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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cycle lanes now mandatory again, apparently

  • 14-07-2016 12:06am
    #1
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭


    http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/
    Yesterday, however, the department said that the explanatory note was “incorrect”. They did not reply to a request asking them to explain the difference between their current stance and both their 2012 statement and the ministerial and governmental intent expressed by Varadkar.

    “The explanatory note attached to the 2012 regulation is incorrect in stating that only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised areas is mandatory. As stated in the explanatory note, this note is not part of the instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation. As it is not a legal instrument, the explanatory note cannot be amended in itself,” a spokesman for the Department of Transport said yesterday.

    The relevant section of the 2012 regulations is as follows:

    (4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—
    (a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or
    (b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.”
    The spokesman then said: “To set it out as clearly as possible, paragraph 4(a) should be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on a portion of a road. A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where a cycle track is provided on an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’. It is not to be read as ‘A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided’.”

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FK


«134

Comments

  • #2
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    big thread on this on the cycling forum.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057621464


  • #3
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    though to repeat what i said on that thread:

    unless they actually change the wording, i cannot see any prosecution succeeding based on it. that's based on common sense, mind.
    a clear statement from the minister at the time, and a clear attempt to de-mandatorise (is that a word?) the lanes in the explanatory note; would any judge stand over a prosecution based on that?
    people are generally let off as result of ambiguities in the law, not prosecuted on them.


  • #4
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    Like cyclists give a stuff about the law.

    5pm last night, Quays - red light clearly on for traffic and pedestrians trying to cross towards the Italian Quarter.

    Two bikes came off the Millennium Bridge (where they are barred from anyway) and pushed through people to go right down the Quays and one went left towards Capel Street! Idiots all of them.

    Oh and while I'm at it - coming down Dame St to College Green, there is no right turn to Great George's St - so can cyclists quit running the red light, stopping in the yellow box and then playing chicken with oncoming traffic ??? You get hurt it's your own fault.


  • #5
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    trellheim wrote: »
    http://irishcycle.com/2016/07/12/mandatory-cycle-track-law-not-revoked-in-2012-says-department/



    WHAT THE ACTUAL FK

    Key word there "PEDESTRIANISED". The Italian Quarter is not only limited in space and so therefore not conducive to cycles, it's pedestrianised and so they shouldn't be there.

    I'm tired of the attitude that says "have wheels will go wherever we want"


  • #6
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,402 ✭✭✭plodder


    As far as I remember the regs used to say something like a pedal cycle must not be used on a road where a cycle track is provided. Wording like that would be mandatory. So, I don't see how (unless wording like that exists somewhere) it can be mandatory again. The exception for contra-flow and pedestrianised streets is understandable enough.

    "An explanatory note can't be amended" ??? What's that about though? Sounds like confusion reigns at the DoT.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Like cyclists give a stuff about the law.

    5pm last night, Quays - red light clearly on for traffic and pedestrians trying to cross towards the Italian Quarter.

    Two bikes came off the Millennium Bridge (where they are barred from anyway) and pushed through people to go right down the Quays and one went left towards Capel Street! Idiots all of them.

    Oh and while I'm at it - coming down Dame St to College Green, there is no right turn to Great George's St - so can cyclists quit running the red light, stopping in the yellow box and then playing chicken with oncoming traffic ??? You get hurt it's your own fault.
    what in god's name has this got to do with the topic, apart from allowing you to engage in cyclist bashing?


  • #8
    TheExile1878
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭TheExile1878


    Typically dense.

    The post is about what cyclists are mandated to do.

    I pointed out that as a walker/jogger of many years standing in Dublin - they rarely do so.

    Rather that simply "cycle bash" - I offered evidence.


  • #9
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    none of the examples you gave have any bearing on cycle lanes and the questions about the law on whether they're mandatory. they're all completely off topic.
    you'd be able to go into a debate about TB on the farming forum and try to make it about cyclists, and then cry foul about people avoiding the question when they refused to engage with your nonsense.


  • #10
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    This thread is about cycle tracks -- not random complaints about unrelated things cyclists do! There's other threads for that.

    -- mod
    TheExile1878 wrote: »
    Typically dense.

    Really? You post that and then report somebody else's post?!? Don't answer that. It's not a question.

    -- mod


  • #11
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    anyway, back on topic, what the hell is going on in the DoT, that they've basically admitted they are incapable of writing or changing laws.

    there's no explanation - that i am aware of - as to why they managed to mess this up in the first place (if we are to assume that they believe they are telling the truth).
    if they are mistaken - that's brand spanking new incompetence.
    if they are correct - that's incompetence, but four years old.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I'm not sure if his account was closed or if he was site banned first but TheExile1878 is gone, so please don't reply to his posts. I'm sure there'll be a new user sometime soon to rant about cyclists in the same vain -- if you see such please let me know.

