Fed up as cyclists as public enemy #1

No-one is arguing that Irish cycle facilities are fine. They most definitely are not.

Unfortunately, as I've posted before, the Irish public have made up their mind: no-one takes cycle facilities seriously, one way or the other. From the people who design them badly and without binding standards, to cyclists who eschew them, to taxi-drivers who park on them. They're a joke, and that's the way it currently is.

(According to what I've read, it isn't illegal to cycle on the road in Germany; it's illegal to cycle on the road where there's a blue bike path sign.)

smeedyova wrote: »

Exactly. I was bewildered by one of the above replies who asked me what separates the cyclists from pedestrians on bike paths in Germany...am, basic intelligence and education.

That was me
But that's kind of my point. It works in Germany, because that's what the German people are like. It doesn't work in Ireland, because the Irish are less concerned about such trivial laws.

Although people in general aren't that different. I'd be interested to know if the number of collisions between peds and cyclists is noticeably higher in Germany than elsewhere.

The pedestrian part is far too narrow, and the cycle lane passes within one metre of multiple doorways.

Do you really think that this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whetzky/3927543904/
is doing things properly?

Do you think this is the end-product of the thought "Let's do this the best way we can?"

Fair enough. You seem to be implying that Irish people are unintelligent though. That's the second time you've done it. It's probably more to do with having scant regard for rules rather than a lack of intelligence.

Also, if you cycle briskly (not very fast; say, average 20km/h over total journey), I think that example you gave would result in collisions with pedestrians.

@smeedyova- I have cycled around 600km across Germany, from the French border to Austria. Most of my cycling has been in the south, although I have also cycled in Berlin. I am not entirely ignorant of German cycling facilities. The facilities are unquestionably better than Ireland but from my experience:

- Two-way cycle tracks are very common (e.g. track on only one side of the road.) These were generally sufficiently wide for two bikes to pass easily but not always.
- Cycle paths often took a less direct route than the road. Sometimes this added tens of kilometers; I remember one section where the road was dead straight like an arrow but the cycle path went back and forth from one side to another constantly. I think it was 40km by the road and ended up being 60km by the bike path.
- The surface on cycle paths was often far worse than on the road.
- Cycle paths often suffered from a more severe gradient than the road and went up and down when the road was flat.
- Shared use paths were common and suffered from pedestrian congestion.
- Where cycle paths crossed minor roads the cyclist was expected to yield.
- On-road cycle paths were placed adjacent to the door zone of parked cars.
- Though not as frequent as here, there were examples of bike paths ending in stupid places.

I have no problem with cycle paths, as long as they are not compulsory. The German network is often very pleasant, especially if you are just pottering along rather than trying to keep up a reasonable speed.

What it comes down to, is there are different types of cycling. The German cycle network is suitable for your type of cycling. It is not suitable for others. As long as it is optional, there is no problem.

blorg wrote: »

What it comes down to, is there are different types of cycling. The German cycle network is suitable for your type of cycling. It is not suitable for others. As long as it is optional, there is no problem.

That's one thing I've never got a satisfactory answer for: why did the Netherlands and Denmark (and Germany, where there's a blue sign) make use of facilities compulsory? It's not as if cyclists using the road causes havoc in other countries, and I assume the vast majority of cyclists would be more than happy to continue to use the facilities rather than the road.

The other business in Germany I find a bit odd is that unless you have a light racing bike, you must have lights fixed to your bike. I can see that probably reduces Ninja cycling, but it also means you can't have very good lights, since you have to have them attached to your bike and therefore vulnerable to vandalism and theft. Having used bottle-dynamo lights for years before getting stronger, quite expensive LED lights, I'd rather not go back now.

smeedyova wrote:

A cyclist in Germany would be stopped by the police for cycling near traffic because it's so dangerous and here we're expected to!

The issues around cycle paths have already been well covered in previous posts so I'm not going to comment on that topic other than to say that I share the views of the shortcomings/limitations of cycle paths generally. What I do wish to ask though is why cycling near traffic is so dangerous, as you describe it in your post above? And if you really believe this to be the case does this mean that in your view cyclists should never venture out on roads outside of cities where no cycle paths exist? That may not actually be what you are implying but unfortunately it is a mindset that the prevalence of cycle paths can foster in the most narrow minded of motorists - for such people if a cycle path does not exist on the road then no cyclists should be on the road, full stop, and this mindset is one of many things that contributes to the dangers posed to cyclists.

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's one thing I've never got a satisfactory answer for: why did the Netherlands and Denmark (and Germany, where there's a blue sign) make use of facilities compulsory? It's not as if cyclists using the road causes havoc in other countries, and I assume the vast majority of cyclists would be more than happy to continue to use the facilities rather than the road.

As far as I know, it was done very early in Germany (1920s) not out of any concern for cyclists, but to get them out of the way so they would not be an inconvenience for motorists. They were only made compulsory in the Netherlands under Nazi occupation, although the earlier motives behind construction had been similar:

first Dutch Roads Congress, 1920 wrote:

After all, the construction of bicycle paths along the larger roads relieves traffic along these roads of an extremely bothersome element: the cyclist.

- From the timeline here

blorg wrote: »

They were only made compulsory in the Netherlands under Nazi occupation

Have to be careful not to Godwin the thread!

It must be said that most people I've talked to in the Netherland and Denmark are very happy with the facilities. Tree roots breaking up the surface was a complaint though. I've a friend in Aachen who complains that the traffic-light sequences strongly favour the road over the cycle facilities.