, from behind a wall?

The wall is low. You're on a bike. You have excellent visibility there. A small amount of traffic turns left, and if it's going straight on, it won't be in the bus lane (well... maybe. If it's not a BMW or Audi.)

News at 10, this just in: Sometimes, when you are on a bike, or in a car, or even are just a pedestrian, you have to yield to others, for their safety and yours.

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Half the time? Lol, no, that's a massive exaggeration!

Even if there is a truck parked there, is it still not easier and safer to cycle up the path and around a stationary truck than on the road with, what is it again, "2.5 tonne death machines"?



The wall is low. You're on a bike. You have excellent visibility there. A small amount of traffic turns left, and if it's going straight on, it won't be in the bus lane (well... maybe. If it's not a BMW or Audi.)

News at 10, this just in: Sometimes, when you are on a bike, or in a car, or even are just a pedestrian, you have to yield to others, for their safety and yours.

And here's a newsflash why would anyone use a dangerous road/cycle lane when there is perfectly good road right beside it.

The issue with visibility for left hand turns junctions is not for bikes its for cars and other vehicles. There have been numerous deaths over the last few years because a drivers have crashed into cyclists going straight on at junctions that include a left hand turn. Because a driver couldn't see/had poor visibility of the cyclist and due to the speed of vehicle in question couldn't react in time to avoid a collision.

By being out on the road a cyclist can take the centre of the lane eliminating the visibility problem and also making it a lot clearer to other road users.

The issue with badly designed cycle lanes is they are dangerous. Experienced cyclists will naturally avoid them. However inexperienced cyclists will use them putting themselves in danger. Some of the these people will get injured a handful will get killed. It also gives people who are clueless about bike and road safety an excuse to complain. Finally they are also a waste of money that could be better spent on plenty of other things.

magicbastarder

why would i use that option so and take the chance? i'm perfectly legally allowed to use the road, and if i'm going to be required to play with traffic, i'm going to bring my ball and make them play with me. rather than ask them to pass it to me as a favour.

asking a mode of transport to change lanes like that, to merge into a left turning lane, from the left, while going straight on is bananas.
and doing so when left turning traffic has been shown (as per the post immediately above) to be specifically dangerous to cyclists is really just contemptuous of the safety of cyclists.

magicbastarder

thinking about it, i can only think of one example of where lanes for motorised traffic was asked to do the same - to actually cross over each other's paths - and it was met with some derision at the time.
that was on bachelor's walk, where the bus lane was going to switch from being the leftmost lane approaching o'connell bridge, to cut over to the rightmost lane, and the normal traffic lane was going to be required to do the converse - so there would actually be a crossover of lanes. not sure if that actually went ahead.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is a decent cycle path. Most cyclists manage to use it, just fine. A significant minority would rather hold up buses.

Bloody bus drivers! Someone should teach them how to overtake! I mean if a professional driver can’t overtake a slow moving cyclist?

Duckjob

If you pointed out that 100m long piece of cycle path on Nth Strand to a dutch person as an example of "usable" infrastructure they'd p*ss themselves and ask you where the real bike path is.

07Lapierre

Duckjob wrote: »

If you pointed out that 100m long piece of cycle path on Nth Strand to a dutch person as an example of "usable" infrastructure they'd p*ss themselves and ask you where the real bike path is.

I disagree. You don’t have to be Dutch! Most reasonable people can clearly see it’s just paint on a very old, narrow pavement.

Effects

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Half the time? Lol, no, that's a massive exaggeration!

Even if there is a truck parked there, is it still not easier and safer to cycle up the path and around a stationary truck than on the road.

It's not an exaggeration really, I pass that way every morning on my route to work.
I'd rather not have to share a reduced foot/cyclepath space with other pedestrians, people exiting from the shops etc.
It's badly designed and of no real benefit to cyclists or other road users.

The wall is low. You're on a bike. You have excellent visibility there.

The problem is you being visible to drivers. The wall blocks drivers from being able to see you clearly. A huge amount of drivers pay no attention to more vulnerable road users anyway, and the wall makes it worse.

magicbastarder

We've gone from a debate about cyclists cycling on the path being a menace, to one where cyclists are being given out to for not cycling on the path.

magicbastarder

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Even if there is a truck parked there, is it still not easier and safer to cycle up the path and around a stationary truck than on the road

No, it's not safer, and why would it be easier?
I avoid parked trucks. Too much scope for someone coming out from behind them with a hand truck, or for a door on the truck to swing or blow open. Easier to stay in lane, well, because it's easier, and safer too because I can take the lane and significantly reduce the chance of being left hooked by someone who hasn't had their coffee.

TaurenDruid

magicbastarder wrote: »

We've gone from a debate about cyclists cycling on the path being a menace, to one where cyclists are being given out to for not cycling on the path.

Not cycling on the cycle path. Jesus, what is it about sitting on a bicycle saddle that turns you all into absolute pedants?!

And yes, really, sometimes you need to give away. It's not like you're on a waterslide being shot out into non-stop traffic. You're able to see what's coming, and can merge safely.

I know cyclists absolutely hate losing momentum, but, well, that's the price we all have to pay for obeying the rules of the road.

Lapierre, Effects - I also pass it every day. It's a wide path, compared to most, with plenty of room for a cycle path and pedestrians. It's really not blocked half the time.

gibgodsman

I cycle to work every single day to and from, sometimes to and from 4 times in a day if I go home for lunch. I literally never use the roads and always use the paths, I do not feel safe at all using roads and do not trust any drivers on such.

I do not fly past anyone on the path either, I take paths that are usually fairly empty but if there is anyone on them I would slow down to almost a stop and let them past if they are coming towards me and otherwise I would slow down behind them to their pace and once the road is clear go on it to pass them

In Dublin maybe its different, but in Navan its impossible to cycle on the roads and not fear for your life

PeadarCo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Not cycling on the cycle path. Jesus, what is it about sitting on a bicycle saddle that turns you all into absolute pedants?!

And yes, really, sometimes you need to give away. It's not like you're on a waterslide being shot out into non-stop traffic. You're able to see what's coming, and can merge safely.

I know cyclists absolutely hate losing momentum, but, well, that's the price we all have to pay for obeying the rules of the road.

Lapierre, Effects - I also pass it every day. It's a wide path, compared to most, with plenty of room for a cycle path and pedestrians. It's really not blocked half the time.

The issue is not losing momentum, the issue with badly designed cycle lanes is danger of serious injury or death for those stupid enough/inexperienced enough to use them.

Good quality and well designed cycling infrastructure is used. I'd point out the Clontarf cycle lane and the Phoenix Park since they've removed parking from Chesterfield avenue. In case of the Phoenix Park all they had to do was get rid of parking which cost 0. Its also benefited pedestrians as the location of the old cycle lane and parking resulted in a lot of pedestrian cyclists conflicts. This resulted in the death of a cyclist in a collision with a pedestrian on the old cycle lane.

07Lapierre

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Lapierre, Effects - I also pass it every day. It's a wide path, compared to most, with plenty of room for a cycle path and pedestrians. It's really not blocked half the time.

I pass a farm everyday, that doesn't mean i know anything about Farming!

Come back to us when you've cycled along this road every day for a few months. That is, come back to us when you know what your actually talking about.