Roads that badly need cycle lanes - Dublin

edanto

So, where are the places in Dublin that most need cycle lanes?

If we make a long list, it could be sent into Dublin City Council and they might prioritise the building. If we don't tell them, they'll never know.

So, off the top of my head, Pearse St is crying out for one.

Where else?

btw... a dutch idea here by metrobest might be tempting for anyone with a big can of spraypaint

Thomond Pk

Edanto,

I would add, Aungier St and the top of Georges St.

College Green & College St

Tara St, Beresford Place

Capel St really

Nassau St-South Leinster St ( A very possible Contra Flow Sth L only) Clare St

Pembroke St Upper & Lower

I also like the new plastic stumps with the cats eyes that are used to segregate the bus contra flow on Stephens Green, these should be used on all 24-7 cycle lanes and only broken for bus-stops, loading bays and turns.

I cycled but after a couple of years I decided my life was worth more, I wish you all safe cycling.

cyclopath2001

Try here: http://www.dto.ie/cyclemap.htm

edanto

I hadn't heard of those cat eyes, they seem like a great idea. Obvious stuff like that on the roads will keep cars out of cycle lanes.

Another place for a convenient contra flow would be northbound over the bridge at the IFSC. Bikes could join traffic at Busaras and that would give a convenient route out of the city bypassing a lot of the traffic at Pearse/Tara St.

@cyclopath2001 Cheers for the link. Didn't know of it, I've sent them a mail about the thread here.

Stark

Better cycle lanes on the N3 would be nice. There are some cycle lanes on the footpath but they don't leave space for pedestrians.

cyclopath2001

edanto wrote:

Another place for a convenient contra flow would be northbound over the bridge at the IFSC.

There is one there already and it's dangerous as heck.

You might not have noticed it, it's on the footpath on left hand side of the Matt Talbot bridge (if you're going North). The statutory road sign and left and right boundary markings (e.g. RRM022) are absent but the familiar dusting of red asphalt is there with a bicycle logo showing its top to the North.

What makes this one fun is that the right-hand edge has an immediate 6-inch drop onto the road and oncoming traffic. I'd say the experience of riding it at night into the headlinghts of oncoming traffic must be terrifying. More fun too, is that at the junction with the Customs House, there are markings showing it to be a cycle track in the opposite (North-South) direction too, even though it's only wide enough for one bicycle!

This is what can be classified as a 'Deniable' cycle track, due to the absence of statutory signs.

Use at your own risk.

Victor

Thomond Pk wrote:

I also like the new plastic stumps

"Flexible bollards" or as I like to call them "floppy bollards".

Sarsfield

Victor wrote:

"Flexible bollards" or as I like to call them "floppy bollards".

Ugly bollards.

There must be a more aesthetically pleasing solution.

robfitz

As Irish cyclists we should not support the construction of any more cycle tracks, cycle lanes and cycleways until:

* The mandatory use legislation is removed.
* The proper inforcement of all road traffic legislation, i.e. driving and parking on cycle facilities, speeding, drink driving.
* All cycle facilities should operate 24/7.
* Recognize that cycling is a vaild mode of transport and focus on integrating cycling into all aspects of our transport policy and other lifestyle policy's.
* The Rules of the Road is updated to include detailed sections for cyclists and pedestrians, it would then form the basis for all motorists, cyclists and pedestrian training and testing.
* The DTO cycle design manual is completely redeveloped. We need to find Irish solutioins to Irish problems, taking input from international best practice (hierarchy of measures, etc.), instead of trying to imposing foreign designs.
* If the DTO cycle design manual is a national document it should receive input from national cyclists.
* All existing cycle facilities need to be reviewed against the new design manual and substandard facilities removed or upgraded.
* Define a reasonably advanced design cyclist. We don't build facilities for learner motorists we expect them to learn quickly to integrate with normal traffic flows. We should expect the same from cyclists, though this does not exclude the construction of extra facilities for less experenced cyclists.
* The current fixation on building more cycle facilities as a way of promoting cycling needs to change, we need quality not quantity when it comes to cycle facilities.
* Stop focusing on the negative perceived safety issues facing cyclists. Cycling can be promoted under a number of other topics including health, environmental, economic, social, recreational, speed and fun.
* Listen and talk with our cycling population, if your not a cyclist you are unlikely to know what cyclists need and want.

