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

Cycle lanes now mandatory again, apparently

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is one example:
    https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B025'36.0%22N+6%C2%B021'29.4%22W/@53.4266542,-6.3589795,143m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.426653!4d-6.358174

    The cycle lanes on this road are rarely used. Most cyclist use the road and this is brand new infrastructure.

    If the roundabout design was improved, cyclists would use it more. The roundabout is designed almost exclusively for motorists, without much consideration for the passage of cyclists . For a Dutch style solution to work here, the priority enjoyed by cyclists there would have to be extended to here.

    https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/a-modern-amsterdam-roundabout/


  • Options
    #63
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,331 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    The cycle lanes on this road are rarely used. Most cyclist use the road and this is brand new infrastructure.
    actually, that's kinda funny. the design is quite cumbersome.
    as Pinch Flat points out, someone designed that roundabout exclusively for the use of motorists, and then had to figure out a way of overlaying a dedicated cycle lane, which swings you way off the roundabout - and on the inside of left turning traffic, even if the cyclist is proceeding straight ahead - and then requires you to yield twice.

    that's cycling infrastructure designed by someone who sees no difference between cyclists and pedestrians.


  • Options
    #64
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    This is exactly what i mean when i say that if the cycle route is not convenient for the cyclist they will resort to using the general road. So the option for a cyclist is to stay on a safe, brand new cycle track and add a minute or two onto their journey or choose the route that suits them but means they are interacting with dual carriage way traffic and ultimately increasing their risk on a road?


  • Options
    #65
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is one example:
    https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B025'36.0%22N+6%C2%B021'29.4%22W/@53.4266542,-6.3589795,143m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.426653!4d-6.358174

    The cycle lanes on this road are rarely used. Most cyclist use the road and this is brand new infrastructure.

    Those roundabouts would be front in centre of any presentation of why not to use bike lanes. Any self respecting cyclist would be stupid to use them. If you want to go straight through any of the roundabouts you have to dismount the lanes. Having driven and cycled through those roundabouts any cyclist would be putting themselves in more danger using the "biking infrastructure"

    The location away from town also means your going to have faster cyclists on those roads. Those cycle lanes while been unsafe would also so them down.

    The reason the cycle lanes are unsafe is that exit points/re-entry points onto the road.


  • Options
    #66
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,331 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the original context was whether or not it's a good idea to have included a cycle lane along the luas, you're using an example of stodgy bike lane design to suggest that cyclists won't use it; or are you being more general in your observations?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    CramCycle wrote: »
    And I would disagree, there are a small minority who will never use them in any circumstances, for various reasons. There are those who use them only when safe, those only when it is convenient but there are a large number who use them regardless and are oblivious to the increased danger they are in because they have been brought up to believe that a cycle lane is the only place for cyclists.

    If cyclists using lanes are in more danger because they have become accustomed to using a lane specific to cyclists, why is there such a big campaign to increase the amount of segregated cycle lanes around Dublin?

    I understand the concept of more cyclists = more awareness so wouldn't segregated cycle lanes counter productive to safety?


  • Options
    #68
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is exactly what i mean when i say that if the cycle route is not convenient for the cyclist they will resort to using the general road. So the option for a cyclist is to stay on a safe, brand new cycle track and add a minute or two onto their journey or choose the route that suits them but means they are interacting with dual carriage way traffic and ultimately increasing their risk on a road?

    Those roads aren't that dangerous for cycling. They're not massively busy and the extra lanes makes it easy for other vehicles to overtake. The very good surface makes getting up to a decent speed relatively easy. The roundabouts also keep the speed of other road users down. I find the frequency of the roundabouts makes those roads annoying to drive.


  • Options
    #69
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Those roundabouts would be front in centre of any presentation of why not to use bike lanes. Any self respecting cyclist would be stupid to use them. If you want to go straight through any of the roundabouts you have to dismount the lanes. Having driven and cycled through those roundabouts any cyclist would be putting themselves in more danger using the "biking infrastructure"

    The location away from town also means your going to have faster cyclists on those roads. Those cycle lanes while been unsafe would also so them down.

    The reason the cycle lanes are unsafe is that exit points/re-entry points onto the road.

    I cant help but to feel that the expectation of a cycle lane requirements must be practically 100% flawless to allow cyclist a seamless journey. As you stated, cyclists will be travelling faster so to slow down at each roundabout to cross an intersection would be an inconvenience but cars will also be traveling faster and will only marginally reduce speeds at roundabouts because the road layout allows for it, so again its safety vs inconvenience.


  • Options
    #70
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I understand the concept of more cyclists = more awareness so wouldn't segregated cycle lanes counter productive to safety?

    Yes. They increase the risk of conflict at junctions sometimes significantly.

    In countries that routinely use cycle tracks such as NL, DK, DE etc motorists are taught how to look for cyclists at junctions.

    Road designers also take the presence of cycle facilities into account when designing junctions. They don't just design junctions around motorist convenience and then stick in cycle facilities afterwards.


  • Options
    #71
    Roadhawk
    Registered Users Posts: 935 ✭✭✭Roadhawk


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Those roads aren't that dangerous for cycling. They're not massively busy and the extra lanes makes it easy for other vehicles to overtake. The very good surface makes getting up to a decent speed relatively easy. The roundabouts also keep the speed of other road users down. I find the frequency of the roundabouts makes those roads annoying to drive.

    Well i would be inclined to disagree...this route is used by many HGVs and other motorists. It may not be as busy as the M50 but it was built with 2 lanes for a reason. I would not like to be cycling on this road especially on a rainy evening if visibility is bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I cant help but to feel that the expectation of a cycle lane requirements must be practically 100% flawless safe to allow cyclist a seamless journey. .

    Fixed your post.


  • Options
    #73
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,452 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is one example:
    https://www.google.ie/maps/place/53%C2%B025'36.0%22N+6%C2%B021'29.4%22W/@53.4266542,-6.3589795,143m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d53.426653!4d-6.358174

    The cycle lanes on this road are rarely used. Most cyclist use the road and this is brand new infrastructure.
    Go to the next roundabout where there is no actual crossing points for cyclists. The reason they might use the road is because to use the cycle track would make it impossible to get anywhere.
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    This is exactly what i mean when i say that if the cycle route is not convenient for the cyclist they will resort to using the general road. So the option for a cyclist is to stay on a safe, brand new cycle track and add a minute or two onto their journey or choose the route that suits them but means they are interacting with dual carriage way traffic and ultimately increasing their risk on a road?
    Convenient is one thing but at the next roundabout there is literally noway to navigate the roundabout, at all. The bike lane is fenced off and there are no crossing points. That is not a minute or two addition.
    Roadhawk wrote: »
    If cyclists using lanes are in more danger because they have become accustomed to using a lane specific to cyclists, why is there such a big campaign to increase the amount of segregated cycle lanes around Dublin?

    I understand the concept of more cyclists = more awareness so wouldn't segregated cycle lanes counter productive to safety?
    I don't know of any such campaign, I certainly am not campaigning for it. I agree that in towns and cities, more cycle paths are counter productive. Reduced in number but increased in width lanes makes more sense to me.

    The quality of the bike path there in terms of surface is exceptional, and I would happily use it, if it went somewhere.


  • Options
    #74
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Well i would be inclined to disagree...this route is used by many HGVs and other motorists. It may not be as busy as the M50 but it was built with 2 lanes for a reason. I would not like to be cycling on this road especially on a rainy evening if visibility is bad.

    So people outside motor vehicles are expected to take their chances dashing across roundabout entries and exits that are laid out like mini slip-roads?

    In a traffic environment where some motorists rarely indicate leaving roundabouts.

    This is the alternative you and the designers have given them.


  • Options
    #75
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    I think cyclists only use cycle tracks that are completely convenient on their current route. For example, many use the tracks like the ones on the Grand Canal stretch because they are like a "highway" for cyclists but where there are a few obstacles, like a curb or two, in the way the lane goes unused by most as the road is the more convenient and easy option.

    If there was a kerb or two on a cycle lane, it's not fair to expect it to be used.

    Most of the cycle lanes I used around Dublin were simply painted on. Not fantastic for cyclists or pedestrians.

    The new cycle track posted above by another poster looks great to most people. I would certainly use it, but it's not designed with cyclists in mind. I think it could be improved quite a lot. The surface looks great, but the fence is terrible. At one point you simply cannot go straight. You have to go left towards Clondalkin for a KM or two (unless I missed the crossing).