    -- mod


  • #13
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    It is clearly one step in the right direction in having safer interactions between motorists and cyclists. Leo should never have have made the amendment in 2012. It would also help the general movement of traffic.


  • #14
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    you mean it's safer to push cyclists onto infrastructure which is not fit for purpose. safer for whom?


  • #15
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    you mean it's safer to push cyclists onto infrastructure which is not fit for purpose. safer for whom?

    No I mean instead of cyclists moaning about lack of infrastructure perhaps they should use what they currently have and make official complaints about tracks that are unsuitable for use to the council. It was only a few years ago that every motorist gave out about the condition of Irish roads and now there is a pretty good network of routes throughout Ireland. They used what they had.


  • #16
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭trellheim


    No I mean instead of cyclists moaning about lack of infrastructure perhaps they should use what they currently have and make official complaints about tracks that are unsuitable for use to the council. It was only a few years ago that every motorist gave out about the condition of Irish roads and now there is a pretty good network of routes throughout Ireland. They used what they had.

    With the best will in the world I doubt this view will be taken seriously. Driving through a pothole is not comparable to breaking your neck on shtty bikelanes.


  • #17
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    No I mean instead of cyclists moaning about lack of infrastructure perhaps they should use ... tracks that are unsuitable for use to the council.
    there ya go.


  • #18
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    there ya go.

    Don't edit the post. That's not what the poster said they said make a complaint to the council for unsuitable lanes.


  • #19
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    you mean it's safer to push cyclists onto infrastructure which is not fit for purpose. safer for whom?

    Safer like the spawell roundabout on the M50 where a seperate cycle lane is provided to stop cyclists going around the roundabout with traffic or the red cow which has the same but I regularly see cyclists within inches of cars on roads that are not designed to have them there? Same happens on the N4 junction over the M50

    God forbid it takes an extra couple of minutes to go the safe route :rolleyes:


  • #20
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Don't edit the post. That's not what the poster said they said make a complaint to the council for unsuitable lanes.
    it was meant to be partly humorous, partly to make a point. he said to use what's there and complain about the ones unsuitable, and it far from clear if the implication was to not use the unsuitable ones.

    i regularly use cycle lanes, and most cyclists do. i avoid the unsuitable ones, e.g. the offroad lanes on the R108 between ballymun and the M50 junction, because they're usually full of crap.

    re complaining about unsuitable cycle lanes - unless it's a simple case of sweeping detritus out of them, there's not much the council can do about remedying a bad design in the short term.


  • #21
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it was meant to be partly humorous, partly to make a point. he said to use what's there and complain about the ones unsuitable, and it far from clear if the implication was to not use the unsuitable ones.

    i regularly use cycle lanes, and most cyclists do. i avoid the unsuitable ones, e.g. the offroad lanes on the R108 between ballymun and the M50 junction, because they're usually full of crap.

    re complaining about unsuitable cycle lanes - unless it's a simple case of sweeping detritus out of them, there's not much the council can do about remedying a bad design in the short term.


    I fully understand what you say but leaving out part of the post is a bit unfair on other poster.

    Clearly if they are not safe but people should report the defects as the council have a duty and will fix if enough pressure is put on them.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    there ya go.

    You seem to have a habit of picking and choosing particular phrases within a post to suit your own views. In doing this you simply dilute the context and perception of other users. If your view is different just say so, you dont have to try tear apart my views in my post.


  • #23
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    I have no problem whatsoever with cyclists sharing the roads but if it's done safely.

    I drive large vehicles and can't believe what risks are taken multiple times a day by cyclists where they are weaving all over the road and don't seam to care that when large vehicles are turning or following a bend that the rear of the vehicle will get closer to the kerb and they will still try to pass.

    If you can't see the mirrors then the driver can't see you.

    If there are cycle lanes provided and are safe people really should use them for their own safety and just really makes good sense.


  • #24
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it was meant to be partly humorous, partly to make a point. he said to use what's there and complain about the ones unsuitable, and it far from clear if the implication was to not use the unsuitable ones.

    i regularly use cycle lanes, and most cyclists do. i avoid the unsuitable ones, e.g. the offroad lanes on the R108 between ballymun and the M50 junction, because they're usually full of crap.

    re complaining about unsuitable cycle lanes - unless it's a simple case of sweeping detritus out of them, there's not much the council can do about remedying a bad design in the short term.

