Documenting Ireland's cycle lanes

tomasrojo wrote: »

Isn't that lane a contraflow? The symbols painted on it suggest that cyclists should only use it going west and not going east.

I don't use it, because, as I'm sure you'll agree, you're pretty much always better using the road.

It is indeed contra-flow. I discussed it in this thread previously- same conclusions as yourself!

monument wrote: »

Do you have a link or access to that document?

If you Google "Transport Initiatives" + sully + dublin, you'll find a link to the old Dublin Cycling Campaign website. The pdf link is broken (home.connect.ie/dcc/docs/Cyclereview.pdf), but the HTML version seems still to be working. The formatting is poxy, but the content is still there.

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:B3_CatSBq20J:home.connect.ie/dcc/docs/Cyclereview.pdf+%22Transport+Initiatives%22+sully+dublin&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

markpb wrote: »

I was here recently praising the design of the cycle lane between Sandyford estate and Drummartin but they've made me look like a fool with their recent endeavours.

The junction to the new Blackthorn Drive extension has created the single most dangerous and stupid pinch point I've ever seen and completely undoes all the good that the rest of the lane offers. The first two times I used it, I was sure I had done something wrong because I ended up in the pedestrian island and (almost) in the side of a car. I'll try to grab photos this week.

I was being driven along that new road that flanks the Luas line in the Sandyford Estate recently, heading towards Stillorgan Heath. I presume that's Blackthorn Drive Extension.

I noticed they'd put up a sign telling cyclists not to attempt a right turn at one junction, but to cross as a pedestrian.

What is all that about? It was a very modest, unintimidating junction, it seemed to me at the time.

http://www.dto.ie/ctbl/

Apparently the DTO has been surveying Dublin's cycle lanes for quite some time.

What's the status on the mandatory use of cycle paths now? I recall there was some legislation going through to stop us being forced to use these death traps.

tomasrojo wrote: »

What is all that about? It was a very modest, unintimidating junction, it seemed to me at the time.

Hope these help. The first photo is a similar junction further back on the same road - the cycle lane dips in advance, cyclists merge with the traffic safely, no-one gets cut up by people turning left and there's no need to slow down if the lights are green.

The rest of the photos show are the new junction. I couldn't get a photo without a car in the way but you should be able to see my point. The cycle lane dips in the slip lane, not in advance, the pedestrian island blocks the path forward and there's no cycle lane for cyclists going straight ahead.

To make matters worse, the lights for turning left go green before the straight ahead lights so if you stop, try to filter through the left-lane traffic, they can suddenly start moving without leaving space on the other side for you to move into.

The last photo shows just how much the pedestrian island protrudes across the cycle lane.

stesh wrote: »

http://www.dto.ie/ctbl/

Apparently the DTO has been surveying Dublin's cycle lanes for quite some time.

A potentially useful site rendered nearly useless by its unreliability. Glancing at the map for my own area (Phibsboro, Glasnevin), I can see lanes marked where there are none and never have been any (i.e. outside Hampstead Park, the entirety of Connaught Street, Faussagh Road and Avenue, Blackhorse lane etc.), and lanes missing from the map when in reality they exist: i.e. the route through the Phoenix Park on Chesterfield Avenue.

A map depicting a ficticious landscape is worse than no map at all.

markpb wrote: »

he first photo is a similar junction further back on the same road - the cycle lane dips in advance, cyclists merge with the traffic safely, no-one gets cut up by people turning left and there's no need to slow down if the lights are green.

It's definitely better than the other photos, but you're still placed on the left-hand side of left-turning traffic when you're trying to go straight, from what I can see. That is and always has been a mental design, much favoured by the local authorities.

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Their opposition to cycle lanes/tracks, which comes last in the Hierarchy, is at odds with the opinions of many well informed people in this forum.

I think it's also consonant with the views of many other well-informed people!

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it's also consonant with the views of many other well-informed people!

Heh- for sure. I was really just pointing out that there are a few different viewpoints on this, and that the cycle campaigns don't necessarily represent all of them.

I think this opposition to lanes/tracks is understandable based on many of the designs we see on the ground today, but there are two possible courses of action available in light of this legacy- general opposition to lanes/tracks, or support for better lanes/tracks.

I'm not saying that every road needs to be marked with a lane - far from it! - but there are certainly places where such facilities would be required and I don't think the cyclist.ie document takes full account of the range of road types on which cycling takes place. Copenhagen, for example, is full of high quality segregated lanes- the differences from Ireland being that they are well designed and well maintained, and they form a network. They are designed for the benefit of cyclists, not for the benefit of motorists (as so many Dublin facilities seem to be), and they are heavily used- usually a good sign.

I do understand that cycle infrastructure isn't required to make a place bike-friendly, and I would fully support cyclist.ie's opposition to lanes in urban centres, but I just think a slightly broader perspective is required.

***

rflynnr- not that I disagree with you about the accuracy of the DTO maps and thus their reliability, but I was looking at that map the other day and, of the examples you cite, the Phoenix Park ones are marked, and I don't see lanes marked on the map along the Connaught-Fassaugh axis. It's a detail only, and doesn't undermine your general point, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Incidentally, has anyone here cycled in Copenhagen? Much is made of Copenhagen these days as the cycling capital of the world, but how do people who haven't grown up with those facilities find them? And does Denmark have a mandatory cycle-facility law like here?

Thanks, petethedrummer.

Because of this thread, I emailed an Irish friend of mine who lives in Denmark to ask him what he thought and he said:

Cycling around here on cycle lanes is made annoying by the traffic lights which are timed more for cars. If you go at a normal pace you will always stop at every light on the ring road. The authorities are also bad at fixing rills caused by tree roots. What we don´t have are lots of stupid paint markings and painted tracks so the experience is not that disagreeble. I do prefer to use the road where possible and on quieter stretches this can be done. However, one is legally compelled to use tracks where provided.

So they do have a mandatory use law, it seems.

Also worth noting is that it is legal for a bicycle to pass another vehicle on the inside in Denmark (and the Netherlands). This is entirely logical as the facilities would be encouraging cyclists to act illegally otherwise.

It is, of course, illegal to pass on the inside here, so our facilities are completely inconsistent with the law (as well as with common sense, road engineering and whatever you're having yourself).

One final question. From looking at the photos of Copenhagen, it seems that their streets are much wider than ours in general. Would that be fair to say?