Cycle lanes in Phoenix Park

Dandelion6

After getting fed up trying to dodge joggers, tourists and (worst of all) two-year-olds on baby trikes I asked my TD to raise the issue of getting pedestrians off the Phoenix Park cycle lanes - this is the response I got:

To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to complaints that the cycle lanes in the Phoenix Park are regularly mistaken for footpaths and are therefore unsafe both for cyclists and pedestrians; his views on redesigning the cycle lanes in the park or providing adequate signage to direct users to the appropriate path; and if he will make a statement on the matter. Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD

Tánaiste and Minister for Finance ( Mr Cowen ) :

The Office of Public Works is aware that a number of pedestrians tend to use the cycle lanes in the Phoenix park despite the fact that the cycle lanes are clearly indicated both by bicycle symbols imprinted on them and a unique green colour which clearly distinguishes them from the separate black pedestrian paths. A number of initiatives have been introduced to promote greater public awareness.

That's it. That's the whole reply.

Does anyone know what these "initiatives" are What else can be done about this problem?

Ghost Rider

Start a petition demanding to know what initiatives are being taken. I'd sign it.

Dandelion6 wrote:

After getting fed up trying to dodge joggers, tourists and (worst of all) two-year-olds on baby trikes I asked my TD to raise the issue of getting pedestrians off the Phoenix Park cycle lanes - this is the response I got:



That's it. That's the whole reply.

Does anyone know what these "initiatives" are What else can be done about this problem?

markpb

He does have a small point though.... the local TD might pretend to be the source of all cures in Ireland, but OPW run the park and they're the people to talk to.

Incidentally, there's another thread here about compressed air horns for bicycles. If pedestrians are that much of a problem, perhaps a good loud horn would get their attention?

Hungrycol

As someone else said on here before it's the "iPodestrians" that are the worst.

What annoys me the most is that it is mandatory for cyclists to use cycle ways when available but nothing about a pedestrian not allowed to use it. This and the fact that I'm travelling at 30kph on a piece of path shared with walkers, dog walkers, kids on trikes, etc, etc. Not a safe combo in my eyes.

daymobrew

A few years ago I asked a Park Ranger about the issue. He said that pedestrians on the cycle paths was the biggest complaint from cyclists.
He commented that the paths used to be the other way around - footpath nearest the road - but didn't explain why it was changed. He also said that women prefer to walk on the near (cycle) path for (perceived) safety reason.

It is worth contacting the Park Rangers (might be on OPW site, or asking the Phoenix Park Visitor Centre for a number) to ask them what the "initiatives" are.

Last month, while marshal at the Dublin City Triathlon, I saw a Garda jeep flying down the cycle track (because the road was in use by competitors). If the Park Rangers could clear the pedestrians off in such a manner it would be so much fun to watch.

It might be worth a bunch of us meeting at the Park and asking pedestrians if they realise the inconvenience they are causing.
I got cursed at big time when I pointed to the pedestrian path as a family (2 parents, 2 daughters and grandmother) approached the split point for ped and bike paths. I think the mother was a docker, she certainly swore like one.

niceonetom

Ghost Rider wrote:

Start a petition demanding to know what initiatives are being taken. I'd sign it.

that's a good idea. I'd sign it too. It would show that you're not a lone crank . the park's ipodestrians is one of my regular hobby horses, and i bore non-cyclist's to death with it every few weeks. i've also had verbals with pedestrians themselves, usually groups of middle aged women who never ever get out of the way. it's a matter of time before someone gets badly hurt, and it's not even winter dark yet.

have you tried contacting the opw?
it also occurs to me that the green party might be useful to contact on this one, young Roderick O'Gorman ran in Dublin West last gen election and, although he didn't get in, he does seem to like to rattle his sabre at Leo Varadkar (have you contacted him? play one TD off against the other?).

i know there's online petition sites out there, where you can set up your own. online petitions aren't worth the paper they're printed on though or so they say.

rp

Dandelion6 wrote:

After getting fed up trying to dodge joggers, tourists and (worst of all) two-year-olds on baby trikes

Aren't trikes allowed on cyclepaths? I better not order that Trice, so.

