Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legal obligation to use cycle paths

24567

Comments

  • #32
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    That video clearly shows that a very high number of cyclists will ignore the rules and laws and cycle through red lights putting pedestrians and other road users at risk.

    So, cyclists are just like motorist and pedestrians?... Wait? Did you watch the same video? Who do you think it shows as the largest law breakers? Is your screen a bit foggy?

    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    Typical cyclist attitude. All cyclists should be kept off the road for their own good.

    That's just a typical responce.

    If motorists just stuck to motorways, there'd be no problem! Everybody would be better off, no traffic congestion in towns and cities, and there'd be close to zero deaths.


  • #33
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,624 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    nomdeboardie wrote: »
    This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0_G6Zrz4PU, from last week, was mentioned in a thread from the cycling forum a couple of days ago (can't find it now). Haven't been that way myself yet, but things don't look particularly straightforward...

    what a ****ing disater that is. I couldn't have imagined they'd be able to make that much of a mess of it...


  • #34
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    From casual observation of the new cycle route along the canal it seems that there wasn't a lot of consideration for pedestrians in this. The line of desire of pedestrians is, quite rightly straight across from the bridge to the other side of the road. The new cycle path makes them meander a little. The ped crossing should have pretty much continued the footpath in a straight line across the road, and the cycle path should have been stopped a meter or so back, in line with the railings on the bridge more or less.

    Another thing is that Denmark was mentioned above. Afaik, the current practice there atm is to avoid bi-directional cycle lanes unless they're properly segregated (i.e. not in a highly urban area). They usually go for lanes at the side of each car lane. Doing it this way keeps the cyclists on the minds of the motorist. Segregate them, and the motorist forgets that the cyclists are there. Also, the lanes in the canal route seem to be pretty narrow, a problem that is no doubt exacerbated by pedestrians walking in them.


  • #35
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    AltAccount wrote: »
    Possible reasons: Losing priority at every junction. Having to use badly timed crossing lights where cars are given very obvious priority. Being treated like a pedestrian rather than a vehicle.

    Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

    Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

    If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

    Why is that such an imposition?

    You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

    Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"


  • #36
    steve-o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭steve-o


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

    Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"
    So you hate cyclists. You hate the fact they aren't using the "wonderful facility". But, having seen the video, can you accept there are any design flaws or operational flaws?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all
    Life would be a whole lot easier without.

    All they really do is give the impression that bicycles need their own roads. They don't.


  • #38
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

    Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

    If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

    Why is that such an imposition?

    You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

    Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"
    Are you saying it is ok to provide a crap cycle lane that cyclists wont use(because it is just plain messed up by blind corners, narrow lanes, and places where the contra flow and proximity to pedestrians is dangerous due to not having a barrier at the canal edge,) and that spending millions on this is better than providing two separate good quality lanes at a greater expense but which provided far greater value for money because people will actually use them?


    (I don't hate ciclists and i do think that good cycle lanes should be provided on carriageways and major roads but don't think city streets are the place for cycle lanes that are nothing more than a white marking on the road and not being wide enough for a bike yet expected to carry bikes bi-directional and a fortune spent making it look like the government care.!)


  • #39
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    ....If only for self preservation.

    Dublin roads are some of the safest in Europe, so that's nonsense.
    Snickers Man wrote: »
    As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

    Why is that such an imposition?

    Ireland and the UK are some of the few countries in the world which use such segregated traffic light sequences.

    Elsewhere when traffic has a green light in one direction, pedestrians also have a green in that direction. Traffic turning yields to the pedestrians. It works and is proven to be safe.

    The result of not doing this on this route is walking and cycling traffic stopped needless at more than a few junctions just for the odd car tuning left (along with also been stopped often for a considerable amount of time for traffic in the other direction).
    Snickers Man wrote: »
    You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

    You've got wonderfully safe motorways to drive on, why don't you use them?


  • #40
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    I would have thought that there was a European standard for cycle lanes as there seems to be for everything else including motorways in this country. There is a cycle lane on the Naas road just before Nulans X with a bus stop placed in the center of it.