    In my own opinion, i would disagree that most cyclists use cycle lanes but having said that i dont think there is ant definitive evidence to prove otherwise.

    Regarding reporting issues with cycle lanes...If cyclists go through the correct channels in reporting issues with the lanes the council will have to react. If the tracks are in such a state that there is risk of causing damage to a bicycle then the council will have to maintain or face claims for damage. If its a case that the lane is just inconvenient in comparison to cycling on the main road then tough. Perhaps that is one for city planners?


  • #25
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    You seem to have a habit of picking and choosing particular phrases within a post to suit your own views. In doing this you simply dilute the context and perception of other users. If your view is different just say so, you dont have to try tear apart my views in my post.
    genuinely - please clarify your views so. as mentioned, my response was intended to be partly humorous, but you did say (taking at face value) to use what's there while in the same sentence suggesting some of them are unsuitable.


  • #26
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    genuinely - please clarify your views so. as mentioned, my response was intended to be partly humorous, but you did say (taking at face value) to use what's there while in the same sentence suggesting some of them are unsuitable.

    What i was trying to say was that out of the current 500km(approx) of existing cycle track network in Dublin the best approach would be to use the existing infrastructure and where the track becomes unusable then report it to the council for maintenance.


  • #27
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i don't think i'd be very atypical of a fairly confident cyclist in that i use on-road cycle lanes 99% of the time where provided, but off-road cycle lanes maybe only 20% of the time, where provided. the head scratching design flaws and detritus seem to be generally reserved for these off-road lanes; and many implementations of them make life more dangerous for cyclists, rather than less dangerous (i'm in a rush now, but i'll try to source the report i once read that they make junctions more dangerous, and junctions are the main issue regarding safety).

    one reason they often have these flaws is that they're frequently retrofitted to a footpath, with the knock on effect that footpaths are not designed for bicycles.

    obviously, for a nervous cyclist, there's probably a sense of safety to using an off-road lane; whether that's borne out in their actual experience may be another matter.


  • #28
    listermint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,104 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    I have no problem whatsoever with cyclists sharing the roads but if it's done safely.

    I drive large vehicles and can't believe what risks are taken multiple times a day by cyclists where they are weaving all over the road and don't seam to care that when large vehicles are turning or following a bend that the rear of the vehicle will get closer to the kerb and they will still try to pass.

    If you can't see the mirrors then the driver can't see you.

    If there are cycle lanes provided and are safe people really should use them for their own safety and just really makes good sense.

    I don't have a problem with other road users but owning a car motorcycle and push bike allows me to see that all road users are morons and they come from all manners of vehicles. The constant need to demonise a road user based on method of transport is utterly stupid rather than demonising the individual doing the action whatever that maybe.


    Im sure as a professional driver you have been overtaken badly by all manners of transport. No?




    ......


  • #29
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Regarding reporting issues with cycle lanes...If cyclists go through the correct channels in reporting issues with the lanes the council will have to react. If the tracks are in such a state that there is risk of causing damage to a bicycle then the council will have to maintain or face claims for damage. If its a case that the lane is just inconvenient in comparison to cycling on the main road then tough. Perhaps that is one for city planners?
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    What i was trying to say was that out of the current 500km(approx) of existing cycle track network in Dublin the best approach would be to use the existing infrastructure and where the track becomes unusable then report it to the council for maintenance.

    In some cases it's poor maintenance that makes cycle tracks unsuitable/unsafe for use. However, in others they're intrinsically unsafe because of their design - frequently because they place cyclists going straight ahead to the left of left-turning cars, and in a position that makes them less noticeable to the car drivers who consequently are more likely just to cut across them.

    An extreme example in Galway is here, where the cyclist would need to give way at every junction. Utterly impractical to have such a stop/start journey, looking over your shoulder all the while.

    doughiska_galway.jpg

    A more subtle - but possibly more dangerous for that reason - example is here (Leopardstown Road in Dublin).

    EYwHGtC.jpg

    The cyclist on this cycle track going straight ahead has no road marking to yield, and should not have to; he is going straight along the main road. However the left turn into the side road has a nice wide curve allowing a motorist to take it at speed. Since the cycle track is up on the path rather than on the road the motorist is less likely to notice a cyclist in the lane to the left of him, and the chance of an accident where he cuts across the cyclist is consequently greatly increased. it's a really dangerous design, and any regular cyclist could point out dozens of instances where this happens, but it's subtle enough that the problem probably wouldn't even occur to a non-cyclist until they're involved in an accident or near miss of this kind. (That's leaving aside the lack of a ramp from pavement to road level, and the lamppost in the way.)

