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

Road layout, use of space, and motoring vs cycling (off-topic from shared use thread)

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    SilverLiningOK wrote: »
    Do you cycle at all ? It's not all about being impatient, it's about road space. In built up urban environments, vehicle speed need to be at a minimum 30kph, pedestrians, people cycling and public transport needs to given a much higher priority and share of space than the private car. Why ? Because these modes need to be encouraged for their convenience, impact and ability to transport much greater numbers in relation to the space that they take up.

    Public transport already gets a higher share of road space by way of bus lanes - many of which sit idle for most of the day, and deserted after midnight (yet on many of the latter the rules are still in effect)

    Public transport is also far from convenient for many people unless they are doing a simple A-B where one of those two points involves "An Lar". It's also practically non-existent outside Dublin, nevermind convenient.

    It's also FAR from cheap, pleasant or efficient.
    Re parking, it may be residential but does it need to be where it is ? Parking on through roads is a very poor use of space that could be otherwise used. Urban street design needs to stop being so car centric or we will never be able to even look at solve space allocation and congestion issues.
    As someone else noted above, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that road except that the cyclist at the back thinks the rules of the road don't apply to him (no lights/reflectors on his bike either I note).


  • Options
    #33
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I agree with you that the proper approach should be to segregate cyclists entirely as in the norm in places like Holland, but in the absence of that, a cyclist has no more "right" to get to the top of the queue than I would say by driving to the top of the right-turn only lane and forcing my way over.

    Or to put it in simpler terms.. if there's not enough room to safely (and legally) get past then they just have to wait like other road users.

    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Just because cyclists are impatient doesn't mean they should get priority.


    I posted the officially-endorsed (UK) cycle training guidelines to make the point that nobody is "banging on" about anything. Taking the lane, aka the primary position, is good cycling and road safety practice.

    The issue of "rights" is a red herring in the present context, although if you want to go down that ramified route you'll find that cyclists, and especially pedestrians, were on the road long before cars were even invented. Motorists are relatively recent latecomers on the traffic and transport scene, especially in the numbers we see jamming themselves into city streets these days.

    The main focus might be better placed on efficiency of the road network. Cars, the majority of which are single-occupant in typical city traffic, are hugely inefficient when it comes to making best use of finite road space. If there isn't enough room for cars, ie congestion is a problem, then the smarter approach is to promote more efficient transport modes.

    Squeezing out cyclists, such as by shunting them onto sub-standard shared use "facilities" as per the OP, is an example of inefficient traffic and transport policy, imo.

    Likewise, engineering congestion-busting cyclists out of the equation and forcing them to wait behind congestion-causing motorists is not smart. It's downright stupid, in fact, but it's not just Irish local authorities that are failing to grasp that basic reality.


  • Options
    #34
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    SilverLiningOK wrote: »
    Do you cycle at all ? It's not all about being impatient, it's about road space. In built up urban environments, vehicle speed need to be at a minimum maximum 30kph, pedestrians, people cycling and public transport needs to given a much higher priority and share of space than the private car.

    Why ? Because these modes need to be encouraged for their convenience, impact and ability to transport much greater numbers in relation to the space that they take up.

    Re parking, it may be residential but does it need to be where it is ? Parking on through roads is a very poor use of space that could be otherwise used. Urban street design needs to stop being so car centric or we will never be able to even look at solve space allocation and congestion issues.

    The Danish approach to cycle infrastructure design described in the following link, is a model that we could learn a lot from in it's shear simplicity - the copenhagenize bicycle planning guide


    FYP & QFT. :)


    space-car-bus-bike-750px.jpg


  • Options
    #35
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    n97 mini wrote: »
    cyclists are allowed use the roads without even having to open the Rules of the Road. If they were required to know the rules then I think the roads would be a lot safer.

    So are pedestrians!




    Saw an ad for children to log onto the rsa's website to find out the safe cross code yesterday...
    Which is grand if they have a computer and can read....


  • Options
    #36
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I guess you're claiming that you know what you're doing. In which case, I'm going to ask yet again: please cite the relevant sections of road traffic legislation requiring cyclists to wait at the end of a line of motor vehicles, eg when junctions are congested and no cycle-specific space is provided.

    Are you being serious???????


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    To repeat, can you point to the sections in road traffic legislation where cyclists are required to wait at the end of a line of motorised vehicles when approaching a junction?

    <snipped>

    One would assume it's the same law that applies to all traffic when overtaking, don't do it unless the way is clear and it can be done safely without inconveniencing other road users


  • Options
    #38
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Saw an ad for children to log onto the rsa's website to find out the safe cross code yesterday...
    Which is grand if they have a computer and can read....