Over the last ten years or so the local and national governments have shown that the don't have a clue or interest in cycling, with every meter of white line or red dash. We should not support the continuation of these shocking practices.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

Over the last ten years or so the local and national governments have shown that the don't have a clue or interest in cycling, with every meter of white line or red dash. We should not support the continuation of these shocking practices.

If any progress is to be made, the practice of building unlawful cycling 'facilities' such as those perpetrated by Fingal County Council & Dublin City Council, should be stopped and those responsible prevented from putting cyclists in danger.

It may be legal for councils to design bad cycle tracks in the absence of enforceable standards, but I've seen numerous facilities 'built' by councils that do not comply with the law. If a building is built in breach of regulations, there's a penalty, so why not when road engineers ignore the laws for cycle tracks?

murphaph

I've also seen some right fu(k ups.

The Castaheany Interchange over the N3 at Clonee is a classic. It used to be a 'dumbell' type junction with 2-way traffic over the bridge and 2 small roundabouts either side of it (standard enough setup). This was modified with the removal of the roundabouts and installation of traffic lights on both ends of the bridge. There was also a one way system instigated with vehicular traffic only allowed to cross the bridge going northbound. This clearly left FCC in a quandry about bicycles wishing to travel southbound over the bridge as the long way round is quite a distance.

They decided to install a 'bike only' traffic light which grants a cyclist permission to go straight ahead while vehicles must turn right or left. The problem is that you must pass under a no entry sign and over 'no entry' road markings to reach the bridge footpath which has no markings or signage to indicate it's now a cycle lane. You realise you were just on a cycle lane when you get to the other side of the bridge and find another 'bike only' taffic light to let you cross the road AT THE SAME TIME as vehicles turn onto the road, usually startling the driver who meets you!

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote:

There was also a one way system instigated with vehicular traffic only allowed to cross the bridge going northbound. This clearly left FCC in a quandry about bicycles wishing to travel southbound over the bridge as the long way round is quite a distance.....They decided to install a 'bike only' traffic light which grants a cyclist permission to go straight ahead while vehicles must turn right or left.

Did the signs say 'vehicles only'? Bicycles ARE, by law, vehicles.

The only places they can be excluded from the road are motorways and roads which have a legally constructed cycle track going in the same direction as the cyclists. Sometimes the councils use 'advisory signs' such as 'vehicular traffic only' to bluff cyclists off the road and avoid responsibility for neglecting to make the road safe for all road-users.

Thomond Pk

cyclopath2001 wrote:

"Flexible bollards" or as I like to call them "floppy bollards".

Thanks for that Victor, I was trying to think of the name but it eluded me.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Did the signs say 'vehicles only'? Bicycles ARE, by law, vehicles.

The only places they can be excluded from the road are motorways and roads which have a legally constructed cycle track going in the same direction as the cyclists. Sometimes the councils use 'advisory signs' such as 'vehicular traffic only' to bluff cyclists off the road and avoid responsibility for neglecting to make the road safe for all road-users.

Bicycles are only vehicles to a point insomuchas they don't require insurance. I agree on the status of the signs as the 'Vehicular Traffic only' sign doesn't feature in the driver theory test manuel and if it were a legally binding rule on a national basis it would.

The lack of segregation between cyclists and vehicular traffic is causing accidents and this situation needs to be examined. I am an ex-cyclist and will remain so until I feel that I am safe. An little stretch of red asphalt surface is not sufficient protection. The fact is that most motorist completely ignore the 'unbroken white line' designation, it is an offence to break an unbroken white line.

cyclopath2001

Thomond Pk wrote:

Bicycles are only vehicles to a point insomuchas they don't require insurance....The lack of segregation between cyclists and vehicular traffic is causing accidents and this situation needs to be examined.

While I'd agree that everyone of us should decide, within the law, how & where to drive our vehicles (incl bicycles) in a way that is safe for ourselves & others, legally, bicycles are vehicles in almost every way that a car is. Mostly, the same obligations and privileges apply. As citizens, cyclists have equal rights with car drivers, irrespective of how much tax either pays.

It is not the lack of segregation that causes accidents. The primary cause is selfish, inconsiderate and unsafe driving by motorists. The kind of segregation being practiced by the council is every bit as odious as the 'separate but equal' policies of apartheid states.

murphaph

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Did the signs say 'vehicles only'? Bicycles ARE, by law, vehicles.

No, the signs were standard no entry signs.

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote:

No, the signs were standard no entry signs...to reach the bridge footpath which has no markings or signage to indicate it's now a cycle lane.....

