nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pedestrians in the cycle lane

Muckie

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

Cycle mosts(plus from the recession) quite enjoy it too.

But about 3 weeks ago i meet a very large woman in the cycle lane,

there was no footpath, this was 100% cycle lane.

I slowed down, almost stopped, but jesus she just waddled by. Brushed

off me and i moved- big mistake!.

Course i wobbled off the edge of the lane, 5 - 6 inch drop.

Came down hard.

Was like a bolt of lightning hit me in the back. Turns out i had torn my

lumbar muscle. Still hurting but getting better.

So if you ever meet someone walking, if you can't avoid safetly, get off

and walk. Becareful folks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

carthoris

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

I don't - I cycle on the road.

[Deleted User]

Yup, cycle on the road. On the times that someone is going for a jog at night in the on-road cycle lanes, I've done the bell and they move in.

doc1976

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

I wonder why? Do you think it might be something to do with the 30% greater chance of being killed or injured compared to riding on the road?

[Deleted User]

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

Personally, I always ensure to wear a cape while avoiding cycle lanes.

Lumen

Fatty frotting fail.

Dermot Illogical

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

Slow down and say "excuse me!", or "I don't peddle on the footpad, so get out of the bicycling lane!" depending on humour.
I'm thinking of getting a bell for days I'm too lazy to speak.

Dermot Illogical

Lumen wrote: »

Fatty frotting fail.

Waddling wanderlust woman in wanton wobbling wipeout #winning

doc1976

rp wrote: »

I wonder why? Do you think it might be something to do with the 30% greater chance of being killed or injured compared to riding on the road?

There's a 30% greater chance of being killed while cycling in a cycle lane???

wobbles

Get one of these bad boys. Blow it when your behind them and they will get the fight of their life. Wont be long getting out of the way then

doc1976 wrote: »

There's a 30% greater chance of being killed while cycling in a cycle lane???

Correct. Dutch, German and UK stats indicate this. The Dutch analysed why this is so, and radically overhauled their cycle lane infrastructure and traffic laws to address the shortcomings.
Here's a good reference page.

carthoris

doc1976 wrote: »

Lots of "Hero's" on here that don't use cycle lanes.

Perhaps our comments were a little abrupt but the point sticks; cycle lanes are fraught with trivial and frustrating issues that will not be resolved as mentioned above but cycling on the road you do not encounter such issues. Roads have their own problems but I prefer roads to cycle lanes/paths.

The reason I cycle on the road is mostly for convenience. A perfect example is the grand canal cycle way - it is a wonderful facility but the gates at the junctions which means I have to dismount and carry my bike is so bothersome that I would rather cycle the longer route on the road.

-Chris-

Muckie wrote: »

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

I cycle around them, slowing down if necessary.

Chris O Donoghue

I never use cycle lanes, the ones in Cork aren't worth a cuss. They're either on the footpath ,which means you have to stop at every road junction like a..like a... bloody PEDESTRIAN, or they're about 20 metres long and you end up hitting a wall or being decanted into the fast lane in front of an 18 wheeler.

I use roads: that's what they're for.

John_Rambo

-Chris- wrote: »

I cycle around them, slowing down if necessary.

Amazingly, I do the same, sometimes applying my brakes. When I'm in my car, I tend to avoid pedestrians on the road. I sometimes come to a complete stop.

coolbeans

On the rare occasions I use cycle lanes I go around ringing the bell as I do so. Bells are great and are a great way of telling someone to geroudda da way without causing offence or inconvenience to either party. Shouting is not cool.

Kintarō Hattori

coolbeans wrote: »

Delete repeat

You know you can edit your post and delete it. There is an option when editing a post to make it disappear!

Cookie_Monster

depends on what mood I'm in, sometimes I say "excuse me please" loudly enough that they can here while I'm still a bit back.

Mostly I just shout something abusive at them though or whiz by really closely

(cos I'm a nice person like that)

Though as already mentioned I do try and avoid cycle lanes altogether if possible anyway.

Muckie

carthoris wrote: »

I don't - I cycle on the road.