    Ah come on.. every 4 year old has access to an iPad or laptop these days!
    Those who don't or can't read yet.. well that's why they have parents.

    One thing I really cannot stand is this complete rejection of personal responsibility for one's actions/safety (or in this case, children they decided to have) and trying to shift it to "someone else" - whether that's motorists, other people, councils/government etc.

    It's like we're socially regressing in the last 30 years and people want to act like children themselves


  • Options
    #39
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    Are you being serious???????


    Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

    Getting back to the OP:
    monument wrote: »
    Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?

    My contention is that the above authorities have little interest and less knowledge when it comes to providing for cyclists, whether on or off road. Even very recent schemes, which you'd think might be based on more up-to-date thinking, seem to be based on leaving cyclists with the leftovers after cars have been accommodated first. Poorly thought out "shared use" paths are one example, and I know of cases where the Council expects pedestrian footpaths to be used. The official attitude seems to be that cyclists can be left to work it out for themselves, and when challenged they will claim that footpaths are technically part of the roadway (as claimed by Galway City Council, for example).


  • Options
    #40
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The problem (methinks) is that pedestrians are intimidated by the sportive section of cyclists where they often exhibit the same MGIF exhibted by a lot of motorists, if cyclists were subjected to speed limits on shared facilities I would wager that the intimidation factor would be drasticly cut, much the same as when motorists are subjected to 20 - 30 Kph limits the intimidation from them is reduced in school and built up areas



    Why not just reduce the speed limit (and traffic volume) on the road, which would reduce the intimidation factor for all road users?


  • Options
    #41
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

    Or, how about you show where it states that cyclists are entitled to jump to the head of queue regardless of how they get there (from a safety and legality standpoint).

    I run a 3L diesel A6 with 225 BHP and an automatic/tiptronic gearbox that accelerates in a flash - that doesn't mean I can just barge my way past slower traffic, mount kerbs or filter lanes to get past a queue. If an opportunity presents for me to safely or legally overtake then I may certainly do so, but if not I just have to wait like everyone else.

    It's the usual sense of entitlement so prevalent in this country. Cyclists want to be seen as equal road users but not subjected to the same rules and requirements as those other road users.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Or, how about you show where it states that cyclists are entitled to jump to the head of queue regardless of how they get there (from a safety and legality standpoint).


    ...

    Cyclists want to be seen as equal road users but not subjected to the same rules and requirements as those other road users.


    I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...


  • Options
    #43
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Why not just reduce the speed limit (and traffic volume) on the road, which would reduce the intimidation factor for all road users?

    I challenge you to drive down the quays in Dublin at 30 km/h when it's possible to do more (ie: not bumper-bumper traffic). I think you'll find it's in fact more dangerous as pedestrians are even more likely (than they already are) to walk out in front of you, other drivers, motorbikes AND cyclists cut you up etc

    50 km/h in a built-up area is perfect acceptable IF everyone (cyclists and pedestrians included) keeps to the rules, doesn't take stupid chances and takes some responsibility for their own safety and actions. And yes, obviously if traffic is heavy, it's raining or road conditions are poor, then everyone should adjust accordingly but this nonsense of impacting everyone to accommodate the stupidity of a few is getting ridiculous IMO


  • Options
    #44
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...

    You're deliberately missing the point I'm making. While there may be no law to say they have to wait in line, equally there's no entitlement for them to get to the head of the queue either.

    Like every other road user they should drive/cycle appropriate to the conditions (traffic, road width/markings etc) and within the law.. and if that means they have to queue like everyone else, then that's what they do.


  • Options
    #45
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    You're deliberately missing the point I'm making. While there may be no law to say they have to wait in line, equally there's no entitlement for them to get to the head of the queue either.

    Like every other road user they should drive/cycle appropriate to the conditions (traffic, road width/markings etc) and within the law.. and if that means they have to queue like everyone else, then that's what they do.


    Is there such a law or is there not?

    I've already addressed the "entitlement" red herring.


  • Options
    #46
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Is there such a law or is there not?

    I've already addressed the "entitlement" red herring.

    Again you're trying to deflect the point. The laws applicable to the scenario you're talking about are those that refer to lane usage, overtaking, traffic signals etc. As such cyclists mounting kerbs to bypass a queue of traffic or weaving dangerously through it, or using a filter lane to get to the top of the lane they want to be in would all be in violation of those laws.

    One last time.. Just because a bicycle is physically smaller and lighter than a car does not mean a cyclist should be permitted to break the traffic laws and potentially risk their own safety and that of others so they don't have to wait in line like everyone else.


  • Options
    #47
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    wait in line like everyone else.



    Cycling on the footpath is illegal, which is why the "shared use" issues identified by the OP are problematic.

    I'll simplify it for you and Hilly Bill: there is no law or set of laws obliging cyclists to sit at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. If there is some specific law that I don't know about, please post the details here.

    Expecting cyclists to queue like motorised vehicles, whether because of begrudgery or legalistic notions, is pure nonsense, for good reasons already outlined in this thread and elsewhere. In the context of finite road space in urban areas cyclists are not "like everyone else", ie motorists. Only one mode of transport is causing traffic congestion: can you guess which one?


  • Options
    #48
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,346 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    A cyclist is perfectly entitled to overtake on the right looking at that photo. The filter lane must start a good bit up, and even if it did, once it's not a solid line you'd be entitled to cross it to go past the stationary traffic and/or merge back in to go straight ahead or turn left.

    Would a car going up the right turn lane, and then pushing back in (either doing so to skip the queue or from being lost) before the actual junction be committing an offence? Once you were back in the correct lane before the junction, or at least at the start of the road markings, I'm not sure you would.


  • Options
    #49
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    50 km/h in a built-up area is perfect acceptable



    Perfectly acceptable for whom?

    A max 30 km/h speed saves lives, reduces injuries and make urban environments more conducive for walking, cycling and public transport.

    It also removes one excuse for imposing substandard "shared use" solutions.


  • Options
    #50
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Still waiting for you to cite the relevant section/s of both RoTR and traffic legislation obliging cyclists to wait behind lines of stationary or slower-moving traffic. Especially the law, actually, since that takes precedence. Exact quotes, please; nothing less will do. You've had 24 hours to get the information -- is that not enough?

    Getting back to the OP:



    My contention is that the above authorities have little interest and less knowledge when it comes to providing for cyclists, whether on or off road. Even very recent schemes, which you'd think might be based on more up-to-date thinking, seem to be based on leaving cyclists with the leftovers after cars have been accommodated first. Poorly thought out "shared use" paths are one example, and I know of cases where the Council expects pedestrian footpaths to be used. The official attitude seems to be that cyclists can be left to work it out for themselves, and when challenged they will claim that footpaths are technically part of the roadway (as claimed by Galway City Council, for example).

    Ok, i'll post it a third time since you missed it. PASS ON THE RIGHT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO OTHERWISE STAY WHERE YOU ARE .

    What right has a cyclist to mount the footpath just to avoid waiting in traffic?
    Can a motorbike do the same?


  • Options
    #51
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm a law-abiding cyclist (and motorist, and pedestrian). Those who say there's a law requiring cyclists to wait at the end of queues of stationary or slow-moving traffic need to back up their claims or GTFO. Still waiting...

    You took it up wrong . Show me the law where it says cyclists can mount kerbs and ride anywhere they want in any direction if they are inpatient?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Cycling on the footpath is illegal, which is why the "shared use" issues identified by the OP are problematic.

    I'll simplify it for you and Hilly Bill: there is no law or set of laws obliging cyclists to sit at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. If there is some specific law that I don't know about, please post the details here.

    Expecting cyclists to queue like motorised vehicles, whether because of begrudgery or legalistic notions, is pure nonsense, for good reasons already outlined in this thread and elsewhere. In the context of finite road space in urban areas cyclists are not "like everyone else", ie motorists. Only one mode of transport is causing traffic congestion: can you guess which one?

    You dont seem to be listening.


  • Options
    #53
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perfectly acceptable for whom?

    A max 30 km/h speed saves lives, reduces injuries and make urban environments more conducive for walking, cycling and public transport.

    It also removes one excuse for imposing substandard "shared use" solutions.

    Have you tried driving at 30km/h? dont confuse it to 30mph which is slow enough otherwise known as 50km/h.


  • Options
    #54
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    You took it up wrong . Show me the law where it says cyclists can mount kerbs and ride anywhere they want in any direction if they are inpatient?


    Cycling on footpaths is illegal. It is also inappropriate, imo, which is why I generally avoid "cycle facilities" such as the shared use paths identified as problematic by the OP.

    The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths. The reality, however, is that some cyclists will not feel able to overtake on the right, since using a right-turn-only lane presents its own problems. The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".



    Hilly Bill wrote: »
    Have you tried driving at 30km/h?


    I have. Have you?


  • Options
    #55
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,799 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths.

    What IS the solution in these cases then because as you rightly point out further on, using filter lanes is also problematic (and illegal - just as it is for cars). Sounds to me like you've just admitted the only REAL solution in such a case IS for them to wait like everyone else.
    The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".
    Again I agree that in an ideal world we would have Dutch-style separated cycle tracks and infrastructure.. but this isn't Holland!

    Regardless of what cyclists wants to believe the facts are that car ownership is not only desirable for most people, but essential if they want to get around - particularly outside the cities where public transport (or the lack thereof) + distance + road standards make any other option impractical. A quick flick through some of the threads on this forum will show you how bad the options are even in Dublin.

    A lot of the problems cyclists experience would also be addressed if they were required to take a competency test before being allowed on the road (just as motorists must do). It's ridiculous that I could go buy a bike right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).
    I have. Have you?

    Well I have and as I mentioned above, it's in fact more dangerous and stressful than driving at 50 km/h given the experiences I mentioned earlier - again mostly due to the idea that every other road user (cyclists/pedestrians) are absolved of responsibility for their own behaviour or safety.


  • Options
    #56
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    <snipped>.

    The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths.<snipped>



    The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )


  • Options
    #57
    Hilly Bill
    Registered Users Posts: 6,039 ✭✭✭Hilly Bill


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Cycling on footpaths is illegal. It is also inappropriate, imo, which is why I generally avoid "cycle facilities" such as the shared use paths identified as problematic by the OP.

    The answer my question, as you well know, is that there is no good reason -- legal or practical -- for insisting that cyclists wait at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. In situations where little or no road space is available for cyclists, or where space has been deliberately taken away from them (as shown in the photos I posted) the solution for cyclists is neither to wait behind stationary cars nor to cycle on the footpaths. The reality, however, is that some cyclists will not feel able to overtake on the right, since using a right-turn-only lane presents its own problems. The fact that Irish roads engineers and others think that it's OK to deny road space to cyclists, to force unnecessary delays on them, or to shunt them onto cheap and nasty "shared space" is indicative of the car-centric, motor-dependent mentality dominating Irish transport "planning".


    Its your choice to cycle on the roads so deal with whatever obstacles come yous way and have patientce. . Ive been overtaken by a mobility scooter when trying to keep to 30 kph.


  • Options
    #58
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,362 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The answer lies in how you would like cyclists to be treated, as road traffic ( as they are now ) and subject to Road Traffic Laws or as some special case ( in which case stop asking for the same rights as road traffic )

    I'm not sure of your point as clearly cyclists are a 'special case' and certain Road Traffic Laws don't apply to them (stuff like having indicator lights, brake lights and always carrying a spare type spring to mind).
    Similarly cars are also a 'special case' as they are exempt from some rules which apply to cyclists (examples not needing a working bell, allowed to travel on motorways).

    The road traffic laws aren't a one-sized-fits-all build in which all of the rules apply exactly the same to all modes of transport.


  • Options
    #59
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I challenge you to drive down the quays in Dublin at 30 km/h when it's possible to do more (ie: not bumper-bumper traffic). I think you'll find it's in fact more dangerous as pedestrians are even more likely (than they already are) to walk out in front of you, other drivers, motorbikes AND cyclists cut you up etc

    I've often driven down the quays, at 30 kph, when it's not bumper to bumper, and I can't say that I notice any increase in pedestrians or cyclists behaving dangerously. I can't say the same for other motorists though. I see more motorists disregarding the speed limits there than on any other stretch of road I travel.


  • Options
    #60
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Ah come on.. every 4 year old has access to an iPad or laptop these days!
    Those who don't or can't read yet.. well that's why they have parents.

    One thing I really cannot stand is this complete rejection of personal responsibility for one's actions/safety (or in this case, children they decided to have) and trying to shift it to "someone else" - whether that's motorists, other people, councils/government etc.

    It's like we're socially regressing in the last 30 years and people want to act like children themselves
    I thought it wrong that the rsa would spend our money on tv ads to get children who may not be able to read, to look at a website, to find out the safe cross code, instead of the ad being the safe cross code
    Like when I grew up and Judge and the rest of the wanderley wagon crew did


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perfectly acceptable for whom?

    A max 30 km/h speed saves lives, reduces injuries and make urban environments more conducive for walking, cycling and public transport.

    It also removes one excuse for imposing substandard "shared use" solutions.
    A 30 kmh limit (if enforced)would slow me down and make me less likely to cycle.
    Anyway I'd have to gets speedo, and even then I'd be unable to see it in the dark
    !


Advertisement