Sounds like a right mess. I'm not sure if that's a 'Brigadoon' cycle track (invisible except to council mandarins) or a 'Deniable' cycle track (invisible to council lawyers).....

Thomond Pk

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It is not the lack of segregation that causes accidents. The primary cause is selfish, inconsiderate and unsafe driving by motorists. The kind of segregation being practiced by the council is every bit as odious as the 'separate but equal' policies of apartheid states.

The lack of observence of cycle lanes by drivers and the absolute lack of enforcement of same are undeniably the cause of the problem. The only viable solution is a method of segregation that deters motorists and requires little enforcement. An unbroken white line has failed miserably in this regard, it is time for City Councils to bring out the flexible bollards or admit that cyclists are getting screwed.

robfitz

Thomond Pk wrote:

Bicycles are only vehicles to a point insomuchas they don't require insurance.

Your wrong "pedal cycle" means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;, Road Traffic Act, 1961.

Thomond Pk wrote:

The lack of segregation between cyclists and vehicular traffic is causing accidents and this situation needs to be examined.

Accidents are caused by bad driving by motorists or bad cycling by cyclists.

There is contention in relation to the segregation of cyclists I would sugguest you read up a bit more on the problem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities and http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html.

Thomond Pk wrote:

I am an ex-cyclist and will remain so until I feel that I am safe.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I also wonder if non-cyclists just use the perceived safety issue as an excuse not to cycle, even though they never will.

Thomond Pk

The first point I was making was that bicycles are entirely different to motorised transport as illustrated by the requirement for insurance for one class of vehicle and not for another is merely indicative of the potential damage one class of vehicle is capable of compared to another used prudently.

I don't have to read any articles to know the difference between an un-observed painted lane and a system that has the potential to increase cyclist safety dramatically. Before you ask I cycled 40 cross miles a day for nearly two years and I know just how tempting it is for motorists to use the cycle lane as a gap to skip traffic as they sit in endless lines of cars and watch cyclists zooming by, the move into the lane as protected by no more than a line of paint renders these painted lanes entirely useless much if not most of the time.

I am an ex-cyclist becuase it is dangerous and I am lucky enough to live 20 minutes walk from where I work, instead of cycling or driving to other jobs I have ensured that I got a place to live close by.

The number of Cycling facilites in Dublin are improving but the quality of same is by and large abysmal.

Metrobest

I agree with RobFitz up to a point, in that cycle lanes alone are not the answer. Even in idyllic Holland, along most of the main city centre canals in Amsterdam (which cars can drive along) there are no cycle lanes. Yet huge numbers of cyclists still use the canals and feel safe doing so. Why is this? My guess is that it is because the cars drive quite slowly, the volume of cars is small (because of prohibitive parking charges, residents' only parking, and outer orbital roads that take cars out of the city centre), there are no HGVs and so on, and the volume of cyclists is large. In other words, perceived levels of comfort and safety of cyclists are a direct result of the volume/nature of traffic using the road, and the speed at which that traffic is traveling. In reality, accidents are caused primarily by cars, not cyclists. The level of injuries sustained by cyclists depend on the speed of the car at the moment of collision. If the speed limit were reduced on city centre streets and feeder roads, not only would the safety levels of cyclists improve, but the actual number of cyclists on the roads would increase, because one of the main fear factors that prevent people from cycling is the feeling that is it unsafe; this fear must be recognised, and destroyed.

Some things can be done. Right now, at practically zero cost to the taxpayer. One way streets given contra-flow cycle lanes. Parking charges massively increased to take cars away from the city centre. Bike-only traffic lights at any junctions where they are needed. And yes, cycle lanes, fully segregated from other traffic. The reason Dublin's cycle lanes have become cycle ghettos is that city planners have put the minimum design standards into the maximum numbers of roads, thereby wasting money and doing nothing for cyclists except endanger them. Done properly - using the design standards common in Holland - cycle lanes would be a huge catylyst in getting Dubliners out of their SUVs and onto bicycles, but this can only done if the city planners get their fingers out.

murphaph

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Sounds like a right mess. I'm not sure if that's a 'Brigadoon' cycle track (invisible except to council mandarins) or a 'Deniable' cycle track (invisible to council lawyers).....

yeah, I noticed today it has an 'end of cycle track' sign at the other end of the bridge, so it ends but it doesn't start!

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote:

yeah, I noticed today it has an 'end of cycle track' sign at the other end of the bridge, so it ends but it doesn't start!