  • #41
    jameverywhere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 224 ✭✭jameverywhere


    Y'all may find this thread enlightening:

    documenting Ireland's cycle lanes


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I would have thought that there was a European standard for cycle lanes as there seems to be for everything else including motorways in this country. There is a cycle lane on the Naas road just before Nulans X with a bus stop placed in the center of it.
    There is a handbook for city/county councils setting out how cycling facilities should be constructed.

    It's only a handbook mind, nobody seems to pay it a blind bit of notice.

    To give a bit of perspective on what cycle lanes are like;

    Imagine the state maintained this vast network of motorways. These motorways go practically everywhere, are in OK condition (a few bumps and holes here and there) and have priority at all junctions with other types of roads.
    But only trucks and busses may use them.

    Cars are provided with a separate piece of road which is barely the same width as the car. The surface is fine when constructed, but it is never maintained, so it falls to ruin in a year or two and is almost never repaired. The road is continually littered with debris and glass. Pedestrians routinely walk down the road with their back to you, despite having a perfectly good path beside it.
    Trucks and Busses routinely park in the car lane, requiring you to either try and squeeze by, or mount a six-inch kerb to get onto the motorway. The Gardai never do anything about this.

    It zig-zags left and right in such a way that these roads are not suitable for speeds above 25km/h. Usually where they join or leave a motorway, there is a six-inch kerb. Where there is no separate car lane, you may drive on the motorway.
    Every few hundred metres there is a junction with the motorway, requiring you to stop and check for traffic. Traffic does not slow down for you - if you don't slow down at these junctions, the traffic will plough right on through.

    Sometimes there is no real junction - the car lane just "ends" and you have to figure out how to get onto the motorway safely while traffic just keeps on moving. Sometimes the signage directs you to get out of your vehicle and push it across the motorway in order to join the car lane on the opposite side.

    Would you continue using these car lanes, or would you just abandon them completely, knowing that it is both safer and more convenient to use the motorways?


  • #43
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    @Snickers Man, your blunt ignorance and refusal to accept some basic facts about road traffic management place you on one side of the old saying "for those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't, no proof is good enough." Others here have the no proof is good enough attitude, and would welcome the total abolition of cycle lanes. Obviously, there is a middle ground; cycle lanes that are effective, safe and create a relationship between the two types of vehicle that works.

    The fact is that Ireland has no such cycle facility, and the Canal cycle lane is no exception. At every junction, the prioritisation of motorist creates points of conflict between motorist, cyclist and pedestrian. This is terrible practice from a traffic management perspective.

    The likes of Denmark would be appalled at such a facility; it obviously undermines the pedestrian and cyclist to the extent that the motorist feels confronted every time a pedestrian or a cyclist deviates from their position of enforced subjugation, as you clearly feel with your post (the cyclist is not using the facility provided exclusively for him, and is instead using the road, which was originally provided for the use of all vehicles, which includes the bicycle). Danish planning would seek to eradicate such conflict.

    I think it is important to remember that the heirarchy of importance in Danish traffic management places the needs of the motorist at the bottom of the ladder. Pedestrian traffic is the priority, as it should be. A city or towns experience is predominantly on foot, and the better you can make that, the better the town will be perceived. The motorised vehicles are given lowest priority because they cause the most accidents and fatalities, create unnecessary traffic blockages, damage to public property and pollution. The idea is to discourage reliance on motor vehicles, and to limit their access to urban areas to specific zones through specific arteries. So they provide better cycle lanes than motor vehicle lanes, and clearly give priority in a pedestrian first, then cyclist, then motorist manner.

    Ireland does not have this attitude, so we clog some of our finest streets (Leeson Street, Merrion Square, O' Connell Street, College Green, Dame Street, Georges Street, the length of the Quays) with roads that allow traffic to take priority. This cycle lane is an extension of that policy.

