East Link ban

SectionF

I've been meaning to post this for some time...

The East Link bridge has a sign telling cyclists to dismount before crossing, in the interests of safety. Most don't, and many use the very narrow footpaths instead, as there are quite a few HGVs about.

Is it legal for the bridge operators to single out cyclists in this way? I don't know of any other part of the public roads network, other, I suppose, than motorways, where this applies.

Nietzschean

i've honestly not noticed that sign, though i've been told it exists, i usually cycle in the middle of the road, seems to get around the HGV/foot path problem mostly....

DirkVoodoo

Wow, never noticed the sign either.

Should traffic be allowed to cross the East Link at more than 30 km/hr? I don't really fancy dismounting and walking in my cleats. I suppose I could always go through town though.

blorg

I am not sure that the sign has any legal basis, I think it is just a request/suggestion. Very difficult to get across "dismounted" if there is any other pedestrian traffic.

I am pretty sure that cyclists can be banned from road sections but don't think the East link sign falls into this category (e.g. cyclists are banned from the Jack Lynch tunnel in Cork along with all the usual tractors etc. although the N25 is not a motorway.)

I may well be wrong though.

Nietzschean

i presume cyclists are banned from the port tunnel?

Nietzschean

Nietzschean wrote: »

i presume cyclists are banned from the port tunnel?

Yup.

The sign over the East Link requests cyclists to dismount IIRC.

markpb

blorg wrote: »

I am not sure that the sign has any legal basis

I guess since the bridge is private property with public access, the sign has as much legal backing as any other sign on private property, i.e. quite a bit but who'd enforce it.

Nietzschean wrote: »

i presume cyclists are banned from the port tunnel?

It forms part of the M50 so yes. Apart from the fact that you'd want to be stark raving loony to want to use it in the first place :-)

vektarman

Signs up for cyclists to dismount to cross the wooden bridge to Bull Island also (or Dollymount to most Dubliners):)

monument

vektarman wrote: »

Signs up for cyclists to dismount to cross the wooden bridge to Bull Island also (or Dollymount to most Dubliners):)

Yeah, but I really don't know why!? As you can see it's a "dead slow" 15km/h speed limit...

fillup

is the dollyer woddenbridge ban because of the wooden beams running lengthwards. some of them have sizable enough gaps between them to have the same effect as finding your front wheel in a Luas track.. ie instant dismount & wounded pride

monument

fillup wrote: »

is the dollyer woddenbridge ban because of the wooden beams running lengthwards. some of them have sizable enough gaps between them to have the same effect as finding your front wheel in a Luas track.. ie instant dismount & wounded pride

Was thinking that could be the case the first time I crossed it, but no, the surface looks fine.

vektarman

fillup wrote: »

is the dollyer woddenbridge ban because of the wooden beams running lengthwards. some of them have sizable enough gaps between them to have the same effect as finding your front wheel in a Luas track.. ie instant dismount & wounded pride

Exactly, was there last Saturday, cross it on a bike at your peril.:)

Nietzschean

the road along the coast isn't much better then so in places, has a few deep/narrow grooves which can be troublesome on a road bike

Hermy

monument wrote: »

How's a car supposed to overtake cyclists on a narrow bridge like that!!!
Stay on the path I say.:pac:

Nietzschean

Hermy wrote: »

How's a car supposed to overtake cyclists on a narrow bridge like that!!!
Stay on the path I say.:pac:

on something that short they can just live happily behind the cyclist

Hermy

Nietzschean wrote: »

on something that short they can just live happily behind the cyclist

This is typical of cyclists.
I blame Boards for encouraging this sort of behaviour.

Nietzschean

Hermy wrote: »

This is typical of cyclists.
I blame Boards for encouraging this sort of behaviour.

you would protest that people having a day out have to drive slowly across a wooden bridge for 30seconds? and instead a cyclist should damage their equipment and have a 5minute walk?

they have little other reason to be out there if not for social reasons...no particular need of a mad rush......

Raam

For those that ain't seen em, the signs on the east link are at the entrance to the bridge, but on the opposite side of the road, on both directions.

Raam

Raam wrote: »

For those that ain't seen em, the signs on the east link are at the entrance to the bridge, but on the opposite side of the road, on both directions.

Nope, definitely on both sides (although 1 maybe stuck to the wooden wall on the west side) heading north, not sure about heading south.

Raam

Dónal wrote: »

Nope, definitely on both sides (although 1 maybe stuck to the wooden wall on the west side) heading north, not sure about heading south.

Ta,
only noticed them on the right side before. Even looked out for them on the left side a few times.

Hermy

Nietzschean wrote: »

you would protest that people having a day out have to drive slowly across a wooden bridge for 30seconds? and instead a cyclist should damage their equipment and have a 5minute walk?

they have little other reason to be out there if not for social reasons...no particular need of a mad rush......

Don't mind me Nietzschean. I jest.:o

Raam

Raam wrote: »

Ta,
only noticed them on the right side before. Even looked out for them on the left side a few times.