I wish it had as been as easy as that, i'll get a pic later of where i met

"this large friendly lady".

rich.d.berry

My bell is a bit useless, but I ring it nonetheless. If I get no response then my normal shout is "Coming through!".

neris

only cycle lane i use is the one from sutton to fairview and always women someone walking in the cycle lane so cycle around them but cut back in close in front of them. Especially on the part between teh wooden bridge and clontarf which is just a cycle lane with no footpathas there is a footpath a short walk over the grass. Some of them get a bit upset but then again there are some real dopes in country

Jawgap

Muckie wrote: »

I wish it had as been as easy as that, i'll get a pic later of where i met

"this large friendly lady".

You seem fixared on the girth of this lady - bit of a chubby chaser are we??:D

In answer to the question, I do what I think is the typically Irish thing in such circumstances - I cycle around them then mutter obscenities under my breath so they can't hear, then kick myself a few minutes later when I think of something witty I could have said but didn't.

Rew

A lot of them in the cycle lane in the park despite the road being closed nearly hit one last night in the pitch black despite my lights only saw him at the last second. The maddest thing though was being passed by a motorcycle on the cycle lane in the park the other night. His plate was covered in mud so no hope of reporting him.

enas

rp wrote: »

Here's a good reference page.

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/what-should-going-dutch-mean/

http://manchestercycling.blogspot.com/2011/06/segregation-myths-2-segregated-cycle.html

http://manchestercycling.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-john-franklin-misled-nation-cycling.html

http://voleospeed.blogspot.com/2011/06/cyclenation-and-europe-one-from.html

Just one quote?

It is noteworthy that not one of the studies in the list linked to dates from later than 2001, and the only Dutch study referenced by Franklin dates from 1977. Given that the Netherlands is effectively a country-wide testbed for separated cycling facilities, this is an astonishing omission.

And another one:

it seems obvious that John Franklin believes that cyclists always belong on the road as an ideology. As an ideological view, there is nothing wrong with this. However, presenting this as fact by misrepresenting and cherry-picking research and conducting research which is little more than a collection of meaningless, context-free numbers in order to serve as a vehicle for an ideology which the numbers do not back is a dishonest practise.

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

<snip>
And another one:

Questioning the validity of the research cited by Mr. Franklin because of its age is a bit like dismissing Galileos finding on the motions of the planets because he worked in the 1500-1600s.

It is a fact that most urban car/cycle collisions occur at junctions and involve conflicting crossing/turning movements.

It is self evident that increasing the complexity of junctions through adding cycle facilities has the potential to increase such conflicts. This prediction has been confirmed empirically in various studies of crash rates before and after the addition of cycle facilities.

check_six

Pedestrians in the cycle lane? Pah! I've been stuck behind cyclists in the cycle lane.

Took the bike + trailer + child up the Stillorgan Rd and decided to use the (frankly terrible) cycle lane. Saw a cyclist a good bit ahead, and ever so slowly caught up with him. It was only then that I realised that the width of the trailer would not allow me to overtake, and the added weight of the trailer would make any "alternative" overtaking manouevre a very drawn out affair, akin to a truck overtaking another long vehicle. The other punter was oblivious to all around him and I ended up trapped for ages until I came to one of the 'suicide chutes' that plop you onto the road in the path of vehicles swerving to get off the dual carriageway. I shook my fist at fate and went for it, survived, and pulled away from my nemesis (slowly).

enas wrote: »

Good? Ouch! If you have some time, here's some good reading about the seriousness of this "reference" (not exhaustive, but very interesting in my opinion):

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/what-should-going-dutch-mean/

That was a good article, thanks for the pointer. But from my reading, it doesn't really contradict Franklin's view: the Netherlanders did there research on cycle lanes, recognized the problems and improved them - especially around junctions.

The design and quality of the lanes we have here (and in the UK and Germany) are not of that standard, and do put the cyclist into dangerous situations, such as needing to scan 270 degrees, putting us into motorists blind-spots (esp. trucks) and encouraging fast and close passing maneuvers by motorists.

Look, if cycle lanes were the best place to ride, we'd all be riding on them. I didn't wake up one morning and "god, I feel a bolshie today, I think I'll ride on the road and annoy some drivers" - I used to use cycle lanes where I could, but experience bet that out of me.

