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

Pedestrians in the cycle lane

135

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,138 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    nak wrote: »
    See picture for new gate design. Here's your chance to have a say in what gets put in along the canal. email greenroute@sdublincoco.ie
    Dónal wrote: »
    Won't be able to fit a bike with panniers through that would you? Where exactly is that trial?
    monument wrote: »
    Looks like it is east of Adamstown and just west of the R136 / "Dublin Outer Ring Road" (the overbridge for which is pictured).

    There's an interesting and vaguely similar gate design at the new Corkaigh Park track. I don't have a snap of it to hand, but I assume that construction involved the cahncil.

    Maybe Cycling Ireland would know more about this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,538 ✭✭✭nak


    monument wrote: »
    Looks like it is east of Adamstown and just west of the R136 / "Dublin Outer Ring Road" (the overbridge for which is pictured).

    This is one of the gates not even at a junction. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

    Correct, there is another one on the bridge. I can ride through it slowly (don't use panniers). If you don't like it, mail them and let them know of other ideas. It is just a trial.


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


    nak wrote: »
    Correct, there is another one on the bridge. I can ride through it slowly (don't use panniers). If you don't like it, mail them and let them know of other ideas. It is just a trial.

    The engineers and planners of South Dublin County Council are very intelligent people.

    I'm not being sarcastic -- They are more than intelligent enough to know the original design is not cycling friendly and more than able to figure out for them self if this design will or will not allow access for cyclists with panniers, cargo bikes, trailers and so on.

    If they choice to ignore or convince them self that they are following guidance from the NTA and national cycle policy, that's up to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭clod71


    I only use cycle lanes if they are on the road, if that makes sense...


  • Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Any chance of a googlemaps link to the location?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,804 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

    183120.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭seeing_ie


    monument wrote: »
    What other amenities in the city have been wrecked?

    Fairview park, there's been some serious muggings and assaults there the last few years. Fatalities. No go area at times because of the relative isolation of the path there.
    Liffey boardwalk to some extent I suppose. Can be unnattractive to tourists, visitors and others at times because of anti-social behaviour.
    monument wrote: »
    My point re Dublin Bikes in my last post is important here -- you can't stop everything because of some unknown, unproven fear.
    Wasn't aware of opposition to Dublin Bikes for those reasons tbh.
    monument wrote: »
    there's already loads of large gaps in the greenery and fencing which already allows horses and scramblers access onto the greenway.

    Maybe there'd be more horses and scramblers along the length of the route if you took away the gates.
    monument wrote: »
    Even if the gates stamped out the above (which it does not in the case of horses etc and cannot in the case of other anti-social behaviour), the price of restricting and stopping many primary users is too high.

    I don't think inconvenience is too high a price to pay for a safe, attractive, route for all classes of users, walkers and cyclists. The few tandems & cargo bikes out there can't be accomodated currently imo.
    Take the example of a female cyclist commuting in the evenings. A couple of muggings or whatever along the route and the percieved safety of the route takes a nosedive.
    We want to make the route as attractive as possible for this class of cyclist. The inconvenience of the gates is the price we pay for this imo.
    Same applies to, say, an old lady out for a walk, or a mother with a buggy.
    Again, the paths aren't just high-speed cycle tracks.
    They're a shared community space for walkers etc too.

    monument wrote: »
    The potential for the canals as cycle routes is so high. They could become our "cycling superhighways" (closer to the Netherlands or Denmark, rather than London). If you only had to stop at junctions -- ie only around 3-4 times between Adamstown and town -- there is a huge advantage even for slower cyclists to not have to stop all the time.

    But there's too much fear of the unknown and nobody will bash heads of all those involved together.

    Fully agree, if more canal paths were developed on a large scale nationwide we could become a very attractive destination for cycle tourists.
    But how would they get their panniers through the gates?:pac:


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


    seeing_ie wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    What other amenities in the city have been wrecked?

    Fairview park, there's been some serious muggings and assaults there the last few years. Fatalities. No go area at times because of the relative isolation of the path there.
    Liffey boardwalk to some extent I suppose. Can be unnattractive to tourists, visitors and others at times because of anti-social behaviour.

    Does at times re Fairview Park park mean after dark? Isn't this like most parks in cities, as in people avoid them after dark. The only death I can think of in recent years happened on the footpath on the main road and not in the park -- it was after an argument at a nearby nightclub.

