Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

John_Rambo · 25-09-2016 09:30PM

steamengine wrote: »

There is plenty of scope to improve relations between motorists and cyclists. Today while passing through St. Annes housing estate in Raheny I clocked an SUV, in my mirror, approaching me from my rear. Due to a continuous line of parked cars on the opposite side of the road, the driver considered he did not have enough room to pass me - in actual fact he had, but was holding back. I gave him a hand signal to overtake and pulled in slightly. Net result a 'cheery beep' from his horn, on passing - acknowledged by a wave back from me. Everyone a winner.

Ha! That was me!! (I think)... All Saints road, ramps and roundabouts, lots of parked cars, no point in overtaking really. I was in a greyish Landrover with a bulky roof rack.

You gotta cycle to know how to drive properly around cyclists.

steamengine · 25-09-2016 10:09PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ha! That was me!! (I think)... All Saints road, ramps and roundabouts, lots of parked cars, no point in overtaking really. I was in a greyish Landrover with a bulky roof rack.

You gotta cycle to know how to drive properly around cyclists.

Wade's Avenue actually, never mind - if you see a hybrid with a mirror that's probably me. Beep and I'll beep back, I've a horn as well as a mirror.

John_Rambo · 25-09-2016 10:29PM

Ah, I'm still pretty sure it was me with my self imposed 1.5 metre rule!!

Either way, I'm still a wonderful person. :pac::pac:

steamengine · 25-09-2016 10:59PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, I'm still pretty sure it was me with my self imposed 1.5 metre rule!!

Either way, I'm still a wonderful person. :pac::pac:

Yep, we're both 'bleeding' marvelous - spreading happiness on the roads!

dvntie · 26-09-2016 02:36AM

Chuchote wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/video-showing-cyclists-riding-next-to-bike-lane-causes-outrage-35061686.html

I wonder if they would be as "outraged" at a car parked in a cycle Lane

endagibson · 26-09-2016 07:09AM

steamengine wrote: »

I've a horn as well

Someone is enjoying their commute.

Chuchote · 26-09-2016 07:35AM

dvntie wrote: »

I wonder if they would be as "outraged" at a car parked in a cycle Lane

Drivers don't see why this is wrong. "Sure he only nipped in to a shop for a second" is their attitude.

They genuinely don't realise that this single car parked for "a second" (ten minutes) can force 100 cyclists out into the path of traffic, endangering the cyclists but also (more importantly to many motorists) delaying other drivers.

greenspurs · 26-09-2016 12:29PM

Chuchote wrote: »

Drivers don't see why this is wrong. "Sure he only nipped in to a shop for a second" is their attitude.

They genuinely don't realise that this single car parked for "a second" (ten minutes) can force 100 cyclists out into the path of traffic, endangering the cyclists but also (more importantly to many motorists) delaying other drivers.

And shur, turning on the auld hazard lights helps....

HivemindXX · 26-09-2016 12:30PM

Chuchote wrote: »

Drivers don't see why this is wrong. "Sure he only nipped in to a shop for a second" is their attitude.

They genuinely don't realise that this single car parked for "a second" (ten minutes) can force 100 cyclists out into the path of traffic, endangering the cyclists but also (more importantly to many motorists) delaying other drivers.

They realise it is wrong, they just don't care.

It's bizarre that during the relatively recent furore kicked up by the blowhard git Michael O'Leary about cyclists slowing people down on the quays nobody mentioned taxis, delivery vans and busses who have stopped in the bus lane as an issue. In my experience commuting down the north quays every morning a taxi who stops outside the Morrison Hotel will cause far more issues than any number of cyclists as every bus and car turning in to Jervis street has to try and change lanes to go around them.

Just yesterday I got beeped at, presumably because I wasn't in the cycle lane. Despite the fact that this road is more than wide enough to easily pass a cyclist. Despite the fact that I wanted to turn right at the next junction. The driver was a teenager, in a car with L plates, stuffed with other teenagers. In my opinion it's likely this driver was actually driving illegally by not having a qualified driver with them, which is an offence that causes little or no outrage, but they felt it was ok to try and police my perfectly legal and safe activity.

brianomc · 26-09-2016 12:56PM

Chuchote wrote: »

Drivers don't see why this is wrong. "Sure he only nipped in to a shop for a second" is their attitude.

They genuinely don't realise that this single car parked for "a second" (ten minutes) can force 100 cyclists out into the path of traffic, endangering the cyclists but also (more importantly to many motorists) delaying other drivers.

If there is a footpath, cycle lane and driving lane side-by-side and a driver "needs" to run in to the shop for a minute, they will pull up on the path blocking it and the cycle lane, or block the cycle lane and stick out a bit onto the road. Could you imagine the hilarity that would follow if drivers blocked the driving lane only while needing to go into the shops. Just dump the car and get out.

Roadhawk · 26-09-2016 04:34PM

It makes perfect sense to block as little of the main road as possible when "popping into a shop" or doing whatever. In doing this it allows traffic (including cyclists) to still pass. It just so happens that the cycle lanes are located beside the paths and are blocked. Its clearly not something motorists do out of spite of cyclist because they would do the exact same irregardless of what road type they would be blocking.

Perhaps more on-street parking would help the situation? more often than not, motorists will avoid blocking other motorists (however im sure it happens)

dvntie · 26-09-2016 04:35PM

greenspurs wrote: »

And shur, turning on the auld hazard lights helps....

I call those the magic blinkers.
Turn them on and your car disappears.
Magic

patrickbrophy18 · 26-09-2016 04:54PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. There are very few 'perfectly good' cycle lanes - there's some quite adequate ones but the majority vary between downright dangerous and 'pain-in-the-arse' (literally and metaphorically).

I can't see any dangers on the cycle lane in the video. However, as I have pointed out in other posts before, if the cycle lane is in less then adequate condition (i.e. potholes galore or too narrow) or it is broken up by parking spaces (impromptu and marked ones) then by all means, take to the road.

Jawgap wrote: »

To a motorist, pedestrian etc a cycle lane might look pretty good or adequate but not to a cyclist. For example, pretty much without fail (in this country) if you use a cycle path running parallel to main road you immediately lose the right of way you had while on the main road - my view is it's better to stay on the main road and not have to worry about every gate, lane and entrance opening on to the cycle track.

While this is a difficult one to gauge due to the varying degrees of suitability of cycling infrastructure, the southbound cycle track/lane on Church Road from the Graduate Roundabout has zero potholes with very few dished kerbs and is perfectly solid. Yet, I've still seen plenty of instances where cyclists insist on using the main road.

Jawgap wrote: »

Likewise, roads tend to go from point 'A' to point 'B' while cycle tracks running parallel to them tend to take crazy meanders through all kinds of chicanes and slaloms at junctions - again, much easier to stay on the road rather than trying to navigate a load of barriers, dished kerbs and hairpin turns at a junction.

Like I mentioned in the first part of my response, many of these barriers are either ignorant motorists parking on top of a cycle lane or intrusive or obstructive vegetation. I've often thought that parking on a cycle lane (with the exception of breakdowns) should be a penalty points offense or at the very least, carry considerable fines.

By hairpin turns, do you mean a sudden change of direction?

Jawgap wrote: »

Then there's maintenance - coming into the autumn any track under or near trees will quickly become covered in mulched leaves which at best muck up your bike and at worst can cause an accident - better to stay on the roads because at least they are swept, cleaned and even gritted occasionally.

As in my previous point, obstructive or unnecessary vegetation will likely result in obstacles down the road (no pun intended

) such as mulch and the like. For example, when I was going to Griffith College, I frequently noticed trees along South Circular Road that were scraping along the upper saloon of the bus and where the roots were causing cracks in the road. Some people might make the argument that vegetation adds to a sense of place and absorbs the noise and fumes of the vehicles (which also makes an appearance in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets). However, this will only result in unnecessary recurring roads maintenance costs to favor those who are high maintenance (see what I did there?:D).

robyntmorton · 26-09-2016 05:01PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While this is a difficult one to gauge due to the varying degrees of suitability of cycling infrastructure, the southbound cycle track/lane on Church Road from the Graduate Roundabout has zero potholes with very few dished kerbs and is perfectly solid. Yet, I've still seen plenty of instances where cyclists insist on using the main road.

The issue with Church road, as I see it, is not the quality of the surface. It is the end point. When it ends it puts you onto a road that runs parallel to, but is not the main road. To get back to the main road, you go down the parallel road, turn right, then immediately left at the traffic lights to get back on your route. It is entirely possible that some cyclists "insist" on using the road, rather than the hassle of having to renegotiate getting back onto the main road.

07Lapierre · 26-09-2016 05:06PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't see any dangers on the cycle lane in the video. However, as I have pointed out in other posts before, if the cycle lane is in less then adequate condition (i.e. potholes galore or too narrow) or it is broken up by parking spaces (impromptu and marked ones) then by all means, take to the road.

.

A cycle lane can have the best/smoothest road surface possible and still be unfit for the purpose it was designed for. Most cycle paths take away a cyclists Right-of-way that the cyclist has when on the road. On the cycle path, the cyclist has to stop at every junction and in most cases, is obliged to dis-mount and walk across the road via a set of Pedestrian lights.

Example:https://goo.gl/maps/gyqPU6n1tvw

cdaly_ · 26-09-2016 05:31PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

The issue with Church road, as I see it, is not the quality of the surface. It is the end point. When it ends it puts you onto a road that runs parallel to, but is not the main road. To get back to the main road, you go down the parallel road, turn right, then immediately left at the traffic lights to get back on your route. It is entirely possible that some cyclists "insist" on using the road, rather than the hassle of having to renegotiate getting back onto the main road.

^^^This.

At this point, I default to not using an off-road cycle track unless I can see a clear benefit from using it. This arises from constant experience of finding the problem with a particular track only after I've 'tried it out' and been inconvenienced by it.

Dermot Illogical · 26-09-2016 06:06PM

I have no problem using them where they benefit, the Clontarf one being a case in point (not perfect, but usable), but there are a number I won't ever use due to poor design. Some I won't use because they take me off the route I want to be on and drop me onto a different road. Some put me on a footpath with multiple driveway entrances, each a potential health hazard for me. Others take right of way off me at each junction, making what would normally be a smooth journey into a stop-go one. The one in Fairview I will avoid over the autumn and winter due to the amount of wet leaves on it.
If it's done right it will be used, but we have a bunch of thickos wasting taxpayer money on cycle tracks suited to bring the kids on of a Sunday evening but useless for anyone hoping to make quick and safe progress.

patrickbrophy18 · 26-09-2016 06:29PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

The issue with Church road, as I see it, is not the quality of the surface. It is the end point. When it ends it puts you onto a road that runs parallel to, but is not the main road. To get back to the main road, you go down the parallel road, turn right, then immediately left at the traffic lights to get back on your route. It is entirely possible that some cyclists "insist" on using the road, rather than the hassle of having to renegotiate getting back onto the main road.

In this instance, the end point is a huge design flaw which would be an inconvenience to a cyclist. So, I stand corrected. Now, I've always thought that the layout of the road at that point is a right mess given that there is so much happening at once where car movement is indeed favored. I can foresee a point in time where this cluster of incompatible junctions will need to be heavily rearranged.

07Lapierre wrote: »

A cycle lane can have the best/smoothest road surface possible and still be unfit for the purpose it was designed for. Most cycle paths take away a cyclists Right-of-way that the cyclist has when on the road. On the cycle path, the cyclist has to stop at every junction and in most cases, is obliged to dis-mount and walk across the road via a set of Pedestrian lights.

Example:https://goo.gl/maps/gyqPU6n1tvw

I've said it before in older posts. However, one or two speed ramps could be place in advance of similar layout junctions where a divergent cycle lane (just ahead of the speed ramp/ramps) would take to the center of the road. That way, a cyclists can continue straight ahead without loosing priority and feel safe. See the attached JPG for a better demonstration. It's a very rough diagram. But, you should get the picture (no pun intended).

endagibson · 26-09-2016 06:40PM

My favourite from a short list of odd lanes is the one running almost from Sutton Cross down to...Fairview or somewhere. I come out from the Baldoyle direction and there's a handy entrypoint on the far side of the coast road. Grand. Off we go. A reasonable surface, but the lanes themselves as marked are narrow and can sometimes be used by ignorant ****ebags travelling in the other direction (often at least one will be in a Clontarf jersey). Dog walkers and pedestrians can sometimes be a hassle too, but not often in my experience.

My destination is Bayside and when I get there...there's no way to get off the damned cycle path. There's a wall. Wait, there is a gap. All I have to do is get off my bike and carry it down two or three steps while wearing road cleats. Excellent. Then use the pedestrian crossing to get to the other side of the road and then I can mount up and get going again.

Alternatively I can just stay on the road, spin down as quickly as I can, indicate at Bayside, move right and carry on.

07Lapierre · 26-09-2016 07:10PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I've said it before in older posts. However, one or two speed ramps could be place in advance of similar layout junctions where a divergent cycle lane (just ahead of the speed ramp/ramps) would take to the center of the road. That way, a cyclists can continue straight ahead without loosing priority and feel safe. See the attached JPG for a better demonstration. It's a very rough diagram. But, you should get the picture (no pun intended).

A lot better to put a cycle lane along the existing road? (If necessary widen the road and narrow the pavement)

Pavements are for pedestrians...having shared cycle paths and pavements reinforces the perception that cycling on the pavement is ok/legal. (Which is false)

Having the cycle lane on the road encourages cyclists to use them, and motorists see the cyclists using them which also encourages motorists to see cyclists as legitimate road users.

endagibson · 26-09-2016 09:37PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

A lot better to put a cycle lane along the existing road? (If necessary widen the road and narrow the pavement

I'd turn that around: narrow the road and widen the footpath.

Firedance · 26-09-2016 10:00PM

endagibson wrote: »

I'd turn that around: narrow the road and widen the footpath.

No I think the other way round is better. We're a legitimate part of the traffic and should be treated as such, we're not second class road users and putting cycle tracks along side footpaths just gives motorists the impression that we belong off the road (as 07L already said).

Chuchote · 26-09-2016 10:13PM

I don't care whether drivers think I'm a legitimate part of road traffic; I don't want them able to get at me. The safest infrastructure for cycling is separated from, and protected from, motor traffic.

josip · 26-09-2016 10:13PM

One Sunday last year, our 4 year old was cycling south along Church Road.
I was jogging beside him.
A car came from one of the drives on the left, and seeing nobody on the footpath in its immediate field of view, continued to drive all the way out to the footpath across the cyclepath without slowing.
If I hadn't grabbed my son's hood to stop him, he would have been run over. Not knocked down, run over. Very scary moment.
In my experience/opinion cycle paths that are reclaimed from the footpath and that have multiple driveways crossing them are the most dangerous type of cycle path.

Chuchote · 26-09-2016 10:17PM

josip wrote: »

One Sunday last year, our 4 year old was cycling south along Church Road.
I was jogging beside him.
A car came from one of the drives on the left, and seeing nobody on the footpath in its immediate field of view, continued to drive all the way out to the footpath across the cyclepath without slowing.
If I hadn't grabbed my son's hood to stop him, he would have been run over. Not knocked down, run over. Very scary moment.

Was he reversing? Mostly if you're driving forward you can see a child, but if you're reversing you can't, which is why it's illegal to back out of a driveway onto a road.

AltAccount · 26-09-2016 10:38PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

While this is a difficult one to gauge due to the varying degrees of suitability of cycling infrastructure, the southbound cycle track/lane on Church Road from the Graduate Roundabout has zero potholes with very few dished kerbs and is perfectly solid. Yet, I've still seen plenty of instances where cyclists insist on using the main road.

As has been mentioned (and accepted) earlier, the end of this stretch is sub-ideal, but it doesn't affect me because I'm turning left toward Ballybrack and so it suits.

The two issues I encounter most are that:

1) I'm coming from Rochestown Avenue, I go around the roundabout onto Church Road, and then there's no kerb dishing so I can't get onto the cycle path unless I cycle on the road and then try a "swan neck" onto the cycle path at the first set of lights (hoping there are no pedestrians waiting to cross, and that nobody's driving close behind me who'll be surprised when I brake before turning onto the footpath), or I stay on the road and then pull up onto the cycle path once I get to the driveways

or

2) If I've had 5 "holy ****, that was a close one!" moments in the last few years, 3 or 4 of them have been on that cycle track, caused by people coming out of the long driveways with a bit of momentum and judging their braking point based on the edge of the driveway where it meets the road, rather than by the cycle track. The high walls give them no visibility and they have no chance of stopping in time once they've seen me.

I generally use the cycle track, but it's gotten to the stage where I deliberately slow down and keep my brakes covered as I pass the more notorious driveway entrances, even though I'm on the cycle track and have right of way. Honestly I feel like I'd be safer on the road where things are more predictable and the likelihood of having to make an emergency stop is *significantly* lower.

AltAccount · 26-09-2016 10:45PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I don't care whether drivers think I'm a legitimate part of road traffic; I don't want them able to get at me. The safest infrastructure for cycling is separated from, and protected from, motor traffic.

I'd feel safer if I had the choice of the cycle track or the road, if I knew that drivers were educated to see things from the cyclist's perspective, and if I knew that there was even a remote possibility of a driver being prosecuted for passing too close or otherwise endangering cyclists.

Firedance · 26-09-2016 11:17PM

Chuchote wrote: »

I don't care whether drivers think I'm a legitimate part of road traffic; I don't want them able to get at me. The safest infrastructure for cycling is separated from, and protected from, motor traffic.

I'm not suggesting they should't be protected in some way, but they should be on the road, not the footpath, footpaths are for feet

josip · 26-09-2016 11:23PM

Chuchote wrote: »

Was he reversing? Mostly if you're driving forward you can see a child, but if you're reversing you can't, which is why it's illegal to back out of a driveway onto a road.

No driving forwards, but he was elderly and slow to react even after he'd seen us.

It was one of these driveways and as you can see the driver has a sufficient field of view on emerging from the drive to see if they need to stop for any pedestrians. He forgot that there might also be cyclists however.

magicbastarder · 26-09-2016 11:34PM

ah; you were on *his* driveway.

Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

Comments