    Which brings me to my point; why does Ireland do this? People come to Dublin and say "it was beautiful, I had a great time, but the traffic was shocking." I've never heard anyone come back from Copenhagen, or Amsterdam and say "it was crap, couldn't get anywhere in my rented car." Surely policy on road traffic should be attempting to improve the city as an experience (and some actions, such as the College Green traffic restriction and 30kmph speed limit are tokenistic, unenforced attempts at this) rather than making it quicker to drive through.

    By the way, I'm not condoning cyclists who break the road laws. That's as bad as when a motorist speeds, or accelerates to get through the yellow light, or parks taking up two spaces, or sticks the hazard lights on to pop into a shop for 2 minutes, or whatever. It's wrong.

    Also, to the best of my knowledge, Leo Varadkar has indicated that the mandatory use of cycle lanes will be repealed soon, with the exception of contra flow cycle lanes on one way streets and in pedestrianised areas, both of which to me seem logical and fair.

    Now, Sickers Man, if you wish to continue howling your opinion without being willing to listen to the other side and accept the experience of cyclists, fair enough. But just be aware that for you, your belief that the lane is "an amazing facility" is founded on opinion. Just like the opinion of people who say that all cycle lanes are dangerous. They're not. But they are in a country like ours that makes traffic policy that kowtows to motorists at the expense of everything else. Remember that you own a car, not the road.


  • #44
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    steve-o wrote: »
    So you hate cyclists. You hate the fact they aren't using the "wonderful facility". But, having seen the video, can you accept there are any design flaws or operational flaws?

    I don't hate cyclists. I am, sometimes, a cyclist myself. I hate stupid cyclists, which is a qualification and not a tautology.

    And looking at the video the flaws that I spotted were (1) dumb cyclists crashing the lights from the left when the camera wearer tried to cross the road with the lights.

    (2) Roadworks preventing passage through a section of the cycle path. Regrettable but sometimes inevitable and usually temporary.

    (3) the blind corner at Leeson St Bridge needs to be rectified. I'm in total agreement there.

    The film didn't show the section east of Leeson St bridge where in the early days there was a terrible congestion of pedestrians and cyclists using teh same space. This now appears to have been rectified with an improved footpath along the canal.

    The section in which pedestrians were seen walking along the cycle path west of Baggot St bridge is a confusion but the complaint in the commentary that "there's no footpath here" is misleading. There was NEVER a footpath on that side of the road in that section. Unless of course you mean the canal bank, suitably protected by a wall, on the far side of the railings.

    The section that I travel along most and which annoys me most when cyclists use it is Herbert Place. There is NO good reason not to use the cycle path there, it's straight, well paved, separated from the road and with reasonable traffic signals. Cyclists slowing down car traffic on that stretch of road are just being inconsiderate.

    If you are arguing for a generally more sensible sequencing of pedestrian/cyclist crossing signals in Dublin then I'm with you. I think perhaps cycle lanes like this could help force the issue because the way pedestrians traditionally deal with it is just to ignore the signals anyway as the flim shows. No complaints; no action from the authorities.

    Bottom line is I'm all in favour of proper cycle paths. And given the limitations of Dublin when compared with Germany (we weren't bombed to rubble in the 40s and therefore given the opportunity to rebuild our cities with wider streets including cycle paths on pavements) the Grand Canal cycle path is a good start and one that should be supported.

    Of course it's not perfect. But such flaws as there are are rectifiable.

    Oh and "cyclists being treated as pedestrians for the purpose of traffic signals" is NOT a flaw.


  • #45
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane.

    Correct me if I am wrong but, in the absence of a cycle lane, wouldn't the "safe way of permitting traffic turning right across" the path of an oncoming cyclist be for the traffic to yield to the oncoming cyclist just like the traffic would for oncoming cars?

    Why are the rules of the road suddenly expected to change when a cycle lane is put in? Would they be changed if a bus lane was put in? Or another lane for cars?


  • #46
    nomdeboardie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,163 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Three bad reasons don't equal one good one!

    Especially when it's actually it's the same reason expressed different ways.

