Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Duckjob · 24-07-2020 09:03AM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So much wrong in so much post...

It's isn't an uneven surface. Surely the cyclist has a bell for pedestrians. There aren't that many parked vehicles.

It does not take that long for a cyclist to slow enough to safely enter the cycle lane, and it certainly doesn't take the bus that long to decelerate and accelerate back up to speed. Internal combustion engines, they're good at that.

Plenty of cyclists do use it - letting 72 people save 5 seconds per bus/cyclist combination, or even 144 if there's two buses following each other - so obviously it's not the death trap you make it out to be, and presumably they feel safer having a wall between them and the 34 million tonnes of Mad Max Deathroller that's ploughing up the road behind them...

So much wrong with that reply....

I listed factors which, when set against the ease of continuing staight on for 100m to the lights, means humans being humans will take the easier option.

Not going to argue with you over how often that lane it gets parked in as I don't have the stats and I'm pretty sure you don't either - but its been blocked enough times as I came up there it to just make going straight the easier option.

If you want to argue that a bus that coming up behind a cyclist can slow from from 50kph down to maybe 20-25kph and accelerate back up to 50kph (up a hill), all without losing 5 seconds then well then... yeah....

Likewise, you want to argue that because you seeing some people using the lane must logically mean the infrastructure is not dangerous to use. That's a complete logic fail.

If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

With all due respect, I'm relating experience of using/getting on/getting off that particular piece of infrastructure, and I'm relating them from everyday experience of using the infrastructure, not just looking at it from behind the steering wheel of a car or from a bus. I'm not going to get involved in arguing the toss of those details with somebody who is coming from a position of little of no experience.

ewc78 · 24-07-2020 09:31AM

Sure no one got hurt so its OK I suppose.

https://youtu.be/xq6MtArnpKk

PeadarCo · 24-07-2020 11:11AM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Because it's against the law.

Because as a teenager cycling along the path by the sea wall at Clontarf, I clearly terrified a pensioner who thought I was going to hit him, and gave out to me and my mate, and I thought yeah, that's pretty ****ty, I shouldn't do that. Empathy. It's a thing.

Because I've been hit twice by cyclists on the footpath twice in the last 18 months.

Because I've seen other pedestrians had to jump out of the way of bikes on the footpath.

Because in the vast majority of cases, for adults, cycling on the footpath is completely unnecessary, certainly so in the city centre, and it's just laziness to avoid having to follow the one-way system.

I'm not giving out about the cycle path going through Fairview because it's a bloody segregated cycle lane, which is what I thought we all wanted, and there's a pedestrian path there too, so the cyclists shouldn't be on the footpath part! This isn't rocket science.

So a bit of paint and a law change suddenly make a cycle lane safe? As we have seen with the old pheonix park cycle lanes a big of paint and a legal designation did not make them safe. The decision to allow parking on Chesterfield avenue meant you had massive conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians resulting in a death of cyclist on the cycle lane after colliding with pedestrian. Remember pedestrians are just as much a danger to cyclists as the other way around.

For all your anecdotal evidence for how dangerous cyclists are to pedestrians the most recent death from a pedestrian cyclist collision was a cyclist. Give give you my own accedote from being clipped by a cyclist on the footpath (handlebar clipped my shoulder) the cyclist went flying off their bike and I barely noticed the glancing impact.

The decision in the Phenoix Park to move the cycle lane into the vacated parking spaces had made the Park a far more enjoyable and safer experience for everyone.

From a personal point of view I generally don't have an issue with cyclists going a long a path as long as they move slowly. Slow moving cyclists are no different from joggers and pose no greater danger if you.

Given you are so law abiding and emphatic I'm sure you'll understand when cyclists use the roads which they are legally entitled to use instead of the dangerous/terrifying cycle lanes.

If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 11:19AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

do buses, on average, drive through that junction at 50km/h?

On average, probably not, because they're driving between a stone wall and another lane of traffic, uphill, approaching the brow of a hill, and a junction with traffic lights, and quite often there'll be a cyclist slowing them down to maybe 15 or 20k.

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 12:41PM

Duckjob wrote: »

If you're approaching a start of a cycle path that requires you to shave 10-15kph off your speed, and you have an 18 tonne bus up your arse of course that's going to inform your decision as to whether you stay on or get off the bus lane.

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

versus

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

07Lapierre · 24-07-2020 12:55PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll get out of it's way! I'll have to slow down a small bit to get out of its way, but y'know, the driver is a professional, they can see me indicating and will anticipate me slowing for a couple of seconds."

versus

"There's an 18-tonne bus up my arse! I'll inevitably slow down as I go up the hill, and at the top of it, I'll still have an 18-tonne bus up my arse!"