Cabaal

daymobrew wrote:

It might be worth a bunch of us meeting at the Park and asking pedestrians if they realise the inconvenience they are causing.
I got cursed at big time when I pointed to the pedestrian path as a family (2 parents, 2 daughters and grandmother) approached the split point for ped and bike paths. I think the mother was a docker, she certainly swore like one.

While I'm not in Dublin this sounds like a good idea for anyone affected, of course you should approach people in a nice way about this

Do a survey kind of job,

NewDubliner

rp wrote:

Aren't trikes allowed on cyclepaths? I better not order that Trice, so.

Pedal cycles are allowed, so I guess that includes both bikes and trikes.

The problem with 2-year-olds on trikes is that they're usually doing about 2kph and accompanied on the track by one or both doting parents who think it's great to give their kids a bit of road experience, so young.

Membrane

NewDubliner wrote:

The problem with 2-year-olds on trikes is that they're usually doing about 2kph and accompanied on the track by one or both doting parents who think it's great to give their kids a bit of road experience, so young.

We don't have the right to wizz along at high speeds. I used to get annoyed with the little scrotes for example on the cycle path to Sutton, but I look at them differently now. I am increasingly delighted to see them making their first steps to joining our cycling ranks.

If I had one of those munchkins I'd also take them onto the cycle path to Sutton to teach them how to ride a bike. It is the best place for it. I facilitate their first forays into cycling by slowing down, to a walking pace if needed, I'm no longer bothered by having to do that.

Pherekydes

Membrane wrote:

We don't have the right to wizz along at high speeds. I used to get annoyed with the little scrotes for example on the cycle path to Sutton, but I look at them differently now. I am increasingly delighted to see them making their first steps to joining our cycling ranks.

If I had one of those munchkins I'd also take them onto the cycle path to Sutton to teach them how to ride a bike. It is the best place for it. I facilitate their first forays into cycling by slowing down, to a walking pace if needed, I'm no longer bothered by having to do that.

I have a bike for one reason only: to whizz along at high speed (trying to get my HR up and get a bit fit). That's why I never use cycle tracks. Last week, I was on one in the local park early in the morning when there were few people about, but I still had to slow to walking pace several times and twice stop. One old dear was walking her dog on a lead, and she was on one side of the track and her dog was on the other with the lead stretched across the whole width (at least 20 ft). Commuters and those cycling for sport or fitness do not mix well with pedestrians or 3 year-olds on trikes.

Membrane

Slow coach wrote:

I have a bike for one reason only: to whizz along at high speed (trying to get my HR up and get a bit fit). That's why I never use cycle tracks. Last week, I was on one in the local park early in the morning when there were few people about, but I still had to slow to walking pace several times and twice stop.

If you aim to get fit, why are you bothered about having to do a bit more work by stopping and starting?

One old dear was walking her dog on a lead, and she was on one side of the track and her dog was on the other with the lead stretched across the whole width (at least 20 ft). Commuters and those cycling for sport or fitness do not mix well with pedestrians or 3 year-olds on trikes.

What I object to is people who think that these kids shouldn't be there. Peds shouldn't be there, but they are and that's not going to change any time soon. I'd rather leave the stress to motorists, I want to enjoy cycling.

Pherekydes

Membrane wrote:

If you aim to get fit, why are you bothered about having to do a bit more work by stopping and starting?

I don't mind having to stop or start, so long as it's mostly ped free. It's when the so-called cycle track is covered with peds, and you can't get up to and hold a reasonable speed for a reasonable length of time.

Cycle tracks, the ones that have frequent fast cyclists on them, are no place for kids on trikes.

Sean02

Cyclists are continually been legistilated against, lets not gang up on the pedestrians enjoying the Park. Courtesy is the answer. Whether your sharing cycle lanes with cyclists or pedestrians a good bell is essential particuarly if your in training for the TDF.

niceonetom

Sean02 wrote:

Cyclists are continually been legistilated against, lets not gang up on the pedestrians enjoying the Park. Courtesy is the answer. Whether your sharing cycle lanes with cyclists or pedestrians a good bell is essential particuarly if your in training for the TDF.

courtesy has to extend both ways, and in the park it, well, doesn't. i think it would be courteous of pedestrians to stay out of the cycle lane, simple. courtesy doesn't get around the genuine safety issue here either. have you cycled through the park after dark recently? it can be test of concentration and reaction time at any reasonable speed. we have to have lights but joggers in dark clothing are nearly invisible. and i know from talking to a park-ranger that there have been accidents because of this.

by providing a cycle lane the opw renders cycling on the roadway illegal so we have no choice available to us; pedestrians do have a choice. the pedestrian's case here is 'what's yours is ours, and what's mine is my own'. i honestly don't know how it can be considered too much to ask for those on foot to use the footpath.

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote:

courtesy has to extend both ways, and in the park it, well, doesn't. i think it would be courteous of pedestrians to stay out of the cycle lane, simple.

It's more than courtesy. Pedestrians are required by law to use a footpath where provided. If they're crossing a cycle track, they're obliged to do so with due consideration for the safety and convenience of cyclists.

But, let's remember, these same pedestrians are most likely also motorists and we all know how law-abiding they are.

mikemac

This isn't a helpful post but I don't think this problem will ever be solved.

I'm not familar with Phoenix Park but I'm either jogging or cycling along Clontarf and Sutton 5-6 days a week.

When I'm in the cycle lane I have to swerve around peds and rollerbladers.
And when I'm on the promenade I have cyclists chatting on their mobiles and brushing past me or if I'm facing them they dodge around me at the last second :mad:

If you know the section along Dollymount, you will know it's clear which area is for cyclists and which for peds. Hell, there is 20-30 metres seperating them so you can't possibly cross over by accident! So if it can't be solved here, it certainly won't be done in the Phoenix Park

So I encounter fools whether I walk or cycle. And that sums it up: there are dumb and inconsiderate cyclists and the very same for peds.

niceonetom

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It's more than courtesy. Pedestrians are required by law to use a footpath where provided. If they're crossing a cycle track, they're obliged to do so with due consideration for the safety and convenience of cyclists.

that's good to know. do we know that the cycle-lanes in the park actually legally definitely irrefutably undeniably cycle-lanes? the signs don't look that legally binding, and the park has all sorts of weird by-laws.

niceonetom

micmclo wrote:

This isn't a helpful post but I don't think this problem will ever be solved.

I'm not familar with Phoenix Park but I'm either jogging or cycling along Clontarf and Sutton 5-6 days a week.

When I'm in the cycle lane I have to swerve around peds and rollerbladers.
And when I'm on the promenade I have cyclists chatting on their mobiles and brushing past me or if I'm facing them they dodge around me at the last second :mad:

If you know the section along Dollymount, you will know it's clear which area is for cyclists and which for peds. Hell, there is 20-30 metres seperating them so you can't possibly cross over by accident! So if it can't be solved here, it certainly won't be done in the Phoenix Park

So I encounter fools whether I walk or cycle. And that sums it up: there are dumb and inconsiderate cyclists and the very same for peds.

in the park there are two distinct paths, separated by about, ooh, 30 feet of grass. one path is painted green and has little bicycles stencilled on it at regular intervals. the other is a footpath. it really isn't difficult, but people who say something is fool-proof underestimate the ingenuity of fools. but goddamn it i'm not ready to throw my hands up and admit defeat quite yet.

mikemac

Fair point niceonetom.
As I said I'm not familar and I assumed it was something like Fairview Park where they get a footpath and divide it in two. It's a disaster zone.

With 30ft of distance and signs, noone could possibly get confused.
Oh wait......

cyclopath2001

micmclo wrote:

As I said I'm not familar and I assumed it was something like Fairview Park where they get a footpath and divide it in two. It's a disaster zone. With 30ft of distance and signs, noone could possibly get confused.
Oh wait......

The main road in the Phoenix park has a different status to the side roads. It's a public road, so normal road-traffic regulations 'should' apply there. The question would be whether or not road road sign RUS009 (white bicycle/blue background) or RUS009A (black bicycle/white background/in a red circle) were posted at the beginning of the cycle track and if road marking RRM022 was applied. If not, then it's not a cycle track within the law, it's not obligatory to use it and basicly all bets are off, pedestrians can use it as they wish & cyclists can employ the defence that whatever other unlawful signs were posted misled them into assuming it was a legally defined cycle track.

The Fairview one is legally mixed. The first part has an unlawful sign and then, after the footbridge, RUS009 is used. The marking RRM022 is, at this time of the year, invisible under a slippery slime of decayed leaves.

The coastal track uses RUS009A and has no less than three footpaths nearby. One is right beside the track. It's also permitted to walk on the grass. But, pedestrians still use the cycle track.

Membrane

Slow coach wrote:

Cycle tracks, the ones that have frequent fast cyclists on them, are no place for kids on trikes.

I don't understand this mentality, what gives any cyclist subgroup the right to deny another subgroup the right of use of a cycle facility that is meant for all? It strikes me as arrogance.

Dirk Gently

Membrane wrote:

I don't understand this mentality, what gives any cyclist subgroup the right to deny another subgroup the right of use of a cycle facility that is meant for all? It strikes me as arrogance.

In fairness kids on trikes tend to be very static or moving very slowly , zig zaging away oblivious to anyone else and generally just being an obstacle to get around. I think a walking pace lane (i.e. the footpath) is a better place for them. A cycle lane is essentially a travel route for cycle traffic. Do little kids on trikes use the busy road when no cycle path is available?

Having said that they haven't poped up on my radar too often. I have found myself avoiding the Park more and more because of the problems mentioned with pedestrians, mostly groups of families that you actually have to stop and leave the track to get around. I was up there the other day and on the shiney new cycle path around the GAA pitches I counted one cyclist (who was actually using the grass because he couldn't get by on the track).The rest were all power walkers, joggers, roller bladers, pedestrians and dog walkers. Why in Europes biggest park these people felf it neccessary to cram onto a little stretch of cycle track I'll never understand. Again with the dogs as was mentioned before, woman with dogs on leads forming a barrier the whole width of the path. She actually gave me a dirty look when I cycled around her (by leaving the path onto the field), as if to say what the **** are you doing on that bike here.

There was a load of kids on hardtails racing around the trails and lashing up and down the hills between the trees. I think I might join them in future as road biking around the park gets me more and more frustrated each time, mainly I think because there are seperate facilites to accomodate everyone yet they all end up on the cycle tracks.

Pherekydes

Membrane wrote:

I don't understand this mentality, what gives any cyclist subgroup the right to deny another subgroup the right of use of a cycle facility that is meant for all? It strikes me as arrogance.

I'm not denying anyone anything. It seems obvious to me that fast and slow traffic, especially unpredictable kids and experienced cyclists, should be kept apart. In an instance where there is no cycle track where do kids on trikes ride? On the road? No sensible parent would allow their child to ride their trike on the road.

I've made my position clear: I avoid cycle tracks, mainly because of the possibility of mixing with pedestrians, kids and animals.

I dunno how this strikes you as arrogance on my part.

Membrane

clown bag wrote:

In fairness kids on trikes tend to be very static or moving very slowly , zig zaging away oblivious to anyone else and generally just being an obstacle to get around. I think a walking pace lane (i.e. the footpath) is a better place for them. A cycle lane is essentially a travel route for cycle traffic.