Strangely enough, the 'end of cycle track' sign is not defined in the regulations.....I think you may have found a gateway from another dimension!

Victor

At either end of the scale motorists need to be separated from cyclists.

On motorways and similar routes, cyclists (& pedestrians, horses, etc.) need to be kept separate from the general traffic. The Naas Road widening project (dual three lane + hard shoulder) seems to actually fail in this regard, providing an interchange for everyone in the audience and not providing a through route for non-motorway type (local, agricultural, cycle, learner driver) traffic.

On the other end of the scale motorised through-traffic needs to be completely excluded from most residential, shopping and city-centre areas - make it "over friendly" to small users.

jman0

The title of this thread makes me uncomfortable as a cyclist because it is my observation that DTO prefers the "off-road" cycle track design. Which in my opinion results in a a cycling hazard. So I am dubious about actually pressing them to create more.
Having said that, i actually don't mind the red chalk on-road variety.
The root of the problem cyclists face is the behavior of motorists, and lack of enforcement.
If you put yourself in a different frame of mind, and just cycle/walk around you'll realise the sheer ridiculousness of the state of irish cities and towns, they are a cluster**** of parked cars and vans and it is obvious that another solution is necessary. Relegating other road users (cyclists and pedestrians) second-class is not a solution.

Trojan

Roads that need cycle lanes?

- Fairview to North Strand to Amiens St.
- Swords Rd/Old Airport Rd in Santry

Both areas already have dangerous, on-pavement cycle paths, with a spectacular example being the one in Santry where, at the bottom of a hill, the cycle path goes between a bus shelter and road. I nearly hit a guy who stepped out from the bus shelter. At 17mph (I was braking).

The southbound one in the North Strand isn't so bad, because it's so unbelievable useless that no cyclist even bothers with it. Crossing 3 busy entrances to housing areas, having many pedestrians walking in the lane, and dumping the cyclist back into traffic just at a left turn, where motorists will conveniently turn across you, this is a candidate for best cycle lane ever.

arrietty

Trojan wrote:

The southbound one in the North Strand isn't so bad, because it's so unbelievable useless that no cyclist even bothers with it. Crossing 3 busy entrances to housing areas, having many pedestrians walking in the lane, and dumping the cyclist back into traffic just at a left turn, where motorists will conveniently turn across you, this is a candidate for best cycle lane ever.

Yep, I'm with you there. I take that route daily. I hate it. It scares the hell out of me.

Also, coming down the Malahide Road to Fairview Park. Since it's a lovely long downhill ride, it's easy to get a nice speed up - the fact that there's no proper cycle lane, just two lanes of gridlock and a bus lane really annoys me. The bus lane is full of, um, buses, which stop pretty frequently and are kinda impassible once they've done so... and taxi drivers, a number of whom seem to have something in for cyclists.
There's a cycle lane for about ten metres outside Donnycarney church... it's a weird, scary little thing. Stops right before a bus-stop. Nice one.

edanto

I'm impressed by the clarity and number of arguments against the current cylclepath design (particularly those on footpaths, which I rarely use). But there's no doubt that that strip of red tarmac at the side of the road does give us an area of the road which we can lay claim to, particularly if it has a side of floppy bollards. It also makes cyclists more visible on the road.

The points about driver behaviour are true of course, let's all hope they change their ways or at least find ways arond the city. But back to changing the city to make it better for cyclists...

I went to have a look at the contraflow over the Matt Talbot bridge and it's a joke. It is there, but the three roads at the southern end of the bridge are all one way, away from the bridge. There is a cycleway west along city quay that is the only one way for a bike to pedal legally to the southern end of the bridge. But then, a cyclist has to cross three roads to get onto the cycle path on the bridge - and no signage to tell anyone! It's half baked. What it needs is a contra flow down from Pearse St down Moss St, for example. That street is wide enough for a metre wide bike-only lane separated with a raised area of road.

robfitz and cyclopath2001 - I agree with your positions that the cycling infrastructure isn't good enough. That's why I'm trying to put together a list of the most urgent improvements in that infrastructure to send into the council. Will they care? Who knows? But I'll surely feel as if I've done something to vent my frustration at being pushed off the roads by too many cars.

spacetweek

I can't believe that Wikipedia article reckons that cyclist/car accidents increase when you install cycle lanes. I think the best long-term solution is to pedestrianise as much of Dublin as possible. The widening of paths on O'Connell street, taking space away from motorists, is a good step in this direction. I'm not sure but I think cycle lanes are part of this; they appear to have marked some out, but there aren't any bicycle icons on them.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Try here: http://www.dto.ie/cyclemap.htm

That map is crap. I've searched all over the web and am unable to find an up-to-date map of all the cycle lanes that have been installed throughout the city. Maps like the one above are entirely notional and do not show actual progress. I think such a map does not exist. :rolleyes:

Maybe someone should do a physical survey?

robfitz

spacetweek wrote:

Maybe someone should do a physical survey?

