nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why cycle lanes will never work in Ireland

Slipperydodger

Why should Ireland invest in cycle lanes when no cars actually observe it. Complete indifference by motorists towards cycle infrastructure means its just too dangerous to cycle in Ireland, particularly for young people. Outside Colaiste Choilm, Ballincollig this morning. The Guards really need to clamp down on this or else it wont change!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

WoollyRedHat

Lumen wrote: »

Just stop with this crap, please.

If there's a car in a cycle lane, look, indicate, move out around it.

If you're incapable of doing that, then yes, cycling is not for you.

Can i ask what happens if a car is completely blocking a cycle lane in a blind spot, what then? Gives the cyclist very little time to essentially swerve onto the road; into a bus lane. I've seen this numeros times before; big vans usually.

Grassey

If traffic is moving and there is plenty of space there is no issue.

However the difference being that if the lane of cars is bumper to bumper but moving along where does a cyclist overtake the obstruction?

If the car parked in the lane was to flick on the indicator to merge another car will let them out. If a cyclist hasn't been able to merge by the time they reach the obstruction they are stuck because no motorist is going to stop in their lane to let them around it.

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they create an improved *perception* of safety, that drives cyclist numbers - well, there's an argument to be made that they will improve safety in that manner.

just because a cyclist can navigate around a car doesn't mean that it's a neutral manoeuvre to have to make. if it's putting off nervous cyclists when they see that cycling infrastructure is not policed, and regularly can't be used by bikes, that is a genuine problem.

Ah sure, whatever. That's all perfectly arguable. You may care about pandering to snowflakes, I don't, but that's a separate issue to to the assertion I was responding to, which was:

"Complete indifference by motorists towards cycle infrastructure means its just too dangerous to cycle in Ireland, particularly for young people."

...which is quite clearly absolute nonsense.

Keeks

bucketybuck wrote: »

I really don't know what you are getting at here, surely all the cyclist does is the same thing every vehicle does approaching an obstruction? Namely, they see an obstruction ahead, they slow down, indicate, and overtake the obstruction when it is safe to do so?

Respectfully, this exact scenario already happens every day so its not really a question of what the cyclist should do, more a question of why there is so much chagrin over cyclists having to pass obstacles when it is something that all road users have to do.

I think you a focusing a bit too much over wheather this is a motorist/cyclist issue. This is not just about cyclists.....as can be seen in the clip it affects all road users....even buses

There is an obstacle there because a bad road behavior. It is not right to just accept that.

If it was a double yellow line rather than a cycle line would you be making the same comment?

Road users shouldn't be parking here in this place, and the sooner all road users obey the rules the safer roads will be for everyone!

Lumen

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Can i ask what happens if a car is completely blocking a cycle lane in a blind spot, what then? Gives the cyclist very little time to essentially swerve onto the road; into a bus lane. I've seen this numeros times before; big vans usually.

All road users should proceed at a speed such that they can stop in the space that they can see to be clear and is likely to remain so.

VW 1

bucketybuck wrote: »

I really don't know what you are getting at here, surely all the cyclist does is the same thing every vehicle does approaching an obstruction? Namely, they see an obstruction ahead, they slow down, indicate, and overtake the obstruction when it is safe to do so?

I don't see it as dangerous, and it's an obstacle that can be easily passed, I find it annoying more than anything else.

However, if a car was to park for any sort of short period in the regular driving lane, how many cars would be just ok with indicating and moving around the obstruction? Horns would be going pretty quickly for impeding the cars progress.

magicbastarder

bucketybuck wrote: »

I really don't know what you are getting at here, surely all the cyclist does is the same thing every vehicle does approaching an obstruction? Namely, they see an obstruction ahead, they slow down, indicate, and overtake the obstruction when it is safe to do so?

Respectfully, this exact scenario already happens every day so its not really a question of what the cyclist should do, more a question of why there is so much chagrin over cyclists having to pass obstacles when it is something that all road users have to do.

so if there's a car parked every 50m in a cycle lane, i've to slow down, indicate, pull out, etc., each time?
can you not see why that's an issue?

and it *doesn't* happen all road users. how many cars in the 'driving' lane have to deal with cars fairly permanently parked in the driving lane?