    (Photos taken from thread on the same topic in the cycling forum.)


  • #30
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Theres nothing telling pedestrians to yield either, should they just wander straight in to traffic?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    radia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 360 ✭✭radia


    Pedestrians are not traffic; that's why they don't belong on the road and need to yield if stepping into it. Cyclists are traffic and motorists in a lane to the right of them should not cut them up when moving across their lane.
    Completely different.
    But that's the mindset that those rubbishy cycle tracks encourage.

    Which is why sensible cyclists will stay on the road where they can be properly recognised as traffic and are less likely to have motorists driving across them at speed.


  • #32
    brianomc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 692 ✭✭✭brianomc


    If there are 2 lanes of traffic going in the same direction, would it make sense if traffic in the left lane had to yield to traffic in the right lane if they wanted to turn left at the junction ahead. Of course it doesn't. But that's what those off-road lanes ask cyclists to do. Sure the lane is "safe" but it's also inefficient having to give way even though you are going straight ahead.

    fcil43.png

    If the lane is an on-road lane the cyclist is more visible to the motorist, they should still throw a glance over their shoulder for their own safety of course.

    In the photo a few posts back it's even worse as the lane curves away from the road meaning the cyclist has to stop as it's not that easy to turn your head exorcist-style to see behind you from the angle you are left at.


  • #33
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,650 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    No I mean instead of cyclists moaning about lack of infrastructure perhaps they should use what they currently have and make official complaints

    As a cyclists who commutes 200km a week I am not willing to put my life at risk and make my three kids fatherless just so I can make a complaint.

    If it's safe I will use it, but if not I will use the road / bus lane


  • #34
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    No I mean instead of cyclists moaning about lack of infrastructure perhaps they should use what they currently have and make official complaints about tracks that are unsuitable for use to the council. It was only a few years ago that every motorist gave out about the condition of Irish roads and now there is a pretty good network of routes throughout Ireland. They used what they had.

    The problem with your suggestion is that people on bikes, like other road users, have a duty to avoid injury and damage to personal property.

    If you are attempting to instruct people to use devices (incompetent cycle facilities) that self evidently increase the risk of injury and also damage bikes - then in effect you are instructing them to break the law.


  • #35
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    listermint wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with other road users but owning a car motorcycle and push bike allows me to see that all road users are morons and they come from all manners of vehicles. The constant need to demonise a road user based on method of transport is utterly stupid rather than demonising the individual doing the action whatever that maybe.


    Im sure as a professional driver you have been overtaken badly by all manners of transport. No?




    ......



    Yes but with pedestrians or cyclists they have no cage so are looking death in the face quite a lot.


  • #36
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    ted1 wrote: »
    As a cyclists who commutes 200km a week I am not willing to put my life at risk and make my three kids fatherless just so I can make a complaint.

    If it's safe I will use it, but if not I will use the road / bus lane

    No doubt you are a fine role model for those kids, when your message is 'break the law when it suits you'. The cyclists motto.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Crow92
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭Crow92


    Charles Babbage wrote: »
    No doubt you are a fine role model for those kids, when your message is 'break the law when it suits you'. The cyclists motto.

    Well better than having "He followed the letter of the law" on his gravestone


  • #38
    Jimmy Garlic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    Fantastic news. In addition to this another good step would be to make it mandatory for cyclists to wear a red flashing tabard front and back so they can be clearly identified in the traffic flow. That and the introduction of a test are measures that need to be taken soon.


  • #39
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,650 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Charles Babbage wrote: »
    No doubt you are a fine role model for those kids, when your message is 'break the law when it suits you'. The cyclists motto.

    I'm a fine role model for self preservation. There's no point having a headstone saying "sure he was a fine role model "


  • #40
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Theres nothing telling pedestrians to yield either, should they just wander straight in to traffic?

    But cyclists are traffic, pedestrians are not


  • #41
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    Jimmy Garlic wrote: »
    In addition to this another good step would be to make it mandatory for cyclists to wear a red flashing tabard front and back so they can be clearly identified in the traffic flow.

    No amount of flashing lights will make people open their eyes and look around them.

    My biggest shock when I learned how to drive was just how easy it is to spot cyclists, track them and avoid creating danger for them.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Jimmy Garlic wrote: »
    Fantastic news. In addition to this another good step would be to make it mandatory for cyclists to wear a red flashing tabard front and back so they can be clearly identified in the traffic flow. That and the introduction of a test are measures that need to be taken soon.

    Keep on topic please.

    -- moderator


  • #43
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Jimmy Garlic wrote: »
    Fantastic news. In addition to this another good step would be to make it mandatory for cyclists to wear a red flashing tabard front and back so they can be clearly identified in the traffic flow. That and the introduction of a test are measures that need to be taken soon.