Your easily confused!

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 12:58PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

If cyclists don't use something that's supposed to benefit them you need to look at design in terms of the facilities in question. In terms of grown adults using the footpath while I don't consider it dangerous it's not the place for them. One of the reasons for that is driver behaviour/the perceived danger of cycling on the road. Which means far better enforcement of traffic laws and dealing with the viewpoint espoused by people like yourself that cyclists aren't traffic and are not entitled to use the road.

Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!

AndrewJRenko · 24-07-2020 01:08PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

How did you work that out please?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored.

It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

That's why it's ignored.

meeeeh · 24-07-2020 01:18PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How did you work that out please?

It's not adequate. It's not segregated from pedestrians. It frequently has vans and cars parked on it.

That's why it's ignored.

So cycling on the cycle path not properly segregated from the pedestrian is worse than cycling on the road not being segregated from killing machines as you call them. So the pedestrians are the problem now?

Duckjob · 24-07-2020 01:20PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

Here's a genuine question for you:

Is your stance:

a) I'll question behaviors I don't get and maybe by the answers I'll get an insight that I don't have at the moment .

or

b) I'll ask questions and then reject the answers I get and continue to try to assert my logic as someone who has little or no experience of the situations over the logic given by people who live and breath these situations every day.

It seems like b) - You're questioning, but at the same time you're not willing to accept the answers to the questions, which renders the questioning pretty pointless.

PeadarCo · 24-07-2020 01:29PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Please read what I've actually written, not what you imagine I've written.

I have never suggested or promoted the idea that cyclists are not entitled to use the road.

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

I'd love to see a lot more properly designed, segregated, cycle paths. Apparently the cycling lobby groups don't actually engage with councils, though.

What I have done is questioned why - when there's a perfectly adequate segregated cycle path provided = it's ignored. I just don't see the logic in "It's safer to be pursued up a hill by an 18-tonne bus!" arguments, when you could use a segregated lane instead. Apparently, though, slowing to enter a cycle path is a manoeuvre as involved as turning an oil tanker.

And apparently leaves are a massive danger. Maybe that's why the planned new cycle path for Fairview (in addition to the two existing ones? a replacement for one of them?) proposed cutting down a couple of dozen 100-year-old trees. Damn leaves, giving us that all shade and oxygen!

But here's the issue what you consider to be a well designed cycle lane isn't up to scratch. To say you've been ignored all the responses that go into great detail about why a cycle lane might not be suitable. The people who decide if a cycle lane is adequate are the people who use it. If they don't use it, it tells all you need to know about its quality.

And if you say you have no problems with cyclists using the road why complain about cyclists on the road ? If you agree that cyclists are entitled to use the road what's the problem? It shouldn't matter if they are on a cycle lane or the road because according to you, you consider them entitled to use the road. Therefore a cyclist on the road beside a segregated cycle lane is perfectly entitled to be on the road if I understand you correctly.

Leaves covering the road are a massive problem for all forms of wheeled transport. They can stop trains from running, make road dangerous to drive if enough leaves cover a road(in an urban environment this will never be an issue due to the lack of trees and number of vehicles) they can hide pot holes or other obstacles. Again all this has been explained to you. Even if you walk down a path covered in leaves you'll have to walk slower. There is a reason leaves are swept off paths and roads. They interfere with the contact between a wheel/foot and road/footpath/rail. It isn't rocket science.

I understand the issue with cyclists on footpaths and in most cases agree with it. But if want these cyclists to use the road you need to take the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Ignoring people give a multitude of explanations for certain decisions is not taking the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Which is important because if you can't listen and understand issues with defective cycle lanes you won't be able to sort out your core problem. Getting people off paths and onto roads means addressing driver behaviour and enforcing road traffic laws ie actually enforcing the 30km/hr zone in Dublin City centre etc. This is far broader issue than the causes of bad cycle lanes.

07Lapierre · 24-07-2020 01:35PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

True, that.

https://twitter.com/LkCycleDesign/status/1286320588911501312

I can only assume that road/cycle lane is still "under construction" ? that cant be the final design..can it?

07Lapierre · 24-07-2020 01:45PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I agree slapping some paint down - without proper thought, on a poor surface, where lanes just suddenly end, etc. - does not a good cycle path make.