Went over it yesterday morning in a taxi and double checked - yes, going southbound they are on both sides pointing at you, while going northbound it is facing you on the right hand side, and there is another sign which you'll only see if you look left as it's attached to the wooden wall and isn't facing you (it's perpendicular to how you'd approach it).

keenan110

I cycled over the east link two days ago and was looking out for the signs and still didnt see them!

Blowfish

They are incredibly easy to miss. I've been commuting that way for about 18 months and never actually noticed them until I started looking for them because of this thread.

Spiritoftheseventies

the bridge on bull wall in clontarf also has this rule. but Cyclists ignore that too. Is there for their own safety.

vektarman

bayviewclose wrote: »

the bridge on bull wall in clontarf also has this rule. but Cyclists ignore that too. Is there for their own safety.

Yawnnnnn... double post, please read page one.

Spiritoftheseventies

dont have time to be checking duplicate posts. live with it!

vektarman

bayviewclose wrote: »

dont have time to be checking duplicate posts. live with it!

I love tiffs:)

Nietzschean

bayviewclose wrote: »

dont have time to be checking duplicate posts. live with it!

well then don't post at all if you can't be bothered to read what anyone else wrote, its not like its a 20 page thread....

Spiritoftheseventies

yeah it was on page one. I replied to post on last page. which is what most people do as a rule!

Morgan

bayviewclose wrote: »

yeah it was on page one. I replied to post on last page. which is what most people do as a rule!

Maybe you shouldn't even bother posting if you can't be bothered reading the previous posts. It's not even a long thread!

Trojan

Ok, enough of that lads, back on topic.

--

Rightly or wrongly, I always ignore those signs at Bull Wall and on the East Link. However, I make an effort to get over both bridges faster than any car could. I figure if I'm going faster than any cars they won't be complaining about getting held up.

Blowfish

Trojan wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, I always ignore those signs at Bull Wall and on the East Link. However, I make an effort to get over both bridges faster than any car could. I figure if I'm going faster than any cars they won't be complaining about getting held up.

Indeed, I don't quite get the point of them anyway. Safety wise, there's not much difference between those bridges and any other. Besides, the exact wording is that 'cyclists are requested to dismount'. It doesn't say I have to.

Spiritoftheseventies

yes i think they put sign up because of the one way traffic on the bridge and because it is so narrow. And im assuming no one has put up an identical post!

Spiritoftheseventies

sign says cyclist dismount. its there for a reason!

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

sign says cyclist dismount. its there for a reason!

What reason? As above, how is the East Link any different to any other bridge/narrow road?

Spiritoftheseventies

because its a very narrow path. if someone comes towards you you wont be able to get past. either that or you will go on to the road.

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

because its a very narrow path. if someone comes towards you you wont be able to get past. either that or you will go on to the road.

Considering that I'm always on the road anyway, the narrow path doesn't really bother me

Spiritoftheseventies

here is what you do. get off your bike at the bridge, and then get back on it when bridge end has finished. its a small stretch.

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

here is what you do. get off your bike at the bridge, and then get back on it when bridge end has finished. its a small stretch.

That still doesn't answer the obvious question of why this is supposed to be necessary.

Spiritoftheseventies

see post 37. As a former cyclist myself can see the logic of if myself. people are walking over that bridge too. how are you going to get past them.

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

see post 37. As a former cyclist myself can see the logic of if myself. people are walking over that bridge too. how are you going to get past them.

By not cycling on the footpath....

Spiritoftheseventies

so you cycle on the road at the east wall bridge heading towards the point or in other direction!

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

so you cycle on the road at the east wall bridge heading towards the point or in other direction!

Indeed, both. I commute that way

Spiritoftheseventies

cars ever honk at you or anything

Blowfish

bayviewclose wrote: »

cars ever honk at you or anything

Not on the East link, no. Generally while commuting traffic is heavy enough that it's them holding me up, rather than vice versa.

Spiritoftheseventies

fair enough. Safe cycling!

Morgan

Bayviewclose might have a point there - maybe these signs are directed at cyclists who are (right or wrong) using the footpath. Doesn't make much sense otherwise.

monument

bayviewclose wrote: »

so you cycle on the road at the east wall bridge heading towards the point or in other direction!

Yes, why on earth not?

Morgan wrote: »

Bayviewclose might have a point there - maybe these signs are directed at cyclists who are (right or wrong) using the footpath. Doesn't make much sense otherwise.

Doesn't make much sense goes a long way to describe how cyclist are treated in a good few areas, including many of the poorly planned cycle paths.

In any case at least one of the signs say dismount when using the walkways and the carriageway. It furthermore doesn't make much sense as the speed limit is apparently 15km/h, a speed even a relaxed cyclist can surpass...

monument wrote: »

Yeah, but I really don't know why!? As you can see it's a "dead slow" 15km/h speed limit...

Spiritoftheseventies

monument wrote: »

Yes, why on earth not?




Doesn't make much sense goes a long way to describe how cyclist are treated in a good few areas, including many of the poorly planned cycle paths.

In any case at least one of the signs say dismount when using the walkways and the carriageway. It furthermore doesn't make much sense as the speed limit is apparently 15km/h, a speed even a relaxed cyclist can surpass...

the speed limit i think applies to that whole stretch because there is sea on both sides. that said does'nt stop some people who fly up the road heading towards the beach.