Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

PeadarCo wrote: »

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.

Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path.

The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...

07Lapierre wrote: »

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.

Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Come off the Clontarf cycle lane and you've the Fairview cycle lane (actually, two Fairview cycle lanes, one outside the park and one through it!), which - according to cyclists here - isn't used because there's leaves on the path.

The North Strand cycle path is used by a decent majority of cyclists, so obvioulsy it's not in any way as dangerous as magicbastarder would like to exaggerate. Or they're all a) completely inexperienced cyclists, or b) mad risk takers. Though seeing as he regularly cycles at >40km/h, and even over 65km/h, you'd imagine he's not all that risk averse...

The Fairview cycle lane through the Park is a bit of joke. All it is is a bit of paint on the ground. The people who would use it are the exact people you give out about cycling on the path.Then again that's what most cycle lanes in Dublin amount to. So if you are OK with the Fairview cycle lane through the middle of a park why are you complaining about cyclists cycling on the path. Other than a bit of paint on the ground there is no difference.

Leafs on the ground are a problem for pretty much every form of transport. Trains have issues with leafs on train lines, cars have to drive slower through roads that are covered with leafs. Leafs dramatically reduce grip for wheeled vehicles and can effectively make the road surface act like ice. Bikes are no different.

Thinking cycling at 40, 50km/hr is a sign of risk taking on its own just shows a lack of knowledge about cycling and using the road in general. It's all about context. For example there's a massive difference between going at 120km/hr on a motorway road and through a housing estate.

i guess my attempt at light humour (the conflating the cycling on paths quip) was destined to end up with with Tauriendruid having a minor pop at me.

but i've also yet to have explained to me why it's easier or safer for cyclists to take that path.
the danger for cyclists is generally interacting with motorised traffic at junctions, and not on straight stretches of road. the configuration we're talking about here does nothing to make the junction safer for cyclists, it's about getting cyclists out of the way of motorists, plain and simple.

though to be fair, there's a nugget of truth in my comment about the cycling on the path.
literally all they did there was run a line of paint along the footpath. nothing else, but somehow a line of paint changed a footpath into cycling infrastructure, and something that would have been considered a dangerous activity into what is now a safe one. paint is magic, indeed.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Seriously? Not like you to be so ignorant, Lapierre.

You know damn well you don't have to be a master at something to be able to make an accurate observation. If that wasn't the case, we should just boards down.

Btw - I used to live on North Strand. Used to cycle on it a lot. There used to be far less deliveries when there was a bowling alley there instead of a supermarket, admittedly, but even now there still really aren't all that many trucks.

I know... I guess old age is turning me into a grumpy old man! I used to cycle along that road too and i thought it was fine at the time. but as you get older/more experienced your perspective changes and you see things differently.