Here's an example of such a bike lane:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Drd93p8XcAEGuS0?format=jpg&name=medium

Spook_ie · 24-07-2020 01:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well I suppose that they could move the temporary dividers onto the cycle lane ( that would seem to be aimed at eventually tying in with the no right turn except cyclists at the bridge ) but then you'd just have Twitter going mad about blocking cycle lanes with temporary plastic bollards.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I can only assume that road/cycle lane is still "under construction" ? that cant be the final design..can it?

That's already been surmised due to the amount of temporary plastic bollards.

AndrewJRenko · 24-07-2020 02:32PM

meeeeh wrote: »

So cycling on the cycle path not properly segregated from the pedestrian is worse than cycling on the road not being segregated from killing machines as you call them. So the pedestrians are the problem now?

You might want to try arguing with what I actually said, rather than your deeply twisted variant. I don't think I've ever used the term "killing machine" for a start.

If you're having trouble understanding my words, perhaps a picture might help you to grasp the issue with this particular cycle lane.

Drd93p8XcAEGuS0?format=jpg&name=large

Photo credit to Anto: https://twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776?s=19

meeeeh · 24-07-2020 02:35PM

I could get by.

AndrewJRenko · 24-07-2020 02:36PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

That's not generally the main criteria people use when choosing their route in any mode of travel.

Here's another good reason for not using that cycle lane.

https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1101937681385304064

Duckjob · 24-07-2020 02:44PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

Of course you could, as could most people. That's not in dispute.

But that doesn't address the fact that for somebody whose already been faced with that situation a good couple of times on their commute, it's the most naturally human response in the world to just go: "Ah screw it, from now on i'm better off just staying on the bus lane for the 100m to the lights".

Amirani · 24-07-2020 03:03PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

I think we can be a bit more ambitious with our pedestrian and cycling infrastructure than whether or not you particularly can "get by". Lots of people aren't as mobile and agile as you.

Furthermore, if a stream of cyclists decide to get by, it makes it fairly **** to be a pedestrian trying to "get by" simultaneously.

meeeeh · 24-07-2020 03:14PM

Amirani wrote: »

I think we can be a bit more ambitious with our pedestrian and cycling infrastructure than whether or not you particularly can "get by". Lots of people aren't as mobile and agile as you.

Furthermore, if a stream of cyclists decide to get by, it makes it fairly **** to be a pedestrian trying to "get by" simultaneously.

I'm not disputing that and I hate cars parked on cycling lanes. However don't complain then how dangerous the roads are for cyclists. There is a safer option, some just don't want to use it. Btw no infrastructure is perfect, there are plenty of bad roads too and that we meet obstacles on the road in all forms of transport.

FarmerBob · 24-07-2020 04:43PM

engleburt wrote: »

I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.

Those new cycle lanes are generally empty.

Cycling volumes have only slightly increased since the full lockdown whereas vehicular traffic has substantially increased.
I wonder is it the case that those who cycle to work generally work in jobs where they can work from home?

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 04:55PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

But here's the issue what you consider to be a well designed cycle lane isn't up to scratch. To say you've been ignored all the responses that go into great detail about why a cycle lane might not be suitable. The people who decide if a cycle lane is adequate are the people who use it. If they don't use it, it tells all you need to know about its quality.

And if you say you have no problems with cyclists using the road why complain about cyclists on the road ? If you agree that cyclists are entitled to use the road what's the problem? It shouldn't matter if they are on a cycle lane or the road because according to you, you consider them entitled to use the road. Therefore a cyclist on the road beside a segregated cycle lane is perfectly entitled to be on the road if I understand you correctly.

Leaves covering the road are a massive problem for all forms of wheeled transport. They can stop trains from running, make road dangerous to drive if enough leaves cover a road(in an urban environment this will never be an issue due to the lack of trees and number of vehicles) they can hide pot holes or other obstacles. Again all this has been explained to you. Even if you walk down a path covered in leaves you'll have to walk slower. There is a reason leaves are swept off paths and roads. They interfere with the contact between a wheel/foot and road/footpath/rail. It isn't rocket science.

I understand the issue with cyclists on footpaths and in most cases agree with it. But if want these cyclists to use the road you need to take the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Ignoring people give a multitude of explanations for certain decisions is not taking the viewpoints of cyclists seriously. Which is important because if you can't listen and understand issues with defective cycle lanes you won't be able to sort out your core problem. Getting people off paths and onto roads means addressing driver behaviour and enforcing road traffic laws ie actually enforcing the 30km/hr zone in Dublin City centre etc. This is far broader issue than the causes of bad cycle lanes.

Stopped reading when you put words in my mouth.

Stark · 24-07-2020 04:55PM

engleburt wrote: »

I guess a lot of money spent on new cycle paths on North Quays in Dublin, still the pillocks on bikes don't use them and crawl along in bus lane.
Either make their use mandatory or don't bother creating them.