    If by being "treated as a pedestrian" you mean "having to adhere to the traffic light signals that pertain to pedestrians" then yes. You do have to. If only for self preservation. As the cycle path in question runs along one side of the road only, there has to be a safe way of permitting traffic turning right across that cycle lane. Therefore, cyclists can't obey the same green light as other vehicular traffic and must instead obey the Walk/Don't Walk (or pedal/don't pedal) sequence that pedestrians do.

    Why is that such an imposition?

    You've got a wonderful safe dedicated facility. It's not much to ask.

    Your argument is tantamount to saying you don't want a cycle lane at all, and seems also to be informed by the typcial cyclist's assumption that "red lights don't apply to us!"
    Why would a cyclist who wants to make progress, as opposed to having a more pleasant view of the canal, not choose to use the road going in the same direction, when they are legally entitled to do so? Would you choose to drive through scenic country lanes and small towns in preference to using a motorway if you want to get to your destination as quickly and efficiently as possible? If cycing is being promoted for transport and fitness as well as leisure, it's imperative that cyclists are not coerced onto facilities that impede progress.


  • #47
    nerraw1111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    I’ve been using the new grand cycle lane regularly enough and I like it for the most part. Last night, I got all green and it was fantastic. Nice surface and traffic free. It felt like a properly designed cycle lane, which it isn’t yet.
    I mainly use it off peak which makes a huge difference.

    But the junctions are so badly designed in that pedestrians are pretty much forced to stand in front of the bicycle lane. It’s not pedestrians’ fault who are often taken by surprise that they are suddenly standing in the middle of a cycle lane.
    The ridiculous small gap that cyclists and pedestrians, from both directions, must file into at Lesson st Bridge really grinds my gear. I mean look at the gap!
    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.332244,-6.250491&spn=0.010892,0.01929&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=58.294644,58.798828&hnear=Dublin,+County+Dublin,+Ireland&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.332217,-6.253014&panoid=J5BZUH54aeIzaEblrGOsRA&cbp=12,177.27,,0,11.57

    All these problems could be rectified when the lane is finished. But for the most part, I prefer it than the road, just as long as you're not in a hurry.


  • #48
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Oh and "cyclists being treated as pedestrians for the purpose of traffic signals" is NOT a flaw.

    It is if the pedestrian is treated poorly. In fact ANY design in which the pedestrian is treated poorly is a flawed design. This cycle lane is criminal in how it treats the pedestrian, as is most of the road network in Ireland's urban areas. Priority should be given to pedestrians in all aspects of road design, particularly in urban areas like this one. The manner in which the design facilitates the pedestrian currently is embarrassing.


  • #49
    Milan Cobian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭Milan Cobian


    And given the limitations of Dublin when compared with Germany (we weren't bombed to rubble in the 40s and therefore given the opportunity to rebuild our cities with wider streets including cycle paths on pavements)

    Germany's cities were rebuilt in the 1950's without the benefit of cycle lanes, which were not added until much later. At the time of course, the cyclists were by far in the majority (as in Dublin) and such additions were not necessary.
    The most cycle-friendly cities in Europe include such cities as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, neither of which "benefitted" from re-arrangement courtesy of the Luftwaffe, the RAF or the USAAF. So the "clean slate" argument is a fallacy.
    Attitude is the key differentiator between us and continental cities. They have decided that public transport, properly funded by taxes, is a societal good. The extension to this is that cycling is also a better means of urban transportation than the car.
    We have decided that we don't want to pay taxes for public transportation, allied to wanting to live spread out all over the place so public transport is not economically viable at the level we're willing to pay for it. Ironically, had we developed a sustainable planning policy that involved increased taxes to fund sustainable public transportation, planning and development we wouldn't be paying all our taxes from here to kingdom come to bail out Anglo. We had no vision so we pay the price many times over in the long run.
    But I digress. Anyway, throw a good dose of a Maggie Thatcher-like attitude ("A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.") and we have some idea why Ireland is so motor-centric. This previous statement I suspect would also attract plenty who would be happy to substitute "bike" for "bus."
    A worthy mention also goes to our strong motoring lobby - after all this is the country that decided, as the economy flat lined, that the best pro-business initiative would be to promote a car subsidy scheme, specially designed to ensure as much money as possible left the economy.
    All in all, this leaves cycling (and public transport) very much the black sheep of the transit family in Ireland. Whether this remains the same as petrol prices head north at a rate of knots remains to be seen.


  • #50
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    View wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but, in the absence of a cycle lane, wouldn't the "safe way of permitting traffic turning right across" the path of an oncoming cyclist be for the traffic to yield to the oncoming cyclist just like the traffic would for oncoming cars?

    This is of course true. But the issue I have in mind is dealing with cyclists who are travelling in the same direction as the motorist, not oncoming cyclists.

    Because the cycle lane is on one side of the road only, it means that in one direction (in this case going from west to east) a cyclist wishing to go straight over say the Herbert Place to Warrington Place junction at Hubband Bridge will be travelling to the right of cars going in the same direction, including those wanting to turn right over the bridge.

    The cyclist is therefore, if expected to follow the same traffic signals as the motorist, effectively overtaking a car turning right. This is idiotic.

    The solution is to have cyclists obey the pedestrian signals instead. This seems to me eminently sensible and to be fair, most cyclists do so. But only yesterday some clown nearly got himself killed, or worse might have caused a car to brake suddenly and have another car crash into its rear end thereby damaging both cars' bumpers, :p by blithely ignoring his stop sign and bombing across the junction as a car tried to turn right.

    This is NOT the same as giving way to pedestrians when turning right, as is the default duty of a motorist when there are no filter lights or pedestrian signals. A bicycle travelling at full pelt coming from behind the car and in the driver's blind spot is a much more sudden and surprising event than a pedestrian approaching the same crossing.

    So given the limitations of the cycle lane, ie the fact that it is on one side of the road only, then it is necessary for cyclists to "be treated as pedestrians."

    They have no grounds to feel slighted by this.


  • #51
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    Snickers Man wrote: »

    The solution is to have cyclists obey the pedestrian signals instead.

    So given the limitations of the cycle lane, ie the fact that it is on one side of the road only, then it is necessary for cyclists to "be treated as pedestrians."

    They have no grounds to feel slighted by this.

    Cyclists are not pedestrians and have a common law right to use the road. Unlike cars, which are crap, make you fat and are a money pit (I have one).

    The solution is to ignore the blasted thing and cycle as normal on the road. The speed limit is 30kph anyway so you won't be holding anything up.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Cyclists are not pedestrians and have a common law right to use the road. Unlike cars, which are crap, make you fat and are a money pit (I have one).

    The solution is to ignore the blasted thing and cycle as normal on the road. The speed limit is 30kph anyway so you won't be holding anything up.

    Marie Antoinette is alive and well and posting on Boards.ie!!

    Of course cyclists have a common law right to use the roads but that is mitigated, as it is for every road user, by the rights of others. You have to accommodate all users fairly.

    Pedestrians are not allowed unfettered access to the roadway. They MUST use a footpath where one is provided. And MUST cross at a pedestrian crossing if one is available within a certain radius of where they wish to cross.

    The logic of your argument is essentially for no cycle lane at all.

    If that's what you want, say so.

    But if we have cycle lanes then cyclists have an obligation to use them for their benefit and the benefits of others.


  • #53
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Because the cycle lane is on one side of the road only, it means that in one direction (in this case going from west to east) a cyclist wishing to go straight over say the Herbert Place to Warrington Place junction at Hubband Bridge will be travelling to the right of cars going in the same direction, including those wanting to turn right over the bridge.

    The cyclist is therefore, if expected to follow the same traffic signals as the motorist, effectively overtaking a car turning right. This is idiotic.

    So what you're saying is that in the event of one lane of traffic crossing another the one who has natural right of way should cede this in favour of
    another mode of transport? That seems incongruous with best practice directives of road planning.