I've been working on something like this, checkout the photos at my site http://273k.net/cyclegallery/.

cyclopath2001

spacetweek wrote:

Maybe someone should do a physical survey?

Things are even worse than you think. The figure of '360 km' of cycle track is derived by counting inbound and outbound tracks separately. This means that even on roads where there is a track on one side and not the other, it is counted twice. It also refers to bus-lanes without any spce for cyclists & probably to 'things' that are not in fact cycle tracks at all.

I think that until the people behind the current farce are moved, it's not possible to make real progress for the welfare of cyclists.

Victor

spacetweek wrote:

I can't believe that Wikipedia article reckons that cyclist/car accidents increase when you install cycle lanes.

The problem is many lanes stop before junctions and start well after thaem, abandoning cyclist at junctions, the most dangerous part of a road.

The metric being used by councils is km of cycle track / lane, ignoring the number of junctions.

Metrobest

I think there's probably no point painting extra bits of red stuff onto city centre streets until the real problem is tackled: there are too many cars, not enough roadspace. Something has to give - cars have to be diverted out of the city centre.

The carrot approach has been tried. Public transport has been offered, and rejected. It's time for something more drastic. It's time for less carrot, more stick!

Here's just some of the measures I think are neccessary to take cars out of the city centre...

* Double the hourly charge for car parking between the canals
* One lane, bus-only, on College Green turning into College Street
* Left-turns only for cars on Westmoreland Street
* Left-turns only for cars on D'Olier Street
* Dame Street reduced to two lanes
* Christchurch-Fourcourts (the road running under the arch at Christchurch) becomes two-way
* No left turn for cars from Parliment Street onto Dame Street
* Many extra turning restrictions around St Stephen's Green
* Number of actual parking spaces on city centre streets reduced by 75%
* Number of cycle parking spaces increased correspondingly

These changes would have the effect of making it impossible to drive a car through some of the finest spaces in Dublin city centre, and dominated by pedestrains and cyclists, these spaces would flourish and realise their true potential.

cyclopath2001

Victor wrote:

The problem is many lanes stop before junctions and start well after thaem, abandoning cyclist at junctions, the most dangerous part of a road.

If the cycle-track is off-road, then it's better that it merges back onto the road before the junction. Drivers turning left would never look for cylists going straight on while using off-road track.

This is what happens at the Annesley Bridge (Fairview) junction, except that the on-road section is not marked with the required legally-approved signs. I think they existed originally but the council has neglected to ensure they were reinstated after road works.

The newly constructed track, southbound at Malahide Road/Clare Hall, is a disaster for cyclists. It finishes with a massive 1-metre-wide lamp standard in the middle of the cycle track and no way to rejoin the city-bound flow.

trojan wrote:

The southbound one in the North Strand isn't so bad, because it's so unbelievable useless that no cyclist even bothers with it.

That section is of dubious legality as the council has neglected to use legally-defined signs. The pedestrian/cyclist signs they are using are UK imports and have no legal standing here. So, it is probably another 'Deniable' cycle track.

The metric being used by councils is km of cycle track / lane, ignoring the number of junctions.

The metrics should thake the form of goals in their mission statement such as 'increased number of cycle commuters' and 'decreased number of accident per person/km travelled'. The current problems stem from poor management strategy.

When even newly created cycle tracks are deficient, it's clear that the problems in the city council are systemic and are not going to be rectified by polite representations to people who clearly do not care.

jman0

Metrobest wrote:

I think there's probably no point painting extra bits of red stuff onto city centre streets until the real problem is tackled: there are too many cars, not enough roadspace. Something has to give - cars have to be diverted out of the city centre.

The carrot approach has been tried. Public transport has been offered, and rejected. It's time for something more drastic. It's time for less carrot, more stick!

Here's just some of the measures I think are neccessary to take cars out of the city centre...

