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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Seweryn
    Registered Users Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭Seweryn


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    A 30 kmh limit (if enforced)would slow me down and make me less likely to cycle.
    The speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles, not to bicycles.
    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Anyway I'd have to gets speedo, and even then I'd be unable to see it in the dark!
    Eh, no. As above, you can carry on ;).


  • Options
    #63
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    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.



    Yes indeed, there's an awful lot of guff about a 30 km/h speed limit, such as that it's difficult or even painful to drive at that speed, and that it's more dangerous.

    The fact that believing it's more dangerous would require rewriting the laws of physics and disregarding a substantial body of scientific evidence is of little consequence to some people. :)


  • Options
    #64
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    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 )



    Cycling should be treated with respect and actively promoted, for the simple reason that it's part of the solution to urban traffic and transportation challenges not part of the problem. The same cannot be said of car use and car dependence, which is why different policies are needed to curb excesses in that area.

    Promotion of cycling involves, for example, giving cyclists ample room at junctions in order to easily bypass congestion caused by motorised traffic, and not lazily resorting to cheap and nasty measures such as badly thought out "shared use" paths.


  • Options
    #65
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

    I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

    I found it interesting to say the least.
    Pot, kettle and all that.


  • Options
    #66
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    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.

    The laws regarding construction and use are by necessity going to be different, the laws of the road are the same except in cirmunstances such as SI 332/2012, AFAIK there are no laws allowing you to overtake on either side when such a manouvre is likely to hinder, endanger or otherwise impede other road users


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Yes indeed, there's an awful lot of guff about a 30 km/h speed limit, such as that it's difficult or even painful to drive at that speed, and that it's more dangerous.

    The fact that believing it's more dangerous would require rewriting the laws of physics and disregarding a substantial body of scientific evidence is of little consequence to some people. :)

    Yeah rather like rewriting the laws of physics on energy where a lot of cyclists believe wearing a helmet won't decrease the energy trsnfered to their brain in an impact :pac:


  • Options
    #68
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Cycling should be treated with respect and actively promoted, for the simple reason that it's part of the solution to urban traffic and transportation challenges not part of the problem. The same cannot be said of car use and car dependence, which is why different policies are needed to curb excesses in that area.

    Promotion of cycling involves, for example, giving cyclists ample room at junctions in order to easily bypass congestion caused by motorised traffic, and not lazily resorting to cheap and nasty measures such as badly thought out "shared use" paths.

    If their is only enough room for a certain volume of traffic then extra space has to be taken from somewhere, if as in the example theire is a need to allow traffic flow through a lights system, (perhaps to permit pedestrian traffic on another arm of the lights) then giving more room to cyclists would actually be counter productive.

    You cannot take one aspect of transport and ignore all others just because you use one mode, similarly you cannot take one junction in isolation of the traffic flow of another nearby traffic junction.

    Of course if people decide to " do there own thing " as some cyclists do then we need not worry about them at all, their own greed will find them an alternative to sharing the highway at the detriment to any other road user be that a pedestrian, motorist or even another cyclist


  • Options
    #69
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,491 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    P48 of ROTR
    Your position on the road
    Make sure you drive your vehicle far enough to the left to allow traffic to safely
    pass or overtake on the right but not so far to the left that you are driving on a
    cycle lane or blocking or endangering cyclists or pedestrians
    http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

    all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.


  • Options
    #70
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,813 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    P48 of ROTR


    http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

    all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.

    Guess it depends on the junction (which you can't fully see above) - you could argue that as a result of the layout change plus the parked cars on the other side, there's barely enough room for 2 lines of cars as painted and as such the cars are as far left as they are to allow for this

    This would seem to be supported from the pictures, the fact that the line of cars is right over the double yellows, and the Skoda at the end of the queue has obviously pushed over to allow oncoming traffic pass.


  • Options
    #71
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I think it's funny that so many cyclists I know are completely cool with forcing motorists to share the road with them, but absolutely are against pedestrians being able to share their bicycle lane.

    I decided to jog home from work - it's a solid 5k in Dublin and the footpaths are loaded with people strolling about slowly. I wanted to keep a good pace up, so I ran in the cycle lane. The same cyclists that would merge into traffic with cars they couldn't keep up with, were upset with me for merging into their lane, simly because I couldn't keep up.....

    I found it interesting to say the least.
    Pot, kettle and all that.


    The self-same cyclists? Identifiable by what means exactly? Barcodes? RFID?