    It's only fantastic news if you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Take a bike, cycle it around Dublin and anywhere else that has cycle lanes. Tell me what state they are in.

    Red flashing tabard? So which way is front and which way is back? There's already a law in place which requires cyclists to wear lights at night. So instead of enforcing the law, you want to introduce new laws?

    Who are you going to test? What are you going to test them on? Do you think cyclists should carry a cycling license? Why not just make bikes illegal, get straight to the point and just get rid of them altogether, you'd be much happier then, right?


  • #44
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cyclists of ireland should unite into a secret overnight prank, and go out and create conditions for motorists which cyclists face in using cycle lanes.
    roads that abruptly end for no reason, transitions between two roads consisting of kerbs six inches high, random street furniture placed in the middle of the lane, material spread across the lanes which cause punctures, and other road users shouting at them for daring to avoid the obstacles in their path.
    i'm sure that motorists would be delighted with the cyclists for helping them see the light.


  • #45
    NiallBoo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,504 ✭✭✭NiallBoo


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    cyclists of ireland should unite into a secret overnight prank, and go out and create conditions for motorists which cyclists face in using cycle lanes.
    roads that abruptly end for no reason, transitions between two roads consisting of kerbs six inches high, random street furniture placed in the middle of the lane, material spread across the lanes which cause punctures, and other road users shouting at them for daring to avoid the obstacles in their path.

    I wonder if they planned the original Luas routes the easy they did as an act of solidarity with cyclists?


  • #46
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i remember reading a claim (would be interested if anyone here can confirm or deny it) that it was briefly considered when the green line was being planned, that they'd run a bike lane alongside it, but it was quickly decided it'd add far too much cost.


  • #47
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,650 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i remember reading a claim (would be interested if anyone here can confirm or deny it) that it was briefly considered when the green line was being planned, that they'd run a bike lane alongside it, but it was quickly decided it'd add far too much cost.
    Was never an option , the green line runs on the old harcourt line and the space wasn't available


  • #48
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    ted1 wrote: »
    Was never an option , the green line runs on the old harcourt line and the space wasn't available

    I did think they had mentioned it for any parts that were essentially new but then it was dismissed. Share who would be riding a bicycle in the good times :pac: It may just have been an article commenting on it before finalization rather than an actual consideration.


  • #49
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Personally I am much more interested in which dark forces have made this decision in the Department of Transport, and why.

    Can anyone tell me as I am not up to speed - monument you might be able to help - why this policy change might be happening and what the goal is here ? I cannot find PR on their site around this, did anyone issue actual written official guidance ?


  • #50
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i remember reading a claim (would be interested if anyone here can confirm or deny it) that it was briefly considered when the green line was being planned, that they'd run a bike lane alongside it, but it was quickly decided it'd add far too much cost.
    ted1 wrote: »
    Was never an option , the green line runs on the old harcourt line and the space wasn't available

    A two-way cycle path over the Dundrum bridge would have been great for avoiding the junction under it -- even if the cycle path only linked to the nearby roads and did not go further along the line.

    Between Dundrum and Balally might have just worked if done when it in planning. No space issue between Balally and Sandyford (would have been very easy to fit in a high quality route at planning with very little extra cost, less so now).

    Between Sandyford and The Gallops would have been fantastic for allowing access to offices (Microsoft, Vodafone etc) and access across the M50. And between The Gallops and Cherrywood would be nice.

    trellheim wrote: »
    Personally I am much more interested in which dark forces have made this decision in the Department of Transport, and why.

    Can anyone tell me as I am not up to speed - monument you might be able to help - why this policy change might be happening and what the goal is here ? I cannot find PR on their site around this, did anyone issue actual written official guidance ?

    An FOI request might be needed to find out more -- article was based on questions to the department.


  • #51
    punisher5112
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    monument wrote: »
    A two-way cycle path over the Dundrum bridge would have been great for avoiding the junction under it -- even if the cycle path only linked to the nearby roads and did not go further along the line.

    Between Dundrum and Balally might have just worked if done when it in planning. No space issue between Balally and Sandyford (would have been very easy to fit in a high quality route at planning with very little extra cost, less so now).

    Between Sandyford and The Gallops would have been fantastic for allowing access to offices (Microsoft, Vodafone etc) and access across the M50. And between The Gallops and Cherrywood would be nice.




    An FOI request might be needed to find out more -- article was based on questions to the department.



    Simple answer the majority would still cycle on the road.

    So it would have been a complete waste.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement