Comment & Analysis: Thousands of people viewed the article published over the weekend covering confusion around new warning markings added to cycle tracks in Dublin. But some readers of the article or its headline expressed anger at its very existence, so lets look at that.Sadly, as with anything that is discussed regarding cycling safety, I first have to add a disclaimer: Nobody is saying that cyclists should not be cautious.A second disclaimer: This website covers details. If you dont like guidelines, research, or anything like that, its likely best to tune out now. For everybody else, lets look at a number of factsThere was confusion. When I asked on Bluesky what the signs were designed to warn about, people were giving contradictory answers. Giving contradictory answers to something that should have just one answer means theres confusion. Guessing something is not the same as knowing it. But even if you are guessing correctly, other people are guessing something else. That still means theres confusion. I know I could guess what some of the markings are about, and I might or might not be wrong. This is not how road signs are supposed to work; there is supposed to be clarity about what signs and markings mean.So, I really dont understand how anybody could claim there was no confusion. Yet, the article was getting replies claiming otherwise.The marking used was incorrect it does not comply with the guidance on signs or cycle routes. And the marking used is a copy of a sign with clear guidelines for its use, but those guidelines were not followed.Signs and use are governed by laws, guidelines, and even international agreements. This is not just for the fun of it; its in the interest of safety that there is clarity.Research titled Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks, published by UK charity Living Streets, outlines that they found the issue was overuse and confusing use of markings on cycle tracks. This includes adding to the complexity of an environment, and the overuse of markings reduces their impact where they might be useful.Some of these issues should be familiar to readers. This website has previously covered how theres an overuse of dismount signs at locations along greenways where dismounting is not needed, and by the time you get to a location where dismounting is needed, youve seen so many warnings which were overkill that you might be likely to ignore the warning which should not be.The same goes for the more recent overuse of stop signs and restrictive gates on greenways in cases where a yield sign or even nothing should be in place. We generally overuse stop signs compared to other countries in Europe where you see a stop sign in the Netherlands, you know theres a real issue there, and it needs your attention. But we have a situation now where we have four stop signs at points where a greenway crosses driveways or really minor cul-de-sacs, or two where the route meets a footpath on the edge of a village On cycle tracks and bus stops, the Living Streets report outlines: Generally, we saw that in simpler environments cyclists were more free to pay attention to the wider environment, and thus more able to predict pedestrian behaviours. While it may be difficult to prove the specific role of paint markings in increasing complexity the addition of more markings seems likely to be an indicationof a suboptimal design. It also seems safe to assume this added complexity will mean markings distracting from one another.After readers had tagged me or contacted me about the photos, my initial outlook on the story was to wonder what the marking was warning about and why the council did not use the correct marking (a question they still have not answered). After spotting the marking on the Clontaf route, the issue of overuse becomes very clear. If anybody thinks warning markings especially vague or unclear ones every few or tens of metres is going to be helpful, youre going against much of what is known about signs and markings and how people generally take and filter information. Basically, Overuse means the markings will be filtered out.The Living Streets report indicates that it seems likely to be an indication of a suboptimal design. Is the city council really making that admission about its premier cycle route? Another question left unanswered is why are so many signs aimed at cyclists but not at motorists? Overall, this issue will likely not go far beyond the pages of this website. But one thing I see being an issue of liability for councils is the overuse of general slow markings and school warning markings on cycle tracks, but not on carriageways.