Documenting Ireland's cycle lanes

what_traffic

Doctor Bob wrote: »

...and in the process lose the funding for the scheme, which, it shold be noted, is not a cycling scheme- it is a bus and cycling scheme which, in due course, is likely to be upgraded to a full Bus Rapid Transit route. And no planner/engineer worth their salt would recommend mixing cycling with BRT. But unfortunately some commentators can't or won't acknowledge such things as a bigger picture.

It will never work as a BRT, the distances between bus stops and between the junctions are not great enough.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Maybe it's the philosophy graduate in me, but logical fallacies always put a dirty big grin on my face. Thanks!

I'm a bit puzzled by quite a bit of the coda to this thread, but I don't know enough about the road developments in question to contribute anything.

But this last bit intrigues me. Where is the logical fallacy?

In my view, your position that accusations of malice are "groundless" is not supportable.

I don't quite see it. galwaycyclist thinks that your position is not supportable, your position being that accusations of malice are groundless. I presume he thinks there are sufficient grounds to suspect malice in at least some cases.

I don't see a logical fallacy there. galwaycyclist may be factually wrong in suspecting that there is a spirit of malice behind some of the designs that were pushed through despite opposition, but he's not being illogical. And the sentence structure he uses above doesn't seem contradictory to me. I don't quite get where logical fallacies come in.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

...and in the process lose the funding for the scheme, which, it shold be noted, is not a cycling scheme- it is a bus and cycling scheme which, in due course, is likely to be upgraded to a full Bus Rapid Transit route. And no planner/engineer worth their salt would recommend mixing cycling with BRT. But unfortunately some commentators can't or won't acknowledge such things as a bigger picture.

The alternative view is that no planner/engineer worth their salt would consider putting BRT into a "town centre" corridor like the SQR, adjacent to the University, and main teaching hospital, with adjacent retail developments and adjacent community centre/library, and residential housing, and high demand for pedestrian crossing movements, and high demand for crossing movements by cyclists.

Thats the bigger picture. If high speed motor traffic is generally unsuitable at such locations then high speed public transport is also generally unsuitable.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

But this last bit intrigues me. Where is the logical fallacy?

I don't quite see it. galwaycyclist thinks that your position is not supportable, your position being that accusations of malice are groundless. I presume he thinks there are sufficient grounds to suspect malice in at least some cases.

I don't see a logical fallacy there. galwaycyclist may be factually wrong in suspecting that there is a spirit of malice behind some of the designs that were pushed through despite opposition, but he's not being illogical. And the sentence structure he uses above doesn't seem contradictory to me. I don't quite get where logical fallacies come in.

Fair point. It's not a logical fallacy. It's simply a fallacious argument- a subtle but important difference. (I guess I got carried away in my laughter.)

The fallacy being employed by galwaycyclist is regarding the Burden Of Proof; specifically, he (I assume he's a 'he') is suggesting that I have to show that he is wrong, whereas the standard approach when accusations are slung about is for the accuser to present evidence. My previous statement was:

I still don't believe any evidence has been put forward in this thread that supports the accusations of malice.

...and I stand by it.

It's equivalent to someone claiming that god exists because I can't show that he doesn't exist. It's very basic stuff.

So Yes, galwaycyclist isn't being illogical, he's being fallacious.

As for the BRT responses, as I mentioned, I'm bowing out of this debate at this point. The thread has gone far enough off topic already without turning it into a Commuting & Transport one (though I note that the BRT in Nantes [which I've used], widely considered the exemplar of European BRT, is an urban scheme *ducks and runs*).

Just to reiterate- I mentioned BRT to illustrate that cycling schemes rarely exist in a vacuum; there's almost always context. (And mentioning it was in response to HivemindXX, who seemed to think that a well written letter should be enough to change hearts and minds.) I could continue poking holes in galwaycyclist's arguments, but at this stage he's moved the goalposts so much he's just scoring own goals. :pac:

BostonB

Doctor Bob wrote: »

...I would agree that the design of the SQR is not perfect, but 'terrible' is stretching the truth beyond breaking point.

I still don't believe any evidence has been put forward in this thread that supports the accusations of malice. ('Reasonable' is certainly a better word, as it lacks the specificity of 'valid', but it is still a groundless accusation.)

Its worse than terrible. Seems like they had reference to good advice but deliberately and pointly acted contrary to it.

Doctor Bob

BostonB wrote: »

Its worse than terrible. Seems like they had reference to good advice but deliberately and pointly acted contrary to it.

Are you thinking of the Doughiska [sp?] Road? That's the one with all the junctions in the photo above, and Yes, it's horrendous. The SQR is something else, and not yet built.