  • Options
    #76
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    Well i would be inclined to disagree...this route is used by many HGVs and other motorists. It may not be as busy as the M50 but it was built with 2 lanes for a reason. I would not like to be cycling on this road especially on a rainy evening if visibility is bad.

    Have you ever cycled it? The reason we have such crap cycle lanes is that they are designed by people who are clueless about cycling. I've done so granted predominately at weekends but sharing the roads with HGV and other motorists is something I do on a daily basis. There are plenty of worse roads to cycle in Ireland.For viability thanks to the wonders of technology there are plenty of affordable high powered bike lights available. Some of more high powered ones even have dimmers:D.


  • Options
    #77
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Have you ever cycled it? The reason we have such crap cycle lanes is that they are designed by people who are clueless about cycling.

    With regret I don't think thats the essence of the problem. The essence of the problem is that these roads are designed by people who give absolute priority to making motoring more convenient and attractive.

    When that is the starting assumption then it doesn't really matter what the designers do or don't know about cycling. It is still likely to end only one way.


  • Options
    #78
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭plodder


    This is what the regulation used to say 1998 to 2012:
    (3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a pedal cycle must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

    (b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply in the case of a cycle track on the right-hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided,

    (i) where a person driving a pedal cycle intends to change direction and has indicated that intention, or

    (ii) where a bus is stopped in the cycle track at a point where traffic sign RUS 031 (bus stop) is provided, or

    (iii) where a vehicle is parked in the cycle track for the purpose of loading or unloading.
    Quite unambiguous, and interestingly identifies exceptions that were removed in 2012. So, if a vehicle is parked in the cycle track, now you'd be breaking the law cycling around it on the road. The only legal option I think would be to get off your bike and walk it around the obstruction on the footpath. Fairly crazy situation if so.


  • Options
    #79
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    so how can you get these two authorities to agree

    could you ask them what day they changed their mind


  • Options
    #80
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,266 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Roadhawk wrote: »
    So the option for a cyclist is to stay on a safe, brand new cycle track and

    This is where you are wrong , as the round about us badly designed , it's not safe you have cars cutting across you.
    The safest option is to take up a defensive position in the Center of the lane


  • Options
    #81
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,757 ✭✭✭cython


    plodder wrote: »
    This is what the regulation used to say 1998 to 2012:

    Quite unambiguous, and interestingly identifies exceptions that were removed in 2012. So, if a vehicle is parked in the cycle track, now you'd be breaking the law cycling around it on the road. The only legal option I think would be to get off your bike and walk it around the obstruction on the footpath. Fairly crazy situation if so.

    All the more indication that this revised interpretation is quite simply wrong, IMHO, and that in the explanatory note is in fact correct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭plodder


    cython wrote: »
    All the more indication that this revised interpretation is quite simply wrong, IMHO, and that in the explanatory note is in fact correct.
    Regardless of which way it is, the fact that they can't update the explanatory note has to mean there is an obligation to fix the problem, and the new minister (Paschal O'Donoghue) can do that to save Leo Varadkar's (and the department's) blushes. All it takes is his signature since they are regulations rather than primary law. I don't see why they can't do it reasonably quickly.


  • Options
    #83
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    plodder wrote: »
    Regardless of which way it is, the fact that they can't update the explanatory note has to mean there is an obligation to fix the problem, and the new minister (Paschal O'Donoghue) can do that to save Leo Varadkar's (and the department's) blushes. All it takes is his signature since they are regulations rather than primary law. I don't see why they can't do it reasonably quickly.

    What problem? There is no problem.

    The law is as stated in the Dail record, in the regulations, in the explanatory note and in correspondence from Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport.

    Some civil servant has decided to try rewriting history but life is not so simple.


  • Options
    #84
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    have you got a PQ via friendly TD since you got that line from the civil servant?


  • Options
    #85
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭plodder


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    What problem? There is no problem.

    The law is as stated in the Dail record, in the regulations, in the explanatory note and in correspondence from Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport.

    Some civil servant has decided to try rewriting history but life is not so simple.
    Not a lawyer, but I don't think so. The explanatory note is not the law. A judge won't even look at it if it comes to a real case. What the law said previously is not directly relevant either, nor what is stated in the Dail, only the text of the laws and regulations currently in force.

    Personally, I think their new interpretation is probably right, but not what was intended (clearly) and should be fixed. Apart from saving their embarrassment, they want cyclists to operate within clear, rational laws. There are plenty of references out there to cycle tracks not being mandatory. So, an updated regulation is needed asap in my opinion.