    So you're one of those cycle lane joggers? :)

    I've often wondered why some people do that. I saw one just this morning, running hard in a cycle lane (empty) alongside a footpath (also empty). I'm inclined to think the colour of the cycle lane makes them imagine they're on one of these. ;)

    I'm not sure what you mean by cyclists "forcing motorists to share the road". I cycle wherever it is legal, appropriate, convenient and practical. I avoid (a) paths requiring "shared use" with pedestrians, (b) substandard cycle lanes/paths, and (c) footpaths.

    Much of this, of necessity, requires cycling on the road. It is not always satisfactory, but whatever disadvantages there are cannot be said to be intrinsically due to my mode of travel or choice of route.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    From reading the back and forth responses between posters, it would appear that segregation is badly needed. The problem with mixing incompatible modes of transport is exactly that they are incompatible. Shared used pedestrian and cycle facilities creates confusion whereby there is always a chance of conflict. The same goes for shared use motorist and car facilities. The Dutch seem to have this concept down to a tee. The following videos seem to demonstrate this perfectly (i.e. nice, smooth and easy roads):

    1. Bigger Dutch Roads with bike paths; Marnixlaan Utrecht

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HwW9qzC7I


    The designs seen throughout this video could be adopted into streets such as O'Connell Street, College Green and Dame Street with relative ease.

    2. Mono-functional roads in the Netherlands

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuOiKCBO1hU


    The roads in the video are topologically similar to bigger roads like the N11 (from Cherrywood to Dublin City), parts of the N81 and large portions of the N7 and N3 inside the M50. These could be adopted accordingly.


  • Options
    #73
    Woodround
    Registered Users Posts: 40 ✭Woodround


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    It was a rhetorical question!

    Ah right, for dramatic effect, I see!


  • Options
    #74
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    P48 of ROTR

    http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-of-the-road-eng.pdf

    all those drivers in Iwannahurl's photos are blocking cyclists and thus driving incorrectly.


    They could actually make room for cyclists simply by keeping a bit to the right.

    However, Galway City Council deliberately guided them into that position for reasons that have, rather mysteriously, to do with "traffic calming".

    So the motorists are not actually being awkward, they're just following the Council's orders.

    Further back the road it still looks like this. Cyclists very often have room to pass there, simply because space is left for them by default.

    It is my view that Galway City Council spotted the 'wasted' space further up and decided to fill it with cars. Then they called it "traffic calming" in order to justify funding it. Cynical? Moi?

    EDIT: I think I posted this link earlier, but here again is what the newly-revised junction used to look like. Space available for cyclists -- by default, but available nonetheless. On-road parking on the opposite side, but of course that's sacrosanct.


  • Options
    #75
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    If their is only enough room for a certain volume of traffic then extra space has to be taken from somewhere, if as in the example theire is a need to allow traffic flow through a lights system, (perhaps to permit pedestrian traffic on another arm of the lights) then giving more room to cyclists would actually be counter productive.


    Are you suggesting that giving more room to private motorised transport is a more productive use of finite road space in urban areas?

    As a matter of interest, can you point to any authoritative (and preferably evidence-based) source that supports such an assertion?


  • Options
    #76
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,813 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    They could actually make room for cyclists simply by keeping a bit to the right.

    However, Galway City Council deliberately guided them into that position     for reasons that have, rather mysteriously, to do with "traffic calming".

    So the motorists are not actually being awkward, they're just following the Council's orders.

    Soooo... you've been complaining about motorists "blocking" cyclists, about how cyclists shouldn't have to queue in traffic .. and then you admit that in fact the motorists are only doing what they're supposed to in this instance.

    You don't see the problem with your argument no?


  • Options
    #77
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Soooo... you've been complaining about motorists "blocking" cyclists, about how cyclists shouldn't have to queue in traffic .. and then you admit that in fact the motorists are only doing what they're supposed to in this instance.

    You don't see the problem with your argument no?



    Nope. Quote please.


  • Options
    #78
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,813 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Nope. Quote please.

    Now you're just being pedantic - you've been going on and on about how cyclists shouldn't be required to queue because of cars in their way and demanding evidence of legislation requiring them to do so (but conveniently ignoring the point that while there IS no such legislation, neither is there an entitlement for cyclists to skip the queue either unless they can do so safely and legally)

    Just admit it.. you've been caught out :) Incidentally from looking at your links of the junction it seems to me that the idea was in fact to IMPROVE traffic flow through it by adding a dedicated filter lane for right turning traffic rather than having cars (and other road users!) that are going straight on having to change lanes at the top because of a car waiting to turn.