* Double the hourly charge for car parking between the canals
* One lane, bus-only, on College Green turning into College Street
* Left-turns only for cars on Westmoreland Street
* Left-turns only for cars on D'Olier Street
* Dame Street reduced to two lanes
* Christchurch-Fourcourts (the road running under the arch at Christchurch) becomes two-way
* No left turn for cars from Parliment Street onto Dame Street
* Many extra turning restrictions around St Stephen's Green
* Number of actual parking spaces on city centre streets reduced by 75%
* Number of cycle parking spaces increased correspondingly

These changes would have the effect of making it impossible to drive a car through some of the finest spaces in Dublin city centre, and dominated by pedestrains and cyclists, these spaces would flourish and realise their true potential.

I agree entirely; with one exception: why allow cars on those streets at all? Ok, maybe Chirstchurch-Fourcourts, but otherwise i'd pedestrianise the lot.

Michael Collins

Why cars are still allowed on O'Connell street is beyond me. It should be bus / cyclist only. It takes far too long for the bus to get down it.

edanto

Michael Collins wrote:

Why cars are still allowed on O'Connell street is beyond me. It should be bus / cyclist only. It takes far too long for the bus to get down it.

Probably will be as soon as the works are finished.

Typing Dutchman

Just dropping a bombshell, but why does Dublin needs cycling tracks? Clearing the roadway from cyclists will allow motorists to catch some speed.

One might consider some sort of reverse thinking: the road is a cycling track and other vehicles are just tolerated as "guests" (narrow the road, paint it purple and rename it "cycling road"). This "bike before car" principle works quite well in the Netherlands.

spacetweek

Metrobest wrote:

The carrot approach has been tried. Public transport has been offered, and rejected. It's time for something more drastic. It's time for less carrot, more stick!

Here's just some of the measures I think are neccessary to take cars out of the city centre...
<snip>

What do you mean, rejected? It hasn't been rejected in the relatively few areas of the city where it's been provided - i'm not including buses as these don't count.

All of your measures sound great, and I'm in favour of a car-free city centre, with taxis/buses/deliveries the only vehicles permitted, but realistically we're looking at at least 10 years down the line. You'd have to build all the metro/dart/luas lines first. Otherwise the city would grind to a halt - sad fact is, this city is currently very car-dependent and there's no point pretending that it's otherwise.

Metrobest

A significant percentage of people, and this is particularly so in Dublin, do not want to use public transport. For them, driving is an attractive option because of free (or low) parking charges, fast (versus bus) speeds, and ease of getting from point to point by car. If you take away some of the advantages of car use by increasing parking charges and making it more difficult to use cars for short journeys into the city centre, there will by default have to be a shift to other modes. Cycling can play a huge role in this, making up for some of the shortcomings of the public transport system.

stonedfluff

just a point i may get hung for where in the rules of the road does it say anything about cycle lanes?
maybe the rules of the road are a little dated and need some slight overhaul.
(I'm competeing for the understatment of the year award by the way.)

Downtime

From Today's Indo.

It's great to see so many new roads for cyclists. I use the word 'roads' advisedly and to emphasise to those who use them that they are road-users and, as such, obliged to obey the rules.
That does not involve riding a bike on the wrong side of the road at midnight without a sliver of a light rear or front - a feat I have now witnessed several times in the last few weeks. Or swerving in and out as they see fit on busy roads - an everyday occurrence. If motorists did it they'd be put off the road.

It's a pity that they are not - no mention of cars swerving onto cyclists to avoid cars turning right, nor of cars taking left turns without looking, or...I could go on.

cyclopath2001

stonedfluff wrote:

just a point i may get hung for where in the rules of the road does it say anything about cycle lanes?
maybe the rules of the road are a little dated and need some slight overhaul.
(I'm competeing for the understatment of the year award by the way.)

Cycle lanes are not mentioned anywhere in the current edition of the rules of the road. The regulations are contained in statutory instruments passed secretly in 1997/1998. The general effect of them is mostly in the interests of keeping as much road-space as possible free for motorists and restricting cyclist movements that would cause inconvenience to them.

Among other things, the regulations impose an obligation on cyclists to use cycle lanes but permit, cars to park and drive along them. The regulations do not require the local authorities to conform to any standards for surface quality or actual usefulness.

Local authorities mostly ignore the regulations and impose their own designs on cyclists. For example, most of the on-footpath cycle facilities do not conform to the statutory regulations.

Perhaps, this is the reason why they've never put the regulations into the 'Rules of the Road' as if people know the rules, it would lead to awkward questions for the authorities.