As to motives, I'm not getting drawn into that game again.;)

Doctor Bob

This one?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However it would be a mistake to assume that current designs result from ignorance or that designers are acting out of a genuine will to improve cycling conditions. The DCC has been raising these issues with the Dublin QBN Office fairly consistently with little sign of change. To take the Seamus Quirke Road in Galway.

As I understand it, this isn't the SQR. I think gc just made a simple slip of the tongue fingers in typing, as the rest of his post related to the Doughiska Rd., from what I gather.

monument

Re wider coverage of poor cycle lanes -- see page 8 of today's Sunday Times.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

Re wider coverage of poor cycle lanes -- see page 8 of today's Sunday Times.

Missed it. Anyone got a scan?

BostonB

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Are you thinking of the Doughiska [sp?] Road? That's the one with all the junctions in the photo above, and Yes, it's horrendous. The SQR is something else, and not yet built.

As to motives, I'm not getting drawn into that game again.;)

That photo says it all.

This isn't specific to Galway though. Cycle lanes all over, seem like they are designed and implemented by a 3yr old. TBH some road markings are the same.

Chips Lovell

monument wrote: »

Re wider coverage of poor cycle lanes -- see page 8 of today's Sunday Times.

Got to read it last night. Nice piece monument.

tomasrojo

Ah, must read that. Didn't know you wrote it, monument. I have emoticon-autism.

Bunnyhopper

The tow-path along the Royal Canal at Coolmine has been upgraded recently. It's not strictly a cycle lane, I know, but a lot of people do cycle along it. If you know the path you'll see from the pictures that it's much wider than it used to be and the surface is better. The fencing is also handy, given that there's a substantial drop to the canal at that section.

I haven't explored it yet so I don't know how far the improvement goes or how good the surface actually is.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

However it would be a mistake to assume that current designs result from ignorance or that designers are acting out of a genuine will to improve cycling conditions. The DCC has been raising these issues with the Dublin QBN Office fairly consistently with little sign of change. To take the Seamus Quirke Road in Galway....

If that's not a picture of Seamus Quirke Road, why did you post it?

Secondly, am I right in assuming you're a member of the Galway Cycling Campaign?

what_traffic

Doctor Bob wrote: »

This one?

As I understand it, this isn't the SQR. I think gc just made a simple slip of the tongue fingers in typing, as the rest of his post related to the Doughiska Rd., from what I gather.

Yup this is the Doughiska Rd. Not sure why it was posted by galwaycyclist but one thing they will have in common apart from both of them having Cycle paths is when the SQR is built to the current designs, Cyclists will have to become pedestrians at either end of the scheme. Doughiska is the same. You will have to actually lift your bike off the cycle path onto the road.

tomasrojo

what_traffic wrote: »

Yup this is the Doughiska Rd. Not sure why it was posted by galwaycyclist but one thing they will have in common apart from both of them having Cycle paths is when the SQR is built to the current designs, Cyclists will have to become pedestrians at either end of the scheme. Doughiska is the same. You will have to actually lift your bike off the cycle path onto the road.

Actually, I posted that photo of Doughiska Road to begin with, as an example of what every road might look like without the campaigns, and galwaycyclist reposted it to say that even with lobbying that stuff gets built (obviously, since we have a photograph of just such a road!).

I don't have time to go back through the last few pages, but I'm not sure he claimed that that was a photograph of SQR.

Interesting comment about having to lift your bike down onto the SQR at each end. No entry ramps to the road? I used to live in Galway, but it was a long time ago and I'm very out of touch with what is going on. It does seems as if the place has gone mad for cyclist-hostile road designs. Terryland was the worst of it when I lived there.

tomasrojo

I did find time to look back. galwaycyclist did show that picture and talk about SQR. But from the context it's clear that he's talking about Doughiska.

what_traffic

tomasrojo wrote: »

Actually, I posted that photo of Doughiska Road to begin with, as an example of what every road might look like without the campaigns, and galwaycyclist reposted it to say that even with lobbying that stuff gets built (obviously, since we have a photograph of just such a road!).

I don't have time to go back through the last few pages, but I'm not sure he claimed that that was a photograph of SQR.

Interesting comment about having to lift your bike down onto the SQR at each end. No entry ramps to the road? I used to live in Galway, but it was a long time ago and I'm very out of touch with what is going on. It does seems as if the place has gone mad for cyclist-hostile road designs. Terryland was the worst of it when I lived there.