    It seems the real issue here is a perception that cyclists just shouldn't have to obey the rules of the road that they don't want to.


  • Options
    #79
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Now you're just being pedantic - you've been going on and on about how cyclists shouldn't be required to queue because of cars in their way and demanding evidence of legislation requiring them to do so (but conveniently ignoring the point that while there IS no such legislation, neither is there an entitlement for cyclists to skip the queue either unless they can do so safely and legally)

    Just admit it.. you've been caught out :) Incidentally from looking at your links of the junction it seems to me that the idea was in fact to IMPROVE traffic flow through it by adding a dedicated filter lane for right turning traffic rather than having cars (and other road users!) that are going straight on having to change lanes at the top because of a car waiting to turn.

    It seems the real issue here is a perception that cyclists just shouldn't have to obey the rules of the road that they don't want to.


    A whole shoal of red herrings and total fabrications there. Not worth responding to. My posts are there on the record -- if I've said what you claim I said then it would be a simple matter to quote the relevant posts.

    Your reference to "improving traffic flow" is yet another example of the complete lack of comprehension I have referred to previously.

    How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

    spatial_efficiency.jpg


  • Options
    #80
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    A whole shoal of red herrings and total fabrications there. Not worth responding to. My posts are there on the record -- if I've said what you claim I said then it would be a simple matter to quote the relevant posts.

    Your reference to "improving traffic flow" is yet another example of the complete lack of comprehension I have referred to previously.

    How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

    spatial_efficiency.jpg

    By simply allowing public transport to function. If traffic is holding up buses as they queue to take a right turn then you move the queue to allow the buses to go straight on. Of course if money and space were no object then you could throw money at it but we don't have either.
    Sometimes you have to look at life from the other side of the fence


  • Options
    #81
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,813 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    How does reallocating space from a congestion-reducing mode of travel to a congestion-creating mode of travel improve traffic flow overall?

    spatial_efficiency.jpg

    Ahh I see the problem.. you think that everyone in those cars should cycle or get the bus instead.

    Problem with that though is it's not realistic... buses outside Dublin (and even in it) are notoriously unreliable, infrequent or just not there at all. Also, cycling doesn't really work if you have a fair distance to go, maybe have a lot of shopping with you, or a few kids.

    You don't really think motorists like spending an extortionate amount of money on running a car or sitting in traffic do you? They do it because in most cases they have no (practical) choice!

    But again, there would be no problem at this (now infamous :p) junction if cyclists just accepted they have no automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue unless they can do so legally and safely and exercised the same patience and consideration for other road users they so often accuse car owners of lacking!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Ahh I see the problem.. you think that everyone in those cars should cycle or get the bus instead.

    Problem with that though is it's not realistic... buses outside Dublin (and even in it) are notoriously unreliable, infrequent or just not there at all. Also, cycling doesn't really work if you have a fair distance to go, maybe have a lot of shopping with you, or a few kids.

    You don't really think motorists like spending an extortionate amount of money on running a car or sitting in traffic do you? They do it because in most cases they have no (practical) choice!

    But again, there would be no problem at this (now infamous :p) junction if cyclists just accepted they have no automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue unless they can do so legally and safely and exercised the same patience and consideration for other road users they so often accuse car owners of lacking!


    You don't see the problem, you are the problem. Or to put it another way, you aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic.

    What's a "fair distance"? In Galway City 47% of people live within 4 km or less of work or education. A very large proportion of them drive, lamenting as they do so about there being too many cars on the road.

    Kids? Mine cycles 3 km to Senior Infants. Every morning we make our way past or through long lines of cars clogging the roads and junctions.

    There are neighbours driving their children 800 metres to primary school and 400 metres to creche. When they get to their destination they drive up and park on the cycle lanes, footpaths, pedestrian crossings, dished kerbs, wherever is handy. And some of them no doubt complain about the traffic, and how cyclists have an alleged sense of "automatic entitlement to jump to the head of the queue"...


    2011NationalCycletoSchoolandWorkDay1.jpg


  • Options
    #83
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    By simply allowing public transport to function. If traffic is holding up buses as they queue to take a right turn then you move the queue to allow the buses to go straight on. Of course if money and space were no object then you could throw money at it but we don't have either.
    Sometimes you have to look at life from the other side of the fence


    What side of what fence? I'm a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and bus user.

    If urban road space is in short supply, and if cars are holding up buses (and bikes, and pedestrians) then the more sustainable solution is to reallocate space from the less efficient modes to the more efficient ones.