    At least you have the decency to admit that this is idiotic, and for the first time, I agree with you. The facility is idiotic. It causes confusion for cyclists and severely damages the pedestrian experience of most of the junctions along the canal. What a shame, and all caused by idiotic planning that prioritises the motorist at the expense of all others.

    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Pedestrians are not allowed unfettered access to the roadway. They MUST use a footpath where one is provided. And MUST cross at a pedestrian crossing if one is available within a certain radius of where they wish to cross.

    You are correct, however Irish planning measures prioritises the motorist, where it should be prioritising the pedestrian. This is a massive problem with urban road planning (stress on urban). The priority should be for pedestrian mobility at the expense of all else, so that the footpaths and pedestrian crossings occur in the most convenient locations and manner as possible for them with clear priority, regardless of the implications for vehicles. This is most definitely not the case with this facility, which places the cycling facilities in such a poorly chosen location that pedestrians are endangered and motorists are numbed to the behaviour of both pedestrians and cyclists. It's simply not good enough.


  • #54
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Marie Antoinette is alive and well and posting on Boards.ie!!

    Of course cyclists have a common law right to use the roads but that is mitigated, as it is for every road user, by the rights of others. You have to accommodate all users fairly.

    Pedestrians are not allowed unfettered access to the roadway. They MUST use a footpath where one is provided. And MUST cross at a pedestrian crossing if one is available within a certain radius of where they wish to cross.

    The logic of your argument is essentially for no cycle lane at all.

    If that's what you want, say so.

    But if we have cycle lanes then cyclists have an obligation to use them for their benefit and the benefits of others.

    The "let them eat cake" attutude is yours.

    Cycle lanes are so bad in Dublin that yes, it would be better if they weren't there at all.

    There is no obligation to use infrastructure that's unfit for purpose.


  • #55
    Snickers Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    dave_o_brien wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that in the event of one lane of traffic crossing another the one who has natural right of way should cede this in favour of
    another mode of transport? That seems incongruous with best practice directives of road planning.

    What on earth is a "natural right of way"?


  • #56
    AltAccount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,056 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    Oh and "cyclists being treated as pedestrians for the purpose of traffic signals" is NOT a flaw.

    Treating a cyclist as a pedestrian when they don't want, and don't need to be, is a flaw.

    If I'm able to keep pace with traffic and travel safely and with respect for my fellow road users, why would you not allow me to retain my status as a legitimate vehicle, occupying my rightful place on the road?


  • #57
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    And MUST cross at a pedestrian crossing if one is available within a certain radius of where they wish to cross.

    To be clear about this: That radius is a rightly tiny 15m.

    Snickers Man wrote: »
    But if we have cycle lanes then cyclists have an obligation to use them for their benefit and the benefits of others.

    No, they are not obligated to use them all the time... there are exceptions and the cycle track/lane/path must fulfil the legal requirement to be a "cycle track", otherwise mandatory use does not apply! :)


  • #58
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,051 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    The "let them eat cake" attutude is yours.

    Cycle lanes are so bad in Dublin that yes, it would be better if they weren't there at all.

    There is no obligation to use infrastructure that's unfit for purpose.

    It would be better if the cyclists weren't there at all until they start taking responability.


  • #59
    AltAccount
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,056 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    It would be better if the cyclists weren't there at all until they start taking responability.

    Well that's obviously not an option, so do you have any reasonable or constructive suggestions to make in the meantime?


  • #60
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Snickers Man wrote: »
    What on earth is a "natural right of way"?

    Sorry, I meant to delete the word natural.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    dave_o_brien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,320 ✭✭✭dave_o_brien


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    It would be better if the cyclists weren't there at all until they start taking responability.

    It would be EVEN better if there were no cars allowed within the limits of the canals either. But neither of those options are going to happen, so practicing best planning for urban areas is a priority, ie, prioritising the pedestrian and designing to discourage the use of motorised vehicles.


Advertisement