    The boardwalk has improved hugely due to good policing and wider actions recently.

    None of these problems are comparable to the use of kissing gates, and with the park and boardwalk it was never suggested that some of the intended primary uses should suffer restricted access. This kind of thinking only happens with cyclists for some reason. More people useing these actually helps improves things, just as with the greenway.

    seeing_ie wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    My point re Dublin Bikes in my last post is important here -- you can't stop everything because of some unknown, unproven fear.

    Wasn't aware of opposition to Dublin Bikes for those reasons tbh.
    monument wrote: »
    there's already loads of large gaps in the greenery and fencing which already allows horses and scramblers access onto the greenway.

    Maybe there'd be more horses and scramblers along the length of the route if you took away the gates.

    Maybe if they put rental bikes on the streets if Dublin City all the bikes would be smashed up, and thrown into the canals and river? Oh, wait...
    seeing_ie wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    Even if the gates stamped out the above (which it does not in the case of horses etc and cannot in the case of other anti-social behaviour), the price of restricting and stopping many primary users is too high.

    I don't think inconvenience is too high a price to pay for a safe, attractive, route for all classes of users, walkers and cyclists. The few tandems & cargo bikes out there can't be accomodated currently imo.
    Take the example of a female cyclist commuting in the evenings. A couple of muggings or whatever along the route and the percieved safety of the route takes a nosedive.
    We want to make the route as attractive as possible for this class of cyclist. The inconvenience of the gates is the price we pay for this imo.
    Same applies to, say, an old lady out for a walk, or a mother with a buggy.
    Again, the paths aren't just high-speed cycle tracks.
    They're a shared community space for walkers etc too.

    How on earth do kissing gates stop "muggings or whatever"???

    Surely the kissing gates slow down and block all users and thus increases the actual risk (from a mugger) and perceived risk (from bunch of teenagers / drunks etc at the gates).

    A lot of big prams won't fit in the gates, and a large amount of people use panniers and growing amouts use trailers and cargo bikes, including women. The route should be ripe for tourism but the gates stop touring cyclists with their many large and heavy panniers.

    Also by keeping the route less attractive and decreasing the amount of users on it safety is reduced for everybody. You do want cyclists like me who will intervene if trouble arises.

    And I don't know why you keep getting caught up on the idea of "high-speed" cycling, the gates are a disadvantage to even the slowest of cyclist.

    seeing_ie wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    The potential for the canals as cycle routes is so high. They could become our "cycling superhighways" (closer to the Netherlands or Denmark, rather than London). If you only had to stop at junctions -- ie only around 3-4 times between Adamstown and town -- there is a huge advantage even for slower cyclists to not have to stop all the time.

    But there's too much fear of the unknown and nobody will bash heads of all those involved together.

    Fully agree, if more canal paths were developed on a large scale nationwide we could become a very attractive destination for cycle tourists.
    But how would they get their panniers through the gates?:pac:

    By removing the useless gates which clearly have no benefits and which likely increase danger for users. :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

    183120.jpg

    I tried out that route when it opened and never used it again due to the crazy number of gates. The type of gate pictured above is an improvement since it would mean I could get through without getting off the bike. I think it would be a good idea to have two of them, one on each side (as in you choose which one to use, you don't have to go through both).

    I assume the engineers are tasked with finding a solution that allows bicycles but stops motorbikes so they are probably going to end up with something that won't allow panniers or trailers. This sucks for them but it is an improvement. I also think it is great to have a trial and ask for feedback rather than simply deciding on a new solution and implementing it without asking anyone.

    The best way to fix this issue is to have gates only at the entry and exit points from the route. This is the main thing that annoyed me about the current system, I had to go through gates between two sections which were already supposedly secure. To allow end to end protection the route would need to be modified so that every entry/exit was on a spur like on a motorway, if you want to get off you cycle down the slip lane and use your gate, if you want to stay on the route you just go right past. This would require the path to go under or over the roads with under being easier and already done in at least one point. The problem with that is the expense and a different set of security issues (people tend not to like going in to pedestrian tunnels after dark).


  • Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Has this route any street light at all? I don't know, but I would believe that good street lighting is significantly more effective in increasing the feeling of safety than any kind of gates, which, as it has been very well argued by others here, will always bring an inconvenience to legitimate users, no matter how you design them.

    A classic piece of reading from Hembrow on the subject - there's more than street lighting: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

    And a few more posts (look for those on street lighting) on social safety: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/social%20safety


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


    enas wrote: »
    Has this route any street light at all? I don't know, but I would believe that good street lighting is significantly more effective in increasing the feeling of safety than any kind of gates, which, as it has been very well argued by others here, will always bring an inconvenience to legitimate users, no matter how you design them.

    A classic piece of reading from Hembrow on the subject - there's more than street lighting: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

    And a few more posts (look for those on street lighting) on social safety: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/social%20safety

    And of course in the Netherlands these routes would likely be open to mopeds anyway - as express design users.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭carthoris


    enas wrote: »
    Has this route any street light at all?

    Yes it has a reasonable amount of street lighting and also on many of the lamp posts they have security cameras.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭carthoris


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

    183120.jpg

    I traveled on this canal path this evening to try out those new gates. They are an improvement - I could now get by the gate without dismounting. I had one pannier with only a few small items in it so it was almost empty. I did have to come to a stop and balanced myself by putting a hand on the gate and the pannier did drag against the gate despite being nearly empty. So although it is an improvement it is still frustrating. I probably won't increase my usage of the canal path as to me the inconvenience of it outweighs the benefit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    How are you supposed to push a buggy or a pram down these paths ?
    And what about old ladies who usually carry their shopping home from Dunnes etc in bags on wheels ? Those gates seem designed to drive everyone out of there apart from mobile teens and kids on smaller bikes who would fit through much more easily. If the whole purpose is to eliminate speeding from there instead of just eliminating the local population from there then why not just stagger some barriers instead ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 209 ✭✭carthoris


    psychward wrote: »
    How are you supposed to push a buggy or a pram down these paths ?
    And what about old ladies who usually carry their shopping home from Dunnes etc in bags on wheels ? Those gates seem designed to drive everyone out of there apart from mobile teens and kids on smaller bikes who would fit through much more easily. If the whole purpose is to eliminate speeding then why not just stagger some barriers instead ?

    There is a 'kissing-gate' to the right of the gate pictured above. That would allow most prams, buggies and shopping trollies through, although some of the larger ones would be a struggle.

    The purpose is not to eliminate speeding but to stop people who should not be using it - cars, motorcycles etc. Unfortunately in doing so it is also inconveniencing the users it is meant to be for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    carthoris wrote: »
    The purpose is not to eliminate speeding but to stop people who should not be using it - cars, motorcycles etc. Unfortunately in doing so it is also inconveniencing the users it is meant to be for.

    Ah I see. Makes more sense to me to hit car and motorbike users with hefty fines instead especially since the state needs all the money it can get. Don't the Garda spend huge amounts of their time as tax collectors anyway ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 382 ✭✭seeing_ie


    monument wrote: »
    By removing the useless gates which clearly have no benefits and which likely increase danger for users. :pac:

    Agree to disgree on this one I think.
    You see inconvenience, me, less so.
    I see security value, you less so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    seeing_ie wrote: »
    Agree to disgree on this one I think.
    You see inconvenience, me, less so.
    I see security value, you less so.

    You guys do disagree, that's a fact. I would agree however with the idea that the only way to tell who's right would be to test, for a meaningful amount of time, both alternatives (well, only one in fact, the other being the present situation). Only then speculations from either of you will be proved correct or unfounded.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Public Service solution:

    2rwopoh.jpg

    FFS


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


    Icepick wrote: »
    Public Service solution:

    2rwopoh.jpg

    FFS

    Where exactly is that?

    Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    It's the 'new' lane by the airport (I think).

    Lovely and wide but it's shared and every lane & driveway that opens on to it is preceded by a yield - that's why I think it's better to stick to the road along there.


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


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ... every lane & driveway that opens on to it is preceded by a yield...

    I've only seen one other pic of it and a glance of it from cars and buses while going into the airport, and it looked half ok.

    But Fingal could not leave out the yield markings or the crap bus stop placement as above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭PrismES


    The new cycle lane from Churchtown to Dodder park road is very good, apart from the few local residents who believe its an overflow car park for their drive.
    Other than this particular cycle path, I stick to the roads.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,999 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Jawgap wrote: »
    It's the 'new' lane by the airport (I think)

    That's the side just before Dardistown cemetery, the other side is just as good, smooth surface and no debris...
    Though when you get to the airport roundabout it vanishes completely and your back to using a standard pedestrian crossing if you are proceeding down to Swords...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    monument wrote: »
    Where exactly is that?

    Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?
    Airport, direction Santry. It contains gps info.

    You can use it


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    monument wrote: »
    Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?
    have you featured the cycle lane between the western end of the runway at the airport and kilshane cross?
    it's an offroad cycle lane, where the cyclist is obscured from the motorists (unless in a high cab) by a hedge, which then dumps the cyclist abruptly onto the road just at the point the road narrows.
    and does not seem to be built to link any two places together, either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 718 ✭✭✭gaffmaster


    Icepick wrote: »
    Public Service solution:

    2rwopoh.jpg

    FFS

    Looks like a drawing of a chap that has fallen off his bike, ironically.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    I'm often tempted to try this approach



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    monument wrote: »
    I've only seen one other pic of it and a glance of it from cars and buses while going into the airport, and it looked half ok.

    But Fingal could not leave out the yield markings or the crap bus stop placement as above.

    Surface-wise it's good and being honest it doesn't carry that much pedestrian traffic so, imv, it's 'shareable.'

    The downside is the necessity to yield at just about every driveway and opening on to it. Second, the southbound element 'detours' into the roads leading to the long-stay carparks meaning if you stay on it you get dragged away from the main route and are forced to play 'sheep-pen slalom' to maintain progress.

    Likewise the northbound track doesn't suffer from the same problem with 'yields' but where it crosses the road into the airport it's a mess.

    In summary, I'd describe it as a well executed bad idea that confirms the primacy of motor vehicles in the thinking, planning and design activities of Fingal Co Co.

    The annoying thing is that with all the space there they could easily have done something much more usable.


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


    Icepick wrote: »
    Airport, direction Santry. It contains gps info.

    You can use it

    Thanks.

    have you featured the cycle lane between the western end of the runway at the airport and kilshane cross?
    it's an offroad cycle lane, where the cyclist is obscured from the motorists (unless in a high cab) by a hedge, which then dumps the cyclist abruptly onto the road just at the point the road narrows.
    and does not seem to be built to link any two places together, either.

    No, not yet. A photo would be welcomed.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i'll try to get one next time i'm out that way.
    this might help illustrate - bear in mind that the hedge is higher than street view suggests, as the camera is mounted high on the car here; but from a car driver's point of view, a bike is going to appear from nowhere on the left:

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4243851,-6.3158219,3a,75y,254.73h,78.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saA2XQDaBVgQu3uvZbY-XvQ!2e0


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,767 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    gaffmaster wrote: »
    Looks like a drawing of a chap that has fallen off his bike, ironically.

    It's the picture of the aftermath of hitting a pedestrian - bike on ground followed by felled pedestrian. Just need another symbol showing a cyclist holding their cracked rib cage or headache complete the picture.

    Anyway, pedestrians in cycle lanes are so yesterday - roller blading chaps and chapesses are all the rage in the Phoenix park cycle lanes these days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,227 ✭✭✭RobertFoster


    gaffmaster wrote: »
    Looks like a drawing of a chap that has fallen off his bike, ironically.
    Looks like a BMX/Motocross trick called Nothing to me :)
    i'll try to get one next time i'm out that way.
    this might help illustrate - bear in mind that the hedge is higher than street view suggests, as the camera is mounted high on the car here; but from a car driver's point of view, a bike is going to appear from nowhere on the left:

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4243851,-6.3158219,3a,75y,254.73h,78.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saA2XQDaBVgQu3uvZbY-XvQ!2e0
    Getting on/off that track looks like a lot of fun too. It's overgrown a lot since Google drove by in 2009, I think the dished curb is more or less covered now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,484 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    monument wrote: »
    Where exactly is that?

    Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?
    N11 between stillorgan park hotel and at least brewery road has the same, albeit more faded, markings and is a similar shared space. If you're looking for other examples! I think further out the n11 around cornelscourt might be the same, but I haven't cycled that stretch.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,044 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    N11 between stillorgan park hotel and at least brewery road has the same, albeit more faded, markings and is a similar shared space. If you're looking for other examples! I think further out the n11 around cornelscourt might be the same, but I haven't cycled that stretch.
    A short stretch south of the Cornelcourt junction southbound, between a bus stop and the petrol station suddenly sports a couple of these combos. (I realised this when I pointed at the bike logo indignantly while passing a couple of pedestrians...and then realised it had was followed by the walker logo :o:pac::mad::confused:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,999 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    The Chinese now have "pedestrian lanes" for those who want to use mobile phones as they walk, great idea!! :D:D

    ddgihj.jpg

    2e5rrzt.jpg




    (and yes they are a great bunch of lads!!)


  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭Buchaill_Mor


    A short stretch south of the Cornelcourt junction southbound, between a bus stop and the petrol station suddenly sports a couple of these combos. (I realised this when I pointed at the bike logo indignantly while passing a couple of pedestrians...and then realised it had was followed by the walker logo :o:pac::mad::confused:)

    Are these appearing in the Fingal, DLR and South County Dublin areas, or are they migrating into the Dublin City Council areas also? Is this a new policy on road markings to be rolled out across the country?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,044 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    Are these appearing in the Fingal, DLR and South County Dublin areas, or are they migrating into the Dublin City Council areas also? Is this a new policy on road markings to be rolled out across the country?
    I don't know. The N11 one has probably been there for quite a few years(?) I think they probably crop up sporadically. Then there's the 'implicit shared use' sections, such as for the re-re-engineered Killiney Towers roundabout :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,484 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Is this a new policy on road markings to be rolled out across the country?
    The bit around Stillorgan must be a good few years old - the road markings are fading off the tarmac at this stage!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    N11 between stillorgan park hotel and at least brewery road has the same, albeit more faded, markings and is a similar shared space. If you're looking for other examples! I think further out the n11 around cornelscourt might be the same, but I haven't cycled that stretch.

    Always amuses me that as long as there are two pictures painted on the ground there is no problem with cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same space. Everyone automatically smiles and laughs and there are pretty rainbows and lollipops for all.

    However, any cyclist rolling along on any other bit of footpath is assumed to be a bloodthirsty maniac, who is seconds away from crushing their next victim under their wheels of destruction.

    The general consensus is that they should be locked up and the key thrown away.

    Then a new key should be found, the cyclist taken outside, and then shot, and then hung, and wherever their corpse is dumped should be sown with salt. Perhaps their head may also be placed on a spike to warn off others.

    In summary, I don't see a problem with more shared paths, but I wouldn't recommend trying to hurry up on one.

    By the way, what is the status of South King Street in Dublin (near Stephen's Green)? Is it shared or not?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭tampopo


    monument wrote: »
    Where exactly is that?

    Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?

    Hey,

    I sent you this one from Ballyfermot ages ago.

    DSC01979_zpsb9eb3202.jpg

    Did you ever use it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Jawgap wrote: »
    It's the 'new' lane by the airport (I think).

    Lovely and wide but it's shared and every lane & driveway that opens on to it is preceded by a yield - that's why I think it's better to stick to the road along there.

    I pass by that way twice, sometimes thrice a week on the bike. We were talking about it on page 3 of the Right of Way thread a few days back and a couple of other posters mentioned that they also cycle that route but don't use the cycle lane.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057284634&page=3

    As I said on that thread when I got back into cycling I used to use that cycle lane along the Old Airport Road but now I just use the road. The actual cycletrack itself isnt a bad job, very smooth surface. But this crap of getting to junctions and then having to cross like a pedestrian is just daf and for a commuting cyclist its just completely unpractical.

    On the issue of it being a shared track with pedestrians, I'm not completely against that given the path is so wide and even if pedestrians are two abreast you can still get past. Its not a perfect solution but the other solution of just painting a line down the middle doesnt work either, pedestrians take no heed of the line and I can't see that changing anytime soon. So I think in some instances where the space is available rather than cyclists being slowed down by pedestrians walking in a cycle lane lets instead put the onus on pedestrians and tell them its also a cycle lane and to use their common sense and expect bikes to be passing rhem. If they are afraid of that then they can stick to the left hand side and there'll still be a good 2 metres of space for bikes to pass them. All that said I don't think a sahred path was the right idea here, that road is plenty wide enough to have a cycle lane as well as a bus lane and two traffic lanes.
    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    That's the side just before Dardistown cemetery, the other side is just as good, smooth surface and no debris...
    Though when you get to the airport roundabout it vanishes completely and your back to using a standard pedestrian crossing if you are proceeding down to Swords...

    After you cross over the roundabout outside the airport if you continue north towards Swords there is a cycle lane mounted on the path. A lot of it has weeds growing into it from the hedge but its there. What makes it funny is I'm pretty sure there are some painted markings on it that show it is a two way cycle lane yet there is no marked space for pedestrians. When you arrive at the next roundabout the cycle lane spits you out onto the road. Funnily enough if any touring cyclists assemble their bikes in Dublin airport and set their Garmin cycle touring GPS to head north then it is likely that it would send them out of the airport and onto this cycle track, which lasts all of about 400m. Within less than two minutes of their cycling holiday they will be spit out of a cycle lane and into the junction of a busy roundabout with no cycle lane markings. In less than two minutes they will be left in no doubt that Ireland is not a cycle friendly place and no doubt some will be updating blogs saying likewise.
    have you featured the cycle lane between the western end of the runway at the airport and kilshane cross?
    it's an offroad cycle lane, where the cyclist is obscured from the motorists (unless in a high cab) by a hedge, which then dumps the cyclist abruptly onto the road just at the point the road narrows.
    and does not seem to be built to link any two places together, either.

    I'm laughing my head off here because I thought that no-one knew about that cycle lane ! Never once have I encountered another cyclist on it and although I dont use it that much now it was part of a previous route I did some 50+ times. Its totally bizarre, it begins no-where and it ends no-where and then it spits you out into traffic from behind a hedge and onto the road. I must admit that I quite enjoy flying down it as its slightly down hill but the way it spits you out the first time you use it is really dangerous. I know how to play it now but my first time down there I was hammering at a good 25kph and out of nowhere you're forced to merge with traffic, coming blind to them from behind a hedge that is about 2 metres in height.

    If I'm down that way in the next week I'kk try to take a few pics for the IrishCycle blog. Its a pity I didnt take some pics of it back in July when the council cut the 2 meter high hedges both sides of the track. They just sent in a hedgecutter and literally left the entire cycle track covered in thousands of shards of branches, thorns, etc. You just couldnt cycle down it for several weeks till it all rotted and rain swept it away.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Looks like a BMX/Motocross trick called Nothing to me :)


    Getting on/off that track looks like a lot of fun too. It's overgrown a lot since Google drove by in 2009, I think the dished curb is more or less covered now.
    It's also covered with debris.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Muahahaha wrote: »

    I'm laughing my head off here because I thought that no-one knew about that cycle lane ! Never once have I encountered another cyclist on it and although I dont use it that much now it was part of a previous route I did some 50+ times. Its totally bizarre, it begins no-where and it ends no-where and then it spits you out into traffic from behind a hedge and onto the road. I must admit that I quite enjoy flying down it as its slightly down hill but the way it spits you out the first time you use it is really dangerous. I know how to play it now but my first time down there I was hammering at a good 25kph and out of nowhere you're forced to merge with traffic, coming blind to them from behind a hedge that is about 2 metres in height.

    I've cycled and driven by plenty of times and never knew it was there until this thread.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭gallag


    talk of purposely hitting pedestrians and "buzzing" them closely to scare them out of the way for having the audacity to impede your progress, no outrage, no demands that people slow and only pass when safe to do so giving a wide birth. irony.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,190 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    gallag wrote: »
    talk of purposely hitting pedestrians and "buzzing" them closely to scare them out of the way for having the audacity to impede your progress, no outrage, no demands that people slow and only pass when safe to do so giving a wide birth. irony.

    We're a very patient bunch.

    How long do you think walkers/joggers would last (alive) if they ambled down the middle of the road?


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


    tampopo wrote: »
    Hey,

    I sent you this one from Ballyfermot ages ago.

    DSC01979_zpsb9eb3202.jpg

    Did you ever use it?

    Thanks -- I will use it for next week. Is it the junction of the Ballyfermot Road and Blackditch Drive?

    I don't remember seeing it before... Did you send it by email?


  • Registered Users Posts: 342 ✭✭bambergbike


    enas wrote: »
    But in my opinion, building good quality cycle paths is part of the solution for bringing up the numbers. Of course, it has to be prioritised, and I guess there are some core routes that are most needed.

    This makes so much sense. If you want a cycle network with a high proportion of high-quality dedicated cycle infrastructure and you are starting from a position where cycling is fairly marginalized and space, budgets, traffic signal time and so on are all going to be rationened and hard fought for, the best initial approach has to be to demand a TINY number of projects of VERY high quality. Of such high quality, in fact, that 99% of cyclists would voluntarily use those facilities over the alternatives. On the basis of that success, you could then gradually move towards a wider roll out as expertise builds up and becomes more widespread and the idea of catering for cyclists becomes more accepted and cyclist numbers grow and the whole thing gradually takes off. In the first year or two of this quality drive, you might not actually build anything much at all - you could easily spend a year (the time, not the infrastructure budget) just getting Dutch and German and Danish design guidance and legislation and studies translated and looking at how it all applies (or doesn't) in an Irish context (and at some of the history of the designs that have been trialled and proved ineffective in other contexts). And then, after completely rewriting the manuals and pausing for reflection and changing a few pieces of particularly egregious cycling-hostile legislation, you could start. With one project. Keenly aware that the whole country would be looking at that one project, and that it would make or break the reputation of those involved. With international auditors coming at the end. To cycle the route, give a big press conference and write a thick report which will be published and will contain the names of everybody involved.

    seeing_ie wrote: »
    What percentage of the overall cyclists thaty use the route use tandems(!), cargobikes(!), trailers or 2 large panniers? No offence, but I think thats a bit thin.
    I'd love to see all these types of bikes around, but don't see many.
    If we focus on the achievable aim of making the route attractive for "standard" cyclists of all ages and sexes, at all times of the day, then opening it to tandems etc will naturally follow, once a critical mass of cyclists occurs.

    Which? Standard cyclists, or cyclists of all ages and sexes? Because once you aim to include all ages and sexes, you will find yourself dealing with more and more non-standard cyclists (or, for that matter, other users of non-motorized or very weakly-motorized wheeled transport.) And it is particularly important to cater for these people on greenway-type routes and to include them there, because they are particularly badly catered for elsewhere, so not catering for them on greenways either is double discrimination. Whenever I have used a German greenway route at the weekend, I have come across large extended family groups out for strolls. Often at least one person in a wheelchair, a few people maybe walking with sticks or wheeled walkers, a few small children wobbling around on balance bikes or tiny little bikes and very minimal awareness of cycling etiquette. Buggies or bike trailers can be essential for carrying picnics, children's bikes, tired children, toys, books and general paraphernalia. So for a family group to have their day out, you need something that facilitates wheelchairs and bike trailers. This is the whole point of greenways. Able-bodied adults might like greenways, but they don't need them. The people who are most marginalized by the regular roads system and by bumpy, discontinuous, inadequate pedestrian facilities away from greenways shouldn't be excluded from greenways as well. Especially as the restrictions are completely ineffective, an able-bodied anti-social person who wants to get round them will find a gap a disabled person might not be able to get through.

    I generally don't talk to strange children, but on greenways I have to, for safety's sake. The same scenario plays out every time I use one: I see a child of two or three coming towards me taking up the entire width of the path as they weave along, and I slow down and point and say "That's your side, good lad, this is my side, thanks" and I get a knowing, superior grin from the clever five year old following behind who already knew that and shakes their head to express that little sister/little brother still has a lot to learn. A family day out like that only works if you have capacity to carry the younger child when they tire, or on the more complex sections of the route (getting to the greenway in the first place).
    have you featured the cycle lane between the western end of the runway at the airport and kilshane cross?
    it's an offroad cycle lane, where the cyclist is obscured from the motorists (unless in a high cab) by a hedge, which then dumps the cyclist abruptly onto the road just at the point the road narrows.
    and does not seem to be built to link any two places together, either.

    Sounds like it would take a flying camera drone to do full justice to that one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Are these appearing in the Fingal, DLR and South County Dublin areas, or are they migrating into the Dublin City Council areas also? Is this a new policy on road markings to be rolled out across the country?

    There's this kind of shared stuff in Santry

    And similar at Swords road between Drumcondran and Whitehall


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭tampopo


    monument wrote: »
    Thanks -- I will use it for next week. Is it the junction of the Ballyfermot Road and Blackditch Drive?

    I don't remember seeing it before... Did you send it by email?

    It is and I did. ;-)


Advertisement