Pragmatically I have no issue with that, although a footpath may not always be smooth enough. On the other hand if you are taking the speed difference between kids on trikes and the average cyclist as an argument to say that kids don't belong on the cycle path, using that reasoning it could also be said that sportive cyclists don't belong there since they also travel at a substantially higher speed than the average cyclist.

Membrane

Slow coach wrote:

I'm not denying anyone anything.

Ok, I probably misunderstood your position.

I dunno how this strikes you as arrogance on my part.

It was your suggestion that if a path is used by fast cyclists, kids shouldn't be on it. But I now assume that you are arguing for both parents with kids and fast cyclists to make a pragmatic choice with respect to the typical usage of a path, this is ofcourse both fine and sensible.

Dandelion6

The problem with small kids on trikes is they tend to sort of amble all over the lane and even if you try to alert them in advance to your presence, they don't have the consciousness to get out of the way. It is extremely dangerous for them as well as for the cyclist. Until they are old enough to properly cycle they should not be in a cycle lane. Full stop.

Anyway I think I will ask for another question to be put in, asking what are these so-called initiatives and what are the OPW's plans to monitor their effectiveness?

Pherekydes

Membrane wrote:

...using that reasoning it could also be said that sportive cyclists don't belong there since they also travel at a substantially higher speed than the average cyclist.

The average cyclist will at least cycle in a straight line. So there is no fundamental reason to separate fast and slow cyclists that are travelling in the same direction. It's unpredictable kids on bikes, and not necessarily 2 year-olds, they could be anything up to 12, the ones that weave, stop, u-turn, zig-zag and a variety of other stuff that have no place on a road, also have no place on a cycle path supposedly fit for commuting and sportive cycle traffic.

Membrane

Dandelion6 wrote:

The problem with small kids on trikes is they tend to sort of amble all over the lane and even if you try to alert them in advance to your presence, they don't have the consciousness to get out of the way.

Regrettably the same can be said for a fair number of the adults that I encounter on the Clontarf - Sutton cycle path, particularly on weekend days. I've had far more near misses with adult cyclists there than with children.

It is extremely dangerous for them as well as for the cyclist.

Children are predictably unpredictable, the same cannot be said for adult cyclists.

Until they are old enough to properly cycle they should not be in a cycle lane. Full stop.

I can agree with that on principle, but the fact is they are and will be for the foreseeable future. That requires us to deal with the situation. For me that means two choices, either use the road where you might stand a better chance of maintaining speed (although on the Clontarf - Sutton road I am usually as fast or faster than cyclists using the road because they have to stop for traffic lights), or use the cycle path and adjust your speed to deal with the dangers there.

Anyway I think I will ask for another question to be put in, asking what are these so-called initiatives and what are the OPW's plans to monitor their effectiveness?

The reply you got sounded like a brush off alright. Have you considered channeling this persuit through the Dublin Cyling Campaign (DCC)? It would add weight IMO.

niceonetom

Slow coach wrote:

In an instance where there is no cycle track where do kids on trikes ride? On the road? No sensible parent would allow their child to ride their trike on the road.

that's key here. would you (membrane) expect a wee tricyclist to continue to use the cycle lane after leaving the park? say down the quays? if the answer to this is 'no' then they shouldn't be in the cycle lane in the park either.

the same rules should apply to the cycle lane in the park as to a usual cycle lane in the road way. if you got your bike from santa (or toy'r'us) and your mum walks along side you as you cycle then the footpath is the place for you. cute is not an excuse.

Pherekydes

niceonetom wrote:

would you expect a wee tricyclist to continue to use the cycle lane after leaving the park? say down the quays? if the answer to this is 'no' then they shouldn't be in the cycle lane in the park either.

the same rules should apply to the cycle lane in the park as to a usual cycle lane in the road way. if you got your bike from santa (or toy'r'us) and your mum walks along side you as you cycle then the footpath is the place for you.

Nice one, Tom.






Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'll get my coat.

Membrane

niceonetom wrote:

would you (membrane) expect a wee tricyclist to continue to use the cycle lane after leaving the park? say down the quays?

I concede the point about nippers on trikes. But there comes a point where they move on to 2 wheels and move at speeds significantly beyond walking pace, at that stage they don't belong on the ped section anymore whilst still being far slower than sportive cyclists, and likely still quite erratic in their behaviour. These are the types that I encounter on the Clontarf - Sutton cycle path at weekends, often with a parent not on foot but on another bike. Yes parents should act as the eyes and ears for such youngsters, keep an eye out for other traffic and position themselves to shield their kids from other users and vice versa. Some do that, but many don't.

It is for us proficient cyclists to deal with potential dangers, regardless of the age of any other cycle path user involved. Kids are an easely identifiable risk factor, and they can safely be dealt with by adjusting our speed.

niceonetom

Membrane wrote:

It is for us proficient cyclists to deal with potential dangers, regardless of the age of any other cycle path user involved. Kids are an easely identifiable risk factor, and they can safely be dealt with by adjusting our speed.

agreed. i'll even concede that rollerbladers may have a case for using the cycle-path (with consideration obviously), as they're travelling well beyond walking pace. it's really pedestrians that piss me off.

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote: »

agreed. i'll even concede that rollerbladers may have a case for using the cycle-path (with consideration obviously),

Rollerbladers? Considerate? Not possible, they weave from side to side. They pay absolutely no attention to following traffic. They don't have lights. They've no more right to be on a cycle track than pedestrians do.

What part of 'cycle track' don't they understand?

niceonetom

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Rollerbladers? Considerate? Not possible, they weave from side to side. They pay absolutely no attention to following traffic. They don't have lights. They've no more right to be on a cycle track than pedestrians do.

What part of 'cycle track' don't they understand?

ok. ok.
it's really relative speed that was my main concern here, and on that front they do beat pedestrians. i suppose i was offering rollerbladers leeway in attempt to seem reasonable (i was in danger of seeming like a child hater :eek:), but you are, as ever, right.

two wheels good, eight wheels bad.

monument

One of the most counter-productive, while understandable, things in this is cyclists using the road... it nearly gives those walking an excuse.

While uses one on the main avenue a month or two ago while it was close to getting dark, I was cycling passed two pedestrians who asked me where's my light. They funnyly enoufe had no lights and were wearing dark clothing. I had at least a back light, when I wasn't expecting to be out in such dim light.

There's lots of people who run or walk on the track who are quick to get out of the way, and such not the real problem. It's the people who walk in pairs, or on their own in the middle, blocking the path so that you nearly have to stop.

I get a bit angry when I see people with children or dogs strolling along, the police should be stopping them and contacting the social services or the DSPCA.

daymobrew wrote: »

A few years ago I asked a Park Ranger about the issue. He said that pedestrians on the cycle paths was the biggest complaint from cyclists.

I was talking to two of the Rangers recently, they made a few points...

- When the cycle paths were installed they were first told to tell walkers to get off the cycle path.

- This was often followed with indifference or abuse.

- Walkers made complaints against such enforcement.

- A combo of the last two points lead to the stop of attempts of enforcement.

- One of the Rangers also claimed that it was not illegal to walk on the path, and was not against the park's By-Laws (as they have not been updated in ages.

Tánaiste and Minister for Finance ( Mr Cowen ) :

The Office of Public Works is aware that a number of pedestrians tend to use the cycle lanes in the Phoenix park despite the fact that the cycle lanes are clearly indicated both by bicycle symbols imprinted on them and a unique green colour which clearly distinguishes them from the separate black pedestrian paths. A number of initiatives have been introduced to promote greater public awareness.

In places, I'd disagree with how clear the distinctions are. There's a few ending points or road crossing points where it's not clear it's a cycle path.

In other places, I'd add in "can you not understand those symbols?" signs. Or, really, maybe paint in "NO WALKING ON THIS PATH"

Bunnyhopper

I live quite close to the Phoenix Park and cycle there regularly, so this has been an issue for me for quite a while. I got to the stage some time ago where I often just don't use the cycle paths on the main road because they're not safe. I once had a jogger play chicken with me - as in he was deliberately dodging over and back in front of me for a laugh. Hilarous - I'd have smacked into him only I didn't want to get blood on the RockShox (only kidding).

I emailed the OPW at the time and asked what they could do about the pedestrians on the cycle path. I also asked whether or not the cycle lanes had any legal status at all (Road Traffic Act or even Park bye-laws). The reply I got ignored the legal questions (as I expected). The relevant part of the response was:

"With regard to pedestrians on cycle routes, this issue is being examined at the moment. Our rangers will be patrolling the park on bicycles from the week after next and part of their role is to supervise the cycle paths. Hopefully this should have a positive impact on the pedestrians."

That email was sent to me on 4 July 2006.

I can't say I've noticed any improvement since (and I can't say I'm surprised).

cyclopath2001

niceonetom wrote: »

i suppose i was offering rollerbladers leeway in attempt to seem reasonable

There is nothing unreasonable in asking people to obey the law.

But, before we go further, has anyone checked what kind of road signs are in use?

If they're not the legally defined RUS009 or RUS009a, then the debate about pedestrians or roller bladers in these alleged cycle tracks may be moot.

tenandtracer

How about campaigning to get the footpaths resurfaced with that lovely green tarmac - that's what has joggers, runners, bladers, tricylists, bicyclists, boulevardiers and pedestrians of all ages totally mesmerized.

P_1

tenandtracer wrote: »

How about campaigning to get the footpaths resurfaced with that lovely green tarmac - that's what has joggers, runners, bladers, tricylists, bicyclists, boulevardiers and pedestrians of all ages totally mesmerized.

Thats probably the only thing that will solve this situation I think

SerialComplaint

I drove through the park today, which was extremely busy with all kinds of people enjoying the great weather. There was a huge queue of people waiting to get into the zoo around 3pm.

I'm assuming the cycle lane is the path nearer the road, though I couldn't see any markings from the car. There were certainly a fair quantity of pedestrians also on these lanes. I saw 3 seperate groups of OPW rangers on bikes, though I didn't see what happened (if anything) when they encountered pedestrians.

Dirk Gently

I hate that bit near the zoo, always families all over the track and you can't even shout at the cnuts because I'd feel guilty shouting at mammy and daddy infront of a small kid.

regarding rollerbladers, as much as I want to gut them when they're in my way I do feel some sympathy for them. It must be a pain in the ass trying to find somewhere to use their blades.

niceonetom

clown bag wrote: »

regarding rollerbladers, as much as I want to gut them when they're in my way I do feel some sympathy for them. It must be a pain in the ass trying to find somewhere to use their blades.

[JOKE]
Q: what's the hardest thing about rollerblading?

A: telling your parents you're gay.
[/JOKE]

and as for the idea of organising some sort of 'Action' to clear the lanes in the park, well i think that would quickly descend into a shouting match, possibly escalating into a punch-up :eek:. if you don't think so then have a look at what happened when the issue was raised in the athletics area. most cyclists have all the upper-body strength of a 6 year old so we'd probably lose too .

Sean02

Like Serial I drove down the "Chichester Ave". 2 day and also noticed that the cycle lane was very busy with cyclist and pedrestrians and roller blader's. As I said before I hate off road cycle lanes because of the dangers to both pedrestrians and cyclists. Then there's the problem of junctions, openings, bus stops and shelters and glass and debris on the vast majority of the rest.
In my opinion its far safer and sensibile to ignore cycle lane option in many cases.

Sean02

Here's an interesting one for your comments Cyclopath "(7) No bicycle, tricycle, or other vehicle shall be ridden or driven at any time on or across any footpath in the Park." 1926 Bye Laws for Park. Has this Bye Law been abolished?. Also What is the Irish Road Trafic Act that says cyclists must use cycle lanes.

rubadub

monument wrote: »

I was talking to two of the Rangers recently, they made a few points...

- When the cycle paths were installed they were first told to tell walkers to get off the cycle path.

- This was often followed with indifference or abuse.

- Walkers made complaints against such enforcement.

- A combo of the last two points lead to the stop of attempts of enforcement.

- One of the Rangers also claimed that it was not illegal to walk on the path, and was not against the park's By-Laws (as they have not been updated in ages.

I can imagine abuse, but were walkers making actual offical/formal complaints about not being allowed on them? Wonder what the wording was like? That would be like me complaining to a garda about pedestrians on grafton street being in the way.- bizarre.

Even if it is not technically illegal, it is simple common sense not to walk on them.

I do like the idea of there being having signs with walkers and a big X on them. I once was thinking it would be an idea to paint a big "€1000 fine for walking on cycletrack". Should also have a big sign in the phoenix park "52pedestrians injuried walking on cycletracks since 2007"

(Aside: what happened to the other thread discussing people running on cycletracks?)

most cyclists have all the upper-body strength of a 6 year old so we'd probably lose too

Off with the quick release front wheel and you have a very good weapon in the forks.

daymobrew

rubadub wrote: »

(Aside: what happened to the other thread discussing people running on cycletracks?)

Deleted my a moderator (not me).

monument

rubadub wrote: »

walkers making actual offical/formal complaints about not being allowed on them?

That's what the ranger's were claiming.

cyclopath2001

Sean02 wrote: »

Here's an interesting one for your comments Cyclopath "(7) No bicycle, tricycle, or other vehicle shall be ridden or driven at any time on or across any footpath in the Park." 1926 Bye Laws for Park. Has this Bye Law been abolished?. Also What is the Irish Road Trafic Act that says cyclists must use cycle lanes.

I don't know about that bye-law. It would not surprise me if the park was a mess of legal contradictions.

The compulsory use of cycle tracks is not contained in a Road Traffic Act. It is contained in a statutory instrument, no.182 of 1997.

Statutory instruments don't have to be debated in the Dáil.

Now, can someone say what, if any road sign, appears at the beginning of the alleged cycle tracks?

If it's not RUS 009 or RUS 009A, then there's nothing that can be said against the runners, walkers or joggers or motorists. We must instead ask why the authorities cannot follow their own laws.

Bunnyhopper

If RUS 009 and RUS 009A refer to the white-on-blue circular signs then, to the best of my recollection, they don't appear in the Park.

(Is there a link anywhere that lists all the road signs and markings with descriptions and/or images?)
[EDIT: found some of them in SI 181 of 1997]

There is a reference to cycle paths in the Roads Act, 1993 - section 68.
See here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0068.html

And you'll find SI 182 of 1997 here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

The Park's bye-laws you'll find here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/si/0006.html

Again, to the best of my recollection, that's the version of the Bye-Laws displayed on signs in the Park itself.

cyclopath2001

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

If RUS 009 and RUS 009A refer to the white-on-blue circular signs then, to the best of my recollection, they don't appear in the Park.

SI274/1997 defines what and where cycle tracks are on public roads and footways. RUS009 is the white bike on blue background and RUS009a is a black bike on white background within a red circle. Both have the same use and meaning. To the best of my knowledge these are the only legally-defined road signs for the purpose of indicating a cycle track.

If the park is not using the legally defined signs and has not amended its bye-laws to use local alternatives (or to define what a cycle track is), then, the alleged cycle facilities are a 'free-for-all' and not suitable for serious cycling.

This regulation may be applicable to parking on the alleged cycle tracks:

(4) No vehicle shall remain stationary on any road in the Park except at such places thereon as the Commissioners shall authorise and shall specify in a notice exhibited at such places.

Unless you're travelling at less than 10kph, I'd recommend cycling on the roadways.