Royal Canal Tow Path

beauf wrote: »

Ok I stand corrected. Any route I take that cycle only, or a pedestrian gate, like the park, you get bikers using it constantly. I don't mind where they are just commuting and considerate of other users. But I would I have assume it would be plagued with more concentrated anti social behaviour depending on the location.

Bikers?

Godge wrote: »

With gates there is a minor issue?

Without gates there is a major issue?


This suggests that gates contribute to solving the problem but are not a complete solution. This gives succour to those who argue against the gates because they can mention occasional incidents.

Err... sulkies and cars can be stopped by magical things called bollards.

Unplanned and uncontrolled access is not the same thing as planned access which does not block legitimate users and block stop the routes from getting anywhere near their potential for commuting, tourism and leisure.

beauf wrote: »

Motorcyclists. Some of them tend to use pedestrian gates like whites gate in the park and bollard closed roads like Wellington road, as rat runs.

Ok, compare towpaths, parks etc to this:

Parking cars on footpaths and cycling on footpaths is at crazy levels on many streets and housing estates across Dublin. So, the question is:

Is it acceptable to solve this problem by making it more difficult or, in many cases, impossible for ligitmate users to use footpaths?

If not, why are towpaths and parks so special?

beauf wrote: »

I dunno what you are looking for here...

You seem to be defending the gates, so I'm asking:

With footpaths generally, on streets and in estates, is it acceptable to solve the motorist/cyclist problem by making it more difficult or, in many cases, impossible for ligitmate users to use footpaths?

If not, why are towpaths and parks so special?

beauf wrote: »

...I assume you mean that if you attract enough people it will chase the scobes away.

Not sure that's worked that well at kaboombridge.

Broombridge? What exactly has been tried at Boombridge?

beauf wrote: »

These gates don't block access. That's factually wrong. You'd said they don't work, and now you say they do work. Or are you suggesting you can get a motorbike or a horse past them, but not a walker, or a bicycle. or can you get nothing past them. Which is it?

Mopeds and scrambles can be more easily maneuvered past a kissing gate by a half fit young guy, than a cargo bike or a trailer can be by the average parent. Even lots of abled users won't bother.

It's a fact the horses are inside the gates on the Grand Canal and that scramblers have been inside the gates on Royal.

beauf wrote: »

They make it inconvenient for a subset of users. yes I made that point already.

And because they are a "subset" it makes it ok block to people with disabilities, people who are older or otherwise unable to lift or maneuver larger bikes, and people who carry their children on large rear child seats, trailers, cargo bikes etc?

beauf wrote: »

Well you have people post the exact opposite. My own experience is the new section with (or despite) the gates was that it was very popular. The other section without gates for the most part was pretty much deserted.

Which other sections?

beauf wrote: »

You've made this thread about the gates. lets rewind to what I said...

That's nearly all or all the route is to people with general large bicycles, large panniers, bikes with a child seat that can't fit past without lifting, with a trailer, recumbents, cargo bikes, cargo trikes, and electric bikes which the users can't lift or maneuver by the gates.

That includes families, older people, taller people with larger bikes, people who have bikes adopted for using by or carrying people with disabilities and people who want to carry things without using a backpack.

beauf wrote: »

I don't really get how you read this and say I was pro the gates. My main point was it was great and popular (lots of cyclists).

You're main point looked to be defending the gates which are blocking users who just want to enjoy the route or get from a to b more safely than on the roads.

beauf wrote: »

But the gates were a pain for a commuter. Not everyone is a commuter. .

That's as a total misunderstanding - child seats, panniers, child trailers, cargo bikes etc are not just for commuting and for many people these things are only for leisure.

beauf wrote: »

Understanding why they installed them, is a long way from agreeing with them or defending them.

Understanding something is something people do them self, trying to make others understand is defending or justifying -- you're clearly going beyond understanding.

We all know the council's view, you're going beyond just outlining it. You have outlined why you think the gates are needed -- that's defending.

Maybe you don't think it's justified to block families, and people because of their size and ability? Then simply stop defending it.

I'm being asked for stats, so: How many families, older people, people of lesser ability, and people who have disabilities does these have to be before they count?

As a country we have our heads in the sand about how unfriendly and inaccessible our streets are to people with mobility issues, so I suppose it should not really be surprising that that transfers over to greenways and parks etc.

And, no, it's not just "oversized bicycles" -- Fingal County Council have confirmed that the gates are a barrier to some bikes with types of child seats and panniers. It's great for people who can fit their bikes or lift their bikes over, but even the council which installed them admits they are a problem for users of panniers and child seats. What the council confirmed has also been said by people who have contacted me about the issue and it was also said on this thread or over on the cycling board that some people with panniers have had to lift their bikes over the gates.


Re the claim about the Phoenix Park: The Phoenix Park Bike Hire regularly rents out cargo bikes, trailers and tandems; and I know of people with trailers and cargo trikes who use the park. One who uses the park as part of a long detour because they can't use the Grand Canal.

beauf wrote: »

Who said it was ok. Are you just going invent comments to reply to? Nice
...

No it wasn't. That's just complete invention/inference on your part.

None of that has anything to do with what I said. My comment was clearly about using it as a commuting route. You'd decided to use my comment out of context and out all proportion.