Finally, fifty good reasons not to use cycle lanes, from the German viewpoint: http://www.swb.de/personal/elch/e_50-reasons.html

enas

rp wrote: »

That was a good article, thanks for the pointer. But from my reading, it doesn't really contradict Franklin's view: the Netherlanders did there research on cycle lanes, recognized the problems and improved them - especially around junctions.

I absolutely agree. So indeed, cycle lanes don't have to be dangerous if properly thought of.

The problem with Franklin aversion to cycle lanes, and with this list in particular, is that it has lead generations of campaigners, mainly in UK, but also in Ireland, to use this as an objective argument that cycles lanes, not matter how you build them, are inherently dangerous. That is simply untrue. The Dutch did it well, and do it well. Franklin never acknowledged it, in fact, he tends to dismiss this criticism by saying that what Dutch do is quite irrelevant (*). Pretty strange to ignore the country that does best in the world in terms of achieving high cycling rates.

The design and quality of the lanes we have here (and in the UK and Germany) are not of that standard, and do put the cyclist into dangerous situations, such as needing to scan 270 degrees, putting us into motorists blind-spots (esp. trucks) and encouraging fast and close passing maneuvers by motorists.

Look, if cycle lanes were the best place to ride, we'd all be riding on them. I didn't wake up one morning and "god, I feel a bolshie today, I think I'll ride on the road and annoy some drivers" - I used to use cycle lanes where I could, but experience bet that out of me.

Look, unfortunately, I only know too well what you're talking about (although Cork has been fortunately quite well preserved from that). I was simply reacting, out of topic admittedly, to this list of research being presented as a "reference", which simply it is not.

Finally, fifty good reasons not to use cycle lanes, from the German viewpoint: http://www.swb.de/personal/elch/e_50-reasons.html

Funny, but unfortunately very true

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Questioning the validity of the research cited by Mr. Franklin because of its age is a bit like dismissing Galileos finding on the motions of the planets because he worked in the 1500-1600s.

Well the motions of the planets haven't changed much since then. However, the situation in the Netherlands have quite dramatically changed since 1977. Indeed, state of art junction designs date from the 2000s. Things have evolved because decisions have continuously been evaluated and errors corrected (as rp mentions too).

It is self evident that increasing the complexity of junctions through adding cycle facilities has the potential to increase such conflicts. This prediction has been confirmed empirically in various studies of crash rates before and after the addition of cycle facilities.

Self-evidency doesn't explain much I'm afraid. That it has the potential doesn't mean it has to.

I always react to these type of assertions. Just because we got all used to the crap we have here (and the crap they have in many other countries to be fair), doesn't mean it can't be done correctly. I wish there were campaigners asking for the good stuff. Unfortunately, in the near future, I don't see any of that arriving here, so yes, I do ignore too cycle lanes and adopt (Franklin's) vehicular cycling techniques. In a nutshell, Dutch-style facilities or nothing at all for me, please.

(*) Sorry, I'm too lazy to find a pointer, I'm only basing that on memory, so I accept in advance your objections to this point.

CramCycle

enas wrote: »

The problem with Franklin aversion to cycle lanes, and with this list in particular, is that it has lead generations of campaigners, mainly in UK, but also in Ireland, to use this as an objective argument that cycles lanes, not matter how you build them, are inherently dangerous.

I'd disagree with this as I think it was more of a non scientific, more common sense approach, that if you let non cyclists build cycling infrastructure, then they will be inherently dangerous.

seeing_ie

carthoris wrote: »

Perhaps our comments were a little abrupt but the point sticks; cycle lanes are fraught with trivial and frustrating issues that will not be resolved as mentioned above but cycling on the road you do not encounter such issues. Roads have their own problems but I prefer roads to cycle lanes/paths.

The reason I cycle on the road is mostly for convenience. A perfect example is the grand canal cycle way - it is a wonderful facility but the gates at the junctions which means I have to dismount and carry my bike is so bothersome that I would rather cycle the longer route on the road.

Bit excessive imo.

Having cycled the canal cycle way a few times too, I'm more than happy to dismount to get through the gates.
It's the price you pay to keep the cycleway clear of quads/scramblers/horses/sulkys etc.

Can't think of any other well designed cycle paths in Dublin I'd be happy to cycle on.