Pedestrians in the cycle lane

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

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.

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).

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.