I use them all the time though I happen to be going straight ahead. How many of those "pillocks" happen to be turning left at the next junction?

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 05:07PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to try arguing with what I actually said, rather than your deeply twisted variant. I don't think I've ever used the term "killing machine" for a start.

If you're having trouble understanding my words, perhaps a picture might help you to grasp the issue with this particular cycle lane.

Photo credit to Anto: https://twitter.com/moran_anto/status/1060454647066955776?s=19

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing:

* A path and road that date from - I think - the 1850s. Perhaps earlier.

* A concrete path with a clearly marked cycle lane.

* A delivery van parked on that cycle path.

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.

magicbastarder · 24-07-2020 05:31PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I could get by.

Well there we go. The whole thread collapses in a puff of logic.
Good god.

Thargor · 24-07-2020 06:01PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing:

* A path and road that date from - I think - the 1850s. Perhaps earlier.

* A concrete path with a clearly marked cycle lane.

* A delivery van parked on that cycle path.

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

I never said this was a "great" design. I am saying it's far better than the alternative. Yes, there's a delivery van on the path. That's literally unavoidable, in the sense that deliveries must be made to the shops there. Cycle around the van. There's plenty of room for someone on a bike to pass a pedestrian, even someone pushing a pram, where the van is. If you don't have that much steering control, you probably shouldn't be on a bike.

Or just cycle on the road where you can go 20-25 kph non-stop between your start point and your destination instead of stopping and starting every few meters and "just going round" every obstacle at walking pace like an idiot, tough decision.

07Lapierre · 24-07-2020 06:21PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So what is it we're supposed to be seeing here?

What I'm seeing

* On the far side of the wall, a bus and lots of other vehicular traffic, that's definitely convinced me to use the cycle lane if and when I do start cycling to work. So well done for that?

.

Yeah I used to be an inexperienced cyclist too. When I look at that photo, I see an old narrow pavement with some paint on it. I see cracks in the concrete and green moss (which makes the concrete slippy if wet, or lethal in winter if not gritted by the council)

On the other side of the wall I see a wide bus lane,which I'm perfectly entitled to use and I'm confident enough to cycle about a meter or so ou from the wall and I'm confident I can maintain 30+ kph up that hill. I'm confident I wouldn't delay any other vehicles no more than a few seconds.

In short, I don't see ANY reason to cycle on that pavement.

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 06:47PM

Thargor wrote: »

Or just cycle on the road where you can go 20-25 kph non-stop between your start point and your destination instead of stopping and starting every few meters and "just going round" every obstacle at walking pace like an idiot, tough decision.

If it's not blatant whataboutery, it's being utterly pedantic, putting words in people's mouths, or - as in this case - rampant exaggeration.

Though... no, wait, you're right. Having seen the utter inability of most cyclists to stop at traffic lights at all, never mind when they're every few metres like at the IFSC, yeah. You may have a point about cyclists' failure to obey the rules of the road. Glad to see you admitting it, finally.

TaurenDruid · 24-07-2020 07:01PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Yeah I used to be an inexperienced cyclist too. When I look at that photo, I see an old narrow pavement with some paint on it. I see cracks in the concrete and green moss (which makes the concrete slippy if wet, or lethal in winter if not gritted by the council)

On the other side of the wall I see a wide bus lane,which I'm perfectly entitled to use and I'm confident enough to cycle about a meter or so ou from the wall and I'm confident I can maintain 30+ kph up that hill. I'm confident I wouldn't delay any other vehicles no more than a few seconds.

In short, I don't see ANY reason to cycle on that pavement.

The footpath (wide enough for a delivery van, a pram, and a bike) is "narrow", but the bus lane (wide enough for, well, one bus) is "wide"...

Hmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS2_pk7P_8M

Thargor · 24-07-2020 07:04PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If it's not blatant whataboutery, it's being utterly pedantic, putting words in people's mouths, or - as in this case - rampant exaggeration.

Though... no, wait, you're right. Having seen the utter inability of most cyclists to stop at traffic lights at all, never mind when they're every few metres like at the IFSC, yeah. You may have a point about cyclists' failure to obey the rules of the road. Glad to see you admitting it, finally.

Oblivious much?

Get your crayons out for the fifteenth time:

Its not against the Rules of the Road to cycle on the road even if theres a cycle lane present.

Its Hard to explain these things when this is the level of understanding you're dealing with though:

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes. And in the vast majority of cases, all any traffic lane is, is a bit of paint on the ground.

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments