Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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 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.

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?

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 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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

that cycle lane would actually be a decent one were it not for the flaws discussed.
the big issue with ireland (and i guess with other countries) is how to handle junctions (i mean proper ones, not ones at cark park exits).
one issue with a lot of cycle paths is that they're provided where it's easy to do so, but retrofitted onto existing infrastructure - the 'if we paint a white line here and some bicycle symbols, job done' approach, and where they then interact with junctions.
the example i gave earlier in the thread is a well known one:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3034396,-6.2085298,3a,75y,163.03h,71.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shyHSzfFZNb4icsHyaim30Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

drop the cyclists from an off-road path into a lane, on the inside of left turning traffic - even if the cyclists are proceeding straight on, as the vast majority probably will be. the cyclists have even been briefly hidden from the motorists view behind a bus shelter, and one of the issues with those offroad paths is that they remove the cyclists from motorist's mental radar, leading to the 'he came out of nowhere!' effect.

what could be done to improve that? superficially, i guess having the merge of the cycle lane and the road further back, before the 'left only' option begins for motorists, so both cyclists and motorists have greater time to assess what the traffic around them is doing. maybe a 5 second head start 'bicycles only' green light might help, it would certainly be a useful visual clue for motorists to pay heed to the possible presence of cyclists.

the junction at the bus depot is as bad, coupled with the cyclists and peds being forced to share a path probably not much more than 1m wide (at a point where there are 7 lanes for motorised traffic beside them!)
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3187858,-6.2315027,3a,75y,191.68h,81.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxxoogdJqcA2n2P1HAkQJFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

there has been at least one cyclist fatality roughly halfway between those two examples, that i can remember. i'm not aware of what the cause of that was though.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Every single one of them could have gotten a ticket. How do you know they didn't?

Second, how of the relevant to your beef with cycle lanes?

I won't quote large quotes.

Bastsrder, how can we long term this? Even there you are only able to offer a cursory paper over the cracks.

The simple reality is as you say, it's being imposed over a standing system.

In regards entrances, the only way to deal with that is dedicated cycle lanes separated from the road. Doable in some places but not all until such a time comes that the entire stretch of road is being redone.

As for me, the less time I have to share the road, the better so what a Lane exists, I will continue to use it. There's only one Victor between niner and a car

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

.

In regards entrances, the only way to deal with that is dedicated cycle lanes separated from the road.

But that's not true at all. You simply have cycle lanes either on or alongside the road and you just don't paint yield signs on the cycle lane at every entrance. The best thing to do is take them off what are basically footpaths altogether to remove that conflict with traffic coming from side roads, drives, etc.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

A traffic warden can deal with that. All you need is a tow truck, they can pickup the illegally parked cars or those without parking ticket and deposit them to depot. You can get them back after paying a fine.

I must say I don't get the reluctance in Ireland to deal with this. I also don't get the enthusiasm for on street parking. I know some think a cycle lane down the Keys is great achievement but my question would be why is there that much car traffic and why is on street parking allowed on the streets in the area.

07Lapierre

A real bike lane:

https://twitter.com/fitzrik/status/1279410831067951104?s=21