  • Options
    #86
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    plodder wrote: »
    Not a lawyer, but I don't think so. The explanatory note is not the law. A judge won't even look at it if it comes to a real case. What the law said previously is not directly relevant either, nor what is stated in the Dail, only the text of the laws and regulations currently in force.

    Personally, I think their new interpretation is probably right, but not what was intended (clearly) and should be fixed. Apart from saving their embarrassment, they want cyclists to operate within clear, rational laws. There are plenty of references out there to cycle tracks not being mandatory. So, an updated regulation is needed asap in my opinion.

    Nope I am not buying that.

    Ultimately only courts can give a definitive interpretation of the law. If there is any ambiguity then it is to be decided in court.

    The Dail record, the regulations, the explanatory note, correspondence from Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport, and government policy all support one interpretation of the law and are all available to the courts in interpreting the law.

    It is only as and when a court rejects the established interpretation of the law that we will be proven to have a problem.

    The person or persons within the Department who are now attempting to put forward their own competing interpretation have not produced any supporting documentation.

    They are simply acting perversely in my view.


  • Options
    #87
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,132 ✭✭✭plodder


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Nope I am not buying that.

    Ultimately only courts can give a definitive interpretation of the law. If there is any ambiguity then it is to be decided in court.

    The Dail record, the regulations, the explanatory note, correspondence from Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport, and government policy all support one interpretation of the law and are all available to the courts in interpreting the law.

    It is only as and when a court rejects the established interpretation of the law that we will be proven to have a problem.

    The person or persons within the Department who are now attempting to put forward their own competing interpretation have not produced any supporting documentation.

    They are simply acting perversely in my view.
    Well, they didn't help their case the way they stated it. "It is to be interpreted this way ... and not this way...". That makes it sound like they are the arbiter, which they aren't, and was a long way from admitting a mistake was made. If they got a legal opinion, then at least they could state that, or publish it. So, we'll have to wait and see..


  • Options
    #88
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    plodder wrote: »
    Well, they didn't help their case the way they stated it. "It is to be interpreted this way ... and not this way...". That makes it sound like they are the arbiter, which they aren't, and was a long way from admitting a mistake was made. If they got a legal opinion, then at least they could state that, or publish it. So, we'll have to wait and see..

    Exactly.

    If someone in the Department had come back and said

    ".... weell the Minister intended this but then this happened in this court or we found this other regulation and now we think it creates this doubt etc etc"

    then that would be a reasonable position for a discussion about whether there was a risk to the intent of the law.

    That's not what they said. What they said in not so many words was "the King is dead, long live the King".

    So this feels like someone in the Department, a paid civil servant, taking it on themselves to pervert the policy of the previous government (and possibly also this one - has the National Cycle Policy Framework been dropped?).

    Not acceptable and most serious.


  • Options
    #89
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    What problem? There is no problem.

    The law is as stated in the Dail record, in the regulations, in the explanatory note and in correspondence from Leo Varadkar as Minister for Transport.

    Some civil servant has decided to try rewriting history but life is not so simple.

    I wonder who the civil servant is? Where did the statement come from? Was it reported in a newspaper or just mentioned to the irishcycle.com website? Where else has it been reported?

    Could the civil servant be just a 'sources close to' type entity? Ie. A fabrication of some journalists imagination.

    What is the agenda here? The rewritten regulations from 2012 are clear: cyclists shall use cycle tracks in pedestrian zones and contraflow lanes.

    We have seen people trying to argue differently, but in every case it has come down to a misunderstanding of the grammar used in this law.

    If the civil servant exists, why do they need to state that the intention of the law is counter to how it is actually written? What's in it for them? What is the benefit they get from making this statement?

    I don't know enough about the Dept of Transport to even guess at the answers to these questions. Anyone like to have a go to enlighten me?


  • Options
    #90
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    The traffic corps putting a bit of a push on to enforce the law would do a lot to soften coughs and clarify where the law stands


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Bambi wrote: »
    The traffic corps putting a bit of a push on to enforce the law would do a lot to soften coughs and clarify where the law stands

    Enforcing the law?

    Enforcing what the law states?

    Or enforcing the misinterpretation of an unnamed civil servant?


Advertisement