Keeks

Lumen wrote: »

"Complete indifference by motorists towards cycle infrastructure means its just too dangerous to cycle in Ireland, particularly for young people."

...which is quite clearly absolute nonsense.

It should read "Complete indifference by all road users towards the rules of the road"

bucketybuck

VW 1 wrote: »

However, if a car was to park for any sort of short period in the regular driving lane, how many cars would be just ok with indicating and moving around the obstruction? Horns would be going pretty quickly for impeding the cars progress.

magicbastarder wrote: »

and it *doesn't* happen all road users. how many cars in the 'driving' lane have to deal with cars fairly permanently parked in the driving lane?

Perhaps its an upbringing thing, I grew up in smaller towns and villages where it was incredibly common for people to park on one side of the road. Drive down the main street of the place I grew up and you will see a row of cars parked in what is technically the driving lane, and thats quite apart from all the side roads and by roads spanning the country that commonly would have a vehicle stopped by the side of the road for whatever reason.

Actually, even apart from the countryside, what happens in every estate everywhere if not cars parked on the road and impeding traffic?

Lumen

Keeks wrote: »

It should read "Complete indifference by all road users towards the rules of the road"

Whilst I agree that there are idiots on all forms of transport, and everyone breaks rules to some degree, it's unfair to paint everyone with exactly the same brush.

There are many conscientious road users. They just don't draw attention to themselves, because they're conscientious.

mathie

Parking like that reminds me of the Broken Window policy in New York

https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-new-york-became-safe-full-story-13197.html

magicbastarder

bucketybuck wrote: »

Perhaps its an upbringing thing, I grew up in smaller towns and villages where it was incredibly common for people to park on one side of the road. Drive down the main street of the place I grew up and you will see a row of cars parked in what is technically the driving lane, and thats quite apart from all the side roads and by roads spanning the country that commonly would have a vehicle stopped by the side of the road for whatever reason.

this is not cars parking in car lanes intended for cars. this is cars parking in cycle lanes intended for bikes.
the more people park this way, the fewer people who (probably) cycle. a motorist doing this is not impacting other motorists, they're impacting cyclists and the 'can you not just navigate around it' response could be used to justify parking on a footpath, too.

Keeks

Lumen wrote: »

and everyone breaks rules to some degree, it's unfair to paint everyone with exactly the same brush.

Haven't you just painted everyone with the same brush by saying Everyone breaks the rules to some degree.

And that is the problem....once you start to break rules, you enter into your own judgement as to what to break and what not to break......and things like morality and perceived risk come into play.

Keeks

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is not cars parking in car lanes intended for cars. this is cars parking in cycle lanes intended for bikes.
the more people park this way, the fewer people who (probably) cycle. a motorist doing this is not impacting other motorists, they're impacting cyclists and the 'can you not just navigate around it' response could be used to justify parking on a footpath, too.

Not be be pedantic, just trying to move te argument away from motorist v cyclist.....

This does affect all road users, as a cycle lane is not big enough to parking a car in, so any traffic will generally have to cross the center median liene and into oncoming traffic (even partially), risking the usual clash of mirror or worse, as they will have to swerve from time to time to avoid hitting opening car doors.

It impacts all road users.

Lumen

Keeks wrote: »

Haven't you just painted everyone with the same brush by saying Everyone breaks the rules to some degree.

No, because not all rule breaking is the same.

We recognise this as a society by, for instance, treating littering different from murder.

Keeks wrote: »

And that is the problem....once you start to break rules, you enter into your own judgement as to what to break and what not to break......and things like morality and perceived risk come into play.

Are you suggesting that littering is a slippery slope to murder?

droidus

Or even worse, that law = morality.

Keeks

Lumen wrote: »

No, because not all rule breaking is the same.

We recognise this as a society by, for instance, treating littering different from murder.

Are you suggesting that littering is a slippery slope to murder?

No I think you have it wrong.....

Both are the same as they are both against the rules (laws)...the difference is the Penalty for breaking them.

You still shouldn't do either....

clod71

It's simple enough... Instead of a simple painted line use a kerb to protect that lane, especially in certain areas, like schools, etc... If the cars can't go in, they will not go in.
Something like that shoud do

http://ardcroney.ie/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/half_round_top_concrete_kerb.jpg

Chips Lovell

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they create an improved *perception* of safety, that drives cyclist numbers - well, there's an argument to be made that they will improve safety in that manner.

I don't know about this. The problem is that you can't festoon every road with cycle lanes. I've had plenty of people tell me they'd cycle to work except there's no cycle lane for much of the way.

Building cycle lanes for the perception of safety has the opposite-than-intended effect. Rather than convey that cycling is safe, it reinforces the impression that it's dangerous.

It's like the whole helmet hysteria.

Lumen

Keeks wrote: »

Both are the same as they are both against the rules (laws)...the difference is the Penalty for breaking them.

I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who thinks that littering and murder are the same.

Keeks

Lumen wrote: »

I don't think it's possible to reason with someone who thinks that littering and murder are the same.

give it a go.......shouldn't give up that easy.

Unless you accept that people shouldn't break the rules

rollingscone

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know about this. The problem is that you can't festoon every road with cycle lanes. I've had plenty of people tell me they'd cycle to work except there's no cycle lane for much of the way.

Building cycle lanes for the perception of safety has the opposite-than-intended effect. Rather than convey that cycling is safe, it reinforces the impression that it's dangerous.

It's like the whole helmet hysteria.

500,000 times. This

magicbastarder

sorry, boards limit is 100x this; i'll have to ask you to amend your post, otherwise you'll have used up the entire cycling forum quota for the year.

zulutango

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know about this. The problem is that you can't festoon every road with cycle lanes. I've had plenty of people tell me they'd cycle to work except there's no cycle lane for much of the way.

Building cycle lanes for the perception of safety has the opposite-than-intended effect. Rather than convey that cycling is safe, it reinforces the impression that it's dangerous.

It's like the whole helmet hysteria.

I used to think like that. I was a very confident cyclist in busy traffic and could deal with almost any situation. Then I got mowed down by a motorbike, and carted off to hospital with a broken back. I guess the reality is that cycling is dangerous. We shouldn't pretend that it's not. So long as there's big heavy machines sharing the road with light squishy humans like ourselves, then it's dangerous, and we have to design our streets to make it less so.

DavyD_83

Gah! people need to stop perpetuating the myth that cycling is DANGEROUS.
It's fun, healthy, efficient, cheap(er than a car, even if you go fancy).
Yes, you're more exposed than if you are surrounded by tons of metal, but maybe that's a good thing. I pay far more attention to protecting myself and all those around me while cycling than I ever do while driving.

If people are encouraged to cycle, even within the flawed system, greater numbers will ensure greater safety, will free up space as people are not in as many cars and gradually the fact that not everybody is in cars, will mean that cars are not the MOST important thing on the road.

To my mind the same applies to public transport, and any other car alternatives.

clod71

So long as there's big heavy machines sharing the road with light squishy humans like ourselves, then it's dangerous, and we have to design our streets to make it less so.

500.001 times this so...

Grassey

clod71 wrote: »

It's simple enough... Instead of a simple painted line use a kerb to protect that lane, especially in certain areas, like schools, etc... If the cars can't go in, they will not go in.
Something like that shoud do

http://ardcroney.ie/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/a/half_round_top_concrete_kerb.jpg

You'd be surprised.... There were originally plastic wands installed at one section of my cycle, which were then replaced with metal poles... both of which I felt like I'm logging on fixmystreet.ie weekly as they keep getting run over!

magicbastarder

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't know about this. The problem is that you can't festoon every road with cycle lanes. I've had plenty of people tell me they'd cycle to work except there's no cycle lane for much of the way.

i guess there could be a bit of chicken and egg going on there - it may be that there are no cycle lanes because the roads are narrow, and the fact that the roads are narrow is what makes them less pleasant to cycle, especially for a reluctant cyclists.

in short, the lack of cycle lanes is a symptom, not a cause.

zulutango

Cycling is dangerous. It's not a myth. Many people are injured while cycling.

Yes, it's an incredibly beneficial activity for individuals and society, but can we stop pretending that it's not dangerous. It is. We have to design our streets and enforce our laws to make it less so.

Lumen

zulutango wrote: »

Cycling is dangerous. It's not a myth. Many people are injured while cycling ...can we stop pretending that it's not dangerous. It is.

This is a controversial claim. Please provide statistical evidence.