    Shared use paths, to refer back to the OP's specific example, are an attempt to force cyclists and pedestrians into the same space. Too often this is done, imo, as a means of getting cyclists out of the way of 'real traffic'. Either that or it's a tokenistic and simplistic measure implemented in order to avoid more effective but politically unpopular solutions.


  • Options
    #84
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What side of what fence? I'm a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and bus user.

    If urban road space is in short supply, and if cars are holding up buses (and bikes, and pedestrians) then the more sustainable solution is to reallocate space from the less efficient modes to the more efficient ones.

    Shared use paths, to refer back to the OP's specific example, are an attempt to force cyclists and pedestrians into the same space. Too often this is done, imo, as a means of getting cyclists out of the way of 'real traffic'. Either that or it's a tokenistic and simplistic measure implemented in order to avoid more effective but politically unpopular solutions.

    You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.

    News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared


  • Options
    #85
    Donaldio
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Donaldio


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.

    News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

    What are saying then a person traveling on a road sitting in a truck a car or a van is somehow more improtant than someone traveling on a bicycle ?


  • Options
    #86
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Donaldio wrote: »
    What are saying then a person traveling on a road sitting in a truck a car or a van is somehow more improtant than someone traveling on a bicycle ?

    Hmmm if that's what your reading then you need to re-read it again


  • Options
    #87
    Donaldio
    Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭Donaldio


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Hmmm if that's what your reading then you need to re-read it again


    Cyclists still travel on the road even if most or nearly all consideration seems to be given to the motorist in the designing and construction of roads regardless whatever kind of vehicle they travel on. IN my opinion cyclists should must still be factored in on some level even if they will typically make the smaller percentage of road users.


  • Options
    #88
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Donaldio wrote: »
    Cyclists still travel on the road even if most or nearly all consideration seems to be given to the motorist in the designing and construction of roads regardless whatever kind of vehicle they travel on. IN my opinion cyclists should must still be factored in on some level even if they will typically make the smaller percentage of road users.

    You're still not reading what's actually typed...
    limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared


  • Options
    #89
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You forgot cost effectiveness. Realigning the lanes to provide more effective traffic flow is more cost effective than digging up roadways to rebuild them with dedicated cycle facilities.


    Neither cost nor effectiveness have been forgotten by me.

    Allocating the lion's share of road space to cars is not cost effective, because it's promoting the most inefficient use of that space. Realigning lanes to accommodate cars is a short-term fix that is neither sustainable nor effective in the medium to long term. Shared use paths, as identified by the OP, are cheap but they are not effective imo.

    Road space is a finite resource, and a common good, and therefore it makes no sense to waste it. What car-dependents don't seem to realise is that facilitating and promoting car use is a lose-lose strategy that is doomed to fail. You lose and I lose, because we all end up in gridlock sooner or later. Cyclists, bus users and pedestrians are adversely affected, one way or another, but only one mode of travel is creating the real problems of traffic, traffic congestion and related externalities.

    Anyone who's familiar with Galway City traffic will see the end result of such folly, even if they fail to understand or accept the causes of it.


  • Options
    #90
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The laws regarding construction and use are by necessity going to be different, the laws of the road are the same except in cirmunstances such as SI 332/2012, AFAIK there are no laws allowing you to overtake on either side when such a manouvre is likely to hinder, endanger or otherwise impede other road users

    Where were you yesterday with your laws when your brethren were blocking the streets of Dublin for all road users ? You have an unhealthy fascination with cyclists.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    News Flash...... Cyclists are not the most important people in the world, time they learnt limited resources be they physical or fiscal have to be shared

    Nor are self employed taxi drivers who regularly hinder the public of Dublin over some misguided sense of entitlement that they're owed a living.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Where were you yesterday with your laws when your brethren were blocking the streets of Dublin for all road users ? You have an unhealthy fascination with cyclists.



    Nor are self employed taxi drivers who regularly hinder the public of Dublin over some misguided sense of entitlement that they're owed a living.

    Not that it's anything to do with you where I was, but I wasn't in Dublin,

    Not being there, as I understand it they were plying for hire over a short loop of road, which they would be legaly allowed to do and with withdrawal of rank spaces means at least 58 cars having no where to rank up, since the removal of spaces to facilitate the Luas X Link then at least 58 cars would be forced to drive around looking for fares in addition to any others working in Dublin during the day. If they all look for fares from Molesworth St, Kildare St etc. what is going to happen?

    BTW I only have an unhealthy interest fascination f6r women cyclists wearing Lycra or is that a healthy interest?


Advertisement