Pedestrinas in the Park

72hundred

Hey,

Just wondering what others thought of the ped's in the P Park that insist on walking on the cycle lane?

Personally I'm getting a bit sick of it as they're not meant to be there, its slows me down every time I travel through the park and at night its bloody dangerous for me as I can't see them with dark clothes on and while I'm being blinded by the cars lights. Which leaves me to serve to miss them at the last second.

72oo

EDIT: Aware of the spelling error in title. Ops!

alentejo

Get the same thing happening on the Clontarf and Sutton Cycletrack, esp at weekends.

Tails

Ha, sounds like a drivers argument against cyclists! Only substitute pedestrian for cyclist!

Sean02

It a bit annoying at times. Still it better than sharing with motor traffic. Most pedesrtrians don't realise the different paths. Better signage would help at start finish of each section. would have thought the lighting on the main road was adequate to see walkers and I can understand why many would prefer the safety of the outer path at night time. My advice is if your a regular user of any cycle path fit a bell and take it handy.

cyclopath2001

On the Clontarf seafront, runners and pedestrians have a choice of 3 well-lit footpaths and the grass. Some prefer to use the poorly-lit cycle track, backs to cyclists & wearing dark clothing.

It's an Irish thing I guess.

Chips Lovell

Just cycle on the road.

311

Cycle as close as possible to them and frighten the brown stuff out of them!

72hundred

Sean02 wrote: »

Most pedesrtrians don't realise the different paths. Better signage would help at start finish of each section. would have thought the lighting on the main road was adequate to see walkers.

The only ped's who don't know its a cycle path are the tourists (which is understandable) who've just stepped off the the bus and maybe the very odd local. I can say this with certainty as there's cyclelane markings every 200m's or so. But I definitely agree better signage is needed.

The lighting issue is that as a cyclist I'm travelling 25kph or so and I'm being semi-blinded by the light of on-coming cars across the road. Also this isn't a night only problem. Most commonly its "power walkers" or joggers during the day.

Had one power walker shout after me one day that I was in the wrong and that they'd changed it so the bikes were now on the road.

311

Tails wrote: »

Ha, sounds like a drivers argument against cyclists! Only substitute pedestrian for cyclist!

Utter rubbish. You never see a cyclist on a motorway.

72hundred

el tonto wrote: »

Just cycle on the road.

There's a 4km stretch of perfect, pot-hole free, very very smooth cycle lane along the main road in the park, that the OPW has thankfully installed. I intend to use it!

311 wrote: »

Cycle as close as possible to them and frighten the brown stuff out of them!

Yes, a common thing to do. But not recommended, for hurting myself if they just in front of me and I them too.


My absolute biggest pet hate (I know this stereotyping!) though is the power walker pair- a pair of ladies 40-60 (+/- small puffy dogs) walking two wide in the same direction as most of the traffic on the cycle lane, so completely blocking the lane, who refuse to move out of the way. Which means braking to a near stop to get around them.

cyclopath2001

72hundred wrote: »

My absolute biggest pet hate (I know this stereotyping!) though is the power walker pair- a pair of ladies 40-60 (+/- small puffy dogs) walking two wide in the same direction as most of the traffic on the cycle lane, so completely blocking the lane, who refuse to move out of the way. Which means braking to a near stop to get around them.

Outside the park, pedestrians are required by law to use footpaths & not walk on cycle tracks (unless crossing etc). It's not so clear if the same law applies in the park as there are separate by-laws. So, don't assume you're 100% right.

ROK ON

Phoenix Park cycle lanes are a disaster.
Peds use them and continue to use them. Just no point arguing with them at this stage - its tedious. I have stopped using them in the evenings as a result.
If you are heading in Castleknock direction from town use the road inside the park that hugs Blackhorse Ave. Dark, but no peds at all. Also no interuptions to the cycle (such as the cycle lane ending at each roundabout). Dor a nice diversion, cycle up Kyber down in the direction of Capelizod and then up the hill at Knockmaroon. Again very little car traffic and absolutely no peds (but plenty of deer).

I only use cycle lane in the morning (circa 6.45am) No peds apart from the odd jogger (same person - usually wears reflective gear).

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

Just cycle on the road.

72hundred

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

...So, don't assume you're 100% right.

Phoenix Park Transportation Study
Office of Public Works
October 2006

4.3.2

Description of cycling facilities;

"These are dedicated cycle paths, with a high quality running surface, which are separated from traffic requiring minimal interaction with vehicles."

In relation to the problem of ped's;

"At the very least improved awareness and access to the
existing pedestrian route should be provided to discourage use of the dedicated cycle facility."

Bunnyhopper

This is an issue that keeps coming up again and again. The OPW built the paths but haven't done anything effective to keep the pedestrians off them. I can understand why some pedestrians choose to walk there, particularly after dark, and, to be fair, many of them are careful about moving aside etc. Still, for cyclists it's inconvenient, at least, and dangerous at worst.

I emailed the OPW several years ago asking what the situation was and they said that rangers would be patrolling the cycle paths to advise pedestrians not to walk on them. That clearly hasn't worked.

I did wonder what the situation might be if one collided with a pedestrian on the path. Are they (the pedestrian) in the wrong in anyway simply by being there. The cycle paths in the Park are not, so far as I can tell, mandatory in the statutory sense (they don't have the correct signage), and I couldn't find any mention of them in the by-laws posted in the Park itself.

I asked the OPW what the legal status of the cycle paths was, but - predictably - they didn't answer that question.

I use the cycle paths unless there are so many pedestrians that the road is safer. Those sunny summer evenings are great...

DublinWriter

311 wrote: »

Cycle as close as possible to them and frighten the brown stuff out of them!

Dang...stop copying stuff that I do to cyclists with my car.

mikemac

Whatever about the Phoenix Park, I realy don't understand what goes on in Dollymount.

As said, peds can use two footpaths plus the promenade.
Instead many use the cycle lane.
Not one, not two but three alternative options weren't enough
In fact, the two footpaths are much better lit and safer then the cycle lane, it's not what happens on Chesterfield Avenue

I can kinda understand rollerbladders and I can accept joggers might want to use tarmac instead of concrete though the grass is an even better option.

Don't get me started on middle-aged women out powerwalking! They refuse to move always :mad:

Eoin D

I can't stand pedestrians walking dogs unaware that cyclists actually do use cycle lanes. Hasn't happened to me yet but I know there's going to be a disaster in this situation.....

Dog in grass attached to leash | Cycle Lane | Pedestrian with dark dog leash

I have had some close calls with walkers/joggers in cycle lanes though, they don't seem to realise just how fast a person can actually go on a bike

72hundred

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

This is an issue that keeps coming up again and again. The OPW built the paths but haven't done anything effective to keep the pedestrians off them. I can understand why some pedestrians choose to walk there, particularly after dark, and, to be fair, many of them are careful about moving aside etc. Still, for cyclists it's inconvenient, at least, and dangerous at worst.

I emailed the OPW several years ago asking what the situation was and they said that rangers would be patrolling the cycle paths to advise pedestrians not to walk on them. That clearly hasn't worked.

I did wonder what the situation might be if one collided with a pedestrian on the path. Are they (the pedestrian) in the wrong in anyway simply by being there. The cycle paths in the Park are not, so far as I can tell, mandatory in the statutory sense (they don't have the correct signage), and I couldn't find any mention of them in the by-laws posted in the Park itself.

I asked the OPW what the legal status of the cycle paths was, but - predictably - they didn't answer that question.

I use the cycle paths unless there are so many pedestrians that the road is safer. Those sunny summer evenings are great...

So they're not actually cycle lanes, just a path with bike logo in paint on it. -Great! Now the ped's are right....:P

The problem is that 99.5% this is just very inconvenient, no-one likes having to slow down and start up again, especially when clipping along at a good pace.

But there really is a potential for problems as ped's just walk straight across the cycle lane (/ or whatever it is) and don't look for cyclist. -> Then bang and Mr. Ped's got a broken femur and cyclist broken collarbone. It really has to be cut one way or the other this cycle-lane or whatever cr*p isn't good for cyclists or ped's.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Dang...stop copying stuff that I do to cyclists with my car.

Yes, a little easier with 2 tonnes of steel about you!:P

311

DublinWriter wrote: »

Dang...stop copying stuff that I do to cyclists with my car.

Well done you ,in your big shiny car exerting yourself and trying to stay healthy.
Mind for the potholes that might send you over the steering wheel.

72hundred

micmclo wrote: »

Don't get me started on middle-aged women out powerwalking! They refuse to move always :mad:

Yes, I've had words (/profanities!) with on occasion when forced to fully brake because two "ladies" wouldn't move across despite seeing me coming for 500m's. But again this is stereotyping and alot of 'em move out of the way.

DublinWriter

311 wrote: »

Well done you ,in your big shiny car exerting yourself and trying to stay healthy.

I didn't mention that I drive a big shiny BMW...considering that I never mentioned the type of car I drive, you really should consider a career as a psychic...but you got the trying to stay healthy part completely wrong I have to say.

Health...schemlt. Jim Fixx died of a heart attack in his early 50's. The way I look at it I'm cheating myself of all those nappy-wearing Alzheimer-dribbling kids-shoving-you-in-a-home years.

Meanwhile, back to those pesky pedestrians and their healthy walking ways...

72hundred

DublinWriter wrote: »

you really should consider a career as a psychic...

I look at it I'm cheating myself of all those nappy-wearing Alzheimer-dribbling kids-shoving-you-in-a-home years.

Trolling are we? :P

311

72hundred wrote: »

Trolling are we? :P

She's not trolling ,she found out that she can reverse her sex change.

Chips Lovell

The Phoenix Park thing has come up before and we looked at the by-laws. Nothing there about being obliged to use a cycle lane or about pedestrians not being able to walk in one.

72hundred

el tonto wrote: »

The Phoenix Park thing has come up before and we looked at the by-laws. Nothing there about being obliged to use a cycle lane or about pedestrians not being able to walk in one.

So it would seem the OPW needs to actually state who they want where. And the current situation of painted cycling logos on the ground has no real point.

stopped_clock

72hundred wrote: »

Aware of the spelling error in title. Ops!

Pedestrinas! I like it.

monument

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I emailed the OPW several years ago asking what the situation was and they said that rangers would be patrolling the cycle paths to advise pedestrians not to walk on them. That clearly hasn't worked.

I talked to rangers about a year and a half ago, he told me the above was happening. They were told to ask people not to walk on the cycle paths, but the walkers who use the path complained!

The rangers were then told not to interfere with the walkers on the cycle path. At least the ranger I was talking to was apologetic about the whole thing.

DBCyc

It doesn't seem like much thought was put into those cycle paths in the park. Given that they are next to the road, peds will always use them when leaving their parked cars.

The cycle paths are also next to the street lighting along the main avenue of the park, so at night peds will use them as the footpaths are not lit up.

I wouldn't necessarily get angry peds for walking in them, as I think people genuinely mistake them for footpaths. Others probably know well that they are cycle paths but see people walking on them so they feel its okay.

In a public park, peds should have the right to freely walk wherever they wish (without overly inconveniencing others) and and as I cyclist I respect that.

I usually just cycle on the road through the park when its busy. When it is quiet it is nice to fly down those lovely, smooth, pedestrian free cycle lanes!

The best solution would be to remove car traffic from traveling through the park, i.e. access only. Then there would be a lovely wide cycle lane straight through the middle!

Bunnyhopper

stopped_clock wrote: »

Pedestrinas! I like it.

I like it too. It sounds very glamorous and sophisticated.

DBCyc wrote: »

It doesn't seem like much thought was put into those cycle paths in the park. ... The cycle paths are also next to the street lighting along the main avenue of the park, so at night peds will use them as the footpaths are not lit up.

Does anyone else remember that back in the dim and distant, when they first put the cycle path along the main road of the Park (Chesterfield Avenue) it was actually the other way around? As I recall, the pedestrian path was the one nearer the road, and the cycle path was the one further from the road and between the lines of trees. Why they switched it I don't know. The other one was much better as a cycle path: it's flatter (no kerbs to rattle over), and conflict at junctions with the main road is less of an issue. It also leaves the other (better-lit and closer to the parked cars) path free for pedestrians.

DBCyc wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily get angry peds for walking in them, as I think people genuinely mistake them for footpaths. Others probably know well that they are cycle paths but see people walking on them so they feel its okay.

Generally, I don't get angry with them (mildly irritated, maybe). The ones who really annoy me are those who choose to walk on what's clearly marked as a cycle path and then get outraged at the notion that they might want to deviate slightly from hogging the whole path because someone on a bicycle has the cheek to want to cycle on a cyclepath.

DBCyc wrote: »

The best solution would be to remove car traffic from traveling through the park, i.e. access only.

We can dream... The changes around the south side of the park (Military Road etc.) have helped a bit but they've tended to push motor vehicles towards the main road, which makes a clarification of the situation there all the more important.

Too often the Park is seen as a network of roads that happens to have some parkland around it, rather than as a park that happens to have some roads in it. It's a subtle but important difference.

Harrybelafonte

Way the human brain works you'd need a "no pedestrians" sign. Walker with an X through them.