No I'm not. That something you've invented. I simply said I understood why they were used. But they are a pain for commuters. You've twisted that into I'm pro gates and anti families and people with mobility issues.

Thats really out of order.

I haven't commented on families, people size or ability either. Its just pure invention on your part. If you want to start a intelligent campaign about the impracticality of these gates then do so using fact, stats. Theres no need to quote people out of context and invent things they didn't say. Thats a bizarre even tabloid response.

Just because you have not commented on families, people's size or ability either, does not make it ok that you are defending the gates which block some of these people from enjoying the greenway.

And it's not complete invention/inference on my part -- you have went to lengths to defend the barriers and explain why they are needed, including painting pictures of doom if the gates were removed. Your latest tact is to try to underplay the amount of people who are being denied access -- but we have yet to hear how many families, old people and people who have disabilities count before there's "huge demand" -- how many is too many to block?

beauf wrote: »

If you want to start a diatribe/campaign against kissing gates and similar, I would suggest it warrants a separate thread in commuting. As its not specific to D.15 or indeed the Royal Canal.

But these gates are in D15 and it's so-far the only section of the Royal Canal upgraded as a cycling route under the GDA Cycle Network and the Galway to Dublin cycle route.

Putting these types of barriers on the greenway calls into question of misuse of Dublin's limited sustainable transport funding. Not a great benchmark for the rest of the greenway network in the GDA.

fiacha wrote: »

The gates are not driving people away from the canal.

It may not be driving away current users but -- as people have said on boards about the Grand Canal -- it does stop potential users who would add to safety.

fiacha wrote: »

In order to help keep the canal safe and usable for the majority there has to be compromises made. In some cases it means the less able or those using trailers / oversized bikes can't access it. It's a public resource, so the gov should be making sure that it is accessible to all when feasible.

Another way of looking at this is asking you:

Do you think it's acceptable to stop older people, people of less ability, people with disabilities, and families with many types of bikes?

Are these people just casualties of the war on anti-social behaviour?

fiacha wrote: »

I don't think there will ever be a solution that will suit everyone. That's part of life, and as adults we just have to accept that there are bigger issues out there that need to be tackled.

Sure, there are bigger issues in the world. But on a thread about a greenway, blocking people from using the route seems like a fairly central issue.

beauf wrote: »

So you want to encourage antisocial activity which will discourage people from using the canal path. Promote the idea that its blocked and unusable for the majority of potential users. Deride the ridicule the work thats been done so far as pointless waste of money. Because if its blocked what is the point. You're suggesting they might as well leave it as it was.

I'm still waiting for an answer, I can't fairly answer YOUR question without it:

How many families, older people, people of lesser ability, and people who have disabilities does these have to be before they count?

beauf wrote: »

I've never seen the canal so busy. It would be nice to have a reasoned discussion on the alternatives to the gates. But it seems that's not possible. I posted early a link to a trial of removing gates, but no one seem interested in the results of that. To mention gates at all is to be a fervent supporter of them apparently. The gates are a pain = I love gates apparently.

I was trying to have a reasoned debate but first you came on as if you had not read the posts about horses and scramblers getting past kissing gates, and then you started on about the route becoming a "rat run for commuting" by motorcyclists -- presumably the motorcyclists would cover up their number plates while doing this (Yes, as if that's reasonable to expect to be an ongoing problem).

Then when that was challenged you gave a smart remark about "kaboombridge" as if to say anything has been tried at Broombridge -- it has not (but thankfully Luas arriving there will at lease cleanup and secure a lot of the site).

Then you started on about how "someone else has already posted the problems when gates were removed" referring to uncontrolled car and cart access when a gate was opened -- all things which can be stopped by bollards, and that had already been replied to but you were only reading or remembering one side.

Then you started to claim that the gates don't block access and are only an inconvenient for a subset of users -- which is clearly untrue unless there's a team of people at ever gate to help people with trailers, cargo bikes, cargo trikes, electric bikes etc. You go on about none of these types of bikes in the Phoenix Park but the Phoenix Park Bike Hire alone proves you wrong.

Then when you finally admitted that the gates do block people you were looking for stats to prove these bikes sell well in Ireland -- you still won't answer how many families, older people, people of lesser ability, and people who have disabilities amounts to a "huge" amount to be worth considering. It's ok to block people as long as they are a minority -- that's your horrible point.

Then you started going on about panniers and child seats fitting fine, but even the council admits that this is not the case.

At a few points you were very defensive of the questionable benefits if gates and dismissive if the benefits of extra users.

You're not in a position to be calling or inferring that others are unreasonable.

beauf wrote: »

I have no interest why you want to allow motorbikes and horses on the canal and discourage everyone else from using the path.
Or indeed why you want to promote the idea that the canal route is blocked for all users. or run down the efforts of others in improving the facilities.

You talk about reasonable debate, now you're claiming I want motorbikes and horses on the route... How reasonable is that?

Where have I suggested that the route is blocked off for all?

And it's nonsense to suggest that "everybody else" can use the path... Or are you going back to suggesting legitimate users are not blocked?

For the record: I'm not running down efforts to improve the facilities, I'm highlighting the issue of blocking legitimate users.