No there wont be entry ramps to the SQR road. Will have to use the dished kerbs for pedestrians on the roundabouts themselves (Deane and Browne roundabouts) or lift the bike off the kerb about 100m from either roundabout to get onto or off the end of the bus lane. Re Terryland - nothing has changed there. Still awful.

tomasrojo

what_traffic wrote: »

No there wont be entry ramps to the SQR road. Will have to use the dished kerbs for pedestrians on the roundabouts themselves (Deane and Browne roundabouts) or lift the bike off the kerb about 100m from either roundabout to get onto or off the end of the bus lane. Re Terryland - nothing has changed there. Still awful.

Ah, I think I see. If you want to use the roundabout the vehicular cycling way, you have to lift your bike onto the road some distance back from the roundabout. Otherwise, you act like a pedestrian. This sounds familiar! Those pedestrian crossings at the mouth of the arms of the roundabout are about the most dangerous pedestrian crossings one comes across often.

what_traffic

Still off thread topic title; but anyhow as it was mentioned already here it goes again re the SQR in Galway.

Check out the following PDF

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GTU/220910_01.pdf

Notice the lack of ASL's on the main carraigeway and the "Hook Turn" boxes. Also note the cycle paths at the roundabouts at either end of the scheme.

tomasrojo

Cyclepaths at roundabouts? After years of studies showing they're lethal? Time to stop smoking crack, Galway City Council.

-Chris-

Google Street View for Ireland goes live today:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0930/breaking41.html

Looks like the job of documenting the cycle lanes may have just gotten a little easier :D.

what_traffic

tomasrojo wrote: »

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar witn Doughiska but hasn't time to follow the links.

Doughiska Road infrastructure has earned Galway City Council a dubious honour -- Warrington's Cycle Facility of the Month http://is.gd/fzGuT
Probably pulled from boards.ie??
or
else big thanks to the boardsie for posting this to other sites

BostonB

Need to get the media to pick up on it now.

tomasrojo

what_traffic wrote: »

Doughiska Road infrastructure has earned Galway City Council a dubious honour -- Warrington's Cycle Facility of the Month http://is.gd/fzGuT
Probably pulled from boards.ie??
or
else big thanks to the boardsie for posting this to other sites

Yeah, I sent it to them. I'd forgotten about it until you posted this. Thanks! Amid so much bad news, it's nice to know Ireland has made the grade in something.

monument

-Chris- wrote: »

Looks like the job of documenting the cycle lanes may have just gotten a little easier :D.

Yes, but there are limitations.

Google Street View is far from perfect -- the worst cycle lanes go where cars do not, sometimes buses and taxis block bus lanes, roads with four plus lanes only have street view from one side and a few things like that. Is there a way of knowing what date the photos were taken on?

It shows how bad Doughiska was when the Google car went past:

Most of the way along it's the usual nonsense of trying to fit a cycle path and footpath in space which is not big enough for both, leaving tiny footpath space which leads to pedestrians crossing between one and another all the time.

No ramps on / off at the south end.

Very wide turning circles allowing cars to do higher speed turns

At crossing for peds, cyclists told to yield, but cars only told to 'slow'?

Cycle lane heading north ends at a junction while still pointing into the footpath as...

...there's not enough room for a foot / cycle path on the other side.


Turns into shared space at bus stops.

Traffic light in the path of a cycle track.

Same here.

Yield for cyclists at crossing for peds, but nothing for motorists.

Strange things happen here. Footpath seem to just go away here, and the road / bus stop is at the same level as cycle path. Is this what you do when you have no room and want to still draw lines?

BostonB wrote: »

Need to get the media to pick up on it now.

I wrote about it for the Sunday Times a few weeks ago.

The paper sent a photographer for the main pic and one or two others, while a few of mine were used too.

monument

On the N1 around Julianstown, south of Drogheda...

Southbound:

Cycle lane start sign with no road marking...

...then there's the large speed limit signs with footpaths and...

...cycle ends sign on a footpath and around a corner of a side road?

Northbound...

Cycle track starts, with no lines again...

...then there's the large speed limit signs with footpaths again

buffalo

This is my favourite:

http://goo.gl/maps/3UQi - John Rogerson's Quay in Dublin. Contra-flow cycle track on the footpath, and at some random point in the middle of the track: "End". I cannot for the life of me figure out why it's there.

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

This is my favourite:

http://goo.gl/maps/3UQi - John Rogerson's Quay in Dublin. Contra-flow cycle track on the footpath, and at some random point in the middle of the track: "End". I cannot for the life of me figure out why it's there.

May have been a ped crossing there in the past. Just a guess.

buffalo

Possibly, but I don't seem any other evidence for it.