The Sean O'Casey Bridge (Beside the IFSC) - Quick Tip

cheerspal

Don’t cycle across this if there is even a slight bit of rain. I went on my ear this morning and got some nice cheese grating effect on my arm. I was going slowly enough aswell.

penexpers

cheerspal wrote: »

Don’t cycle across this if there is even a slight bit of rain. I went on my ear this morning and got some nice cheese grating effect on my arm. I was going slowly enough aswell.

Isn't there a sign up asking you to not cycle on the bridge?

Yeah I almost slipped while walking across it before with a bike.

And yes, there is indeed a sign up saying no cycling.

cheerspal

Ok, I honestly didn’t see it. I won’t be from now on.

Last February it was very icey. I was walking across and saw about 4 people in a row fall. I should have known really.

Ste.phen

Was about to come and post a smartarsed comment about how cycling's prohibited on that bridge but seems I've been pipped to the post

Aye, it is very slippery, i almost lost the bike from under me a few times alright

buffalo

I have been told (and I'm open to correction) that the original planning permission for the bridge included cycle lanes.

And I ponder what actual legal standing do those "please don't cycle" signs have?

Ste.phen

buffalo wrote: »

I have been told (and I'm open to correction) that the original planning permission for the bridge included cycle lanes.

And I ponder what actual legal standing do those "please don't cycle" signs have?

Probably none, except that it'd be illegal to cycle on the footpath either side of it

MadHatter

buffalo wrote: »

I have been told (and I'm open to correction) that the original planning permission for the bridge included cycle lanes.

And I ponder what actual legal standing do those "please don't cycle" signs have?

Regardless of the original intention or the legality of the signs - the bridge is cleary not intended for cycling on. It's usually busy with pedestrians and, as pointed out above, the surface is not suitable for cycling.

In fairness, it's no big deal to get off and walk or just use the next bridge up.

MicraBoy

buffalo wrote: »

I have been told (and I'm open to correction) that the original planning permission for the bridge included cycle lanes.

And I ponder what actual legal standing do those "please don't cycle" signs have?

I think you might be confusing that with Samuel Beckett bridge which has integrated cycle lanes.

shaungil

Re Legality: Have seen the Gadai here a few times in the middle of the bridge stopping cyclists making them walk back to the side from whence they came with bike and then walk over. Kind of funny watching their humiliated heads walking back over.
Yup it's lethal when wet there's a sign not to cycle so not feeling much sympathy for cyclists who fall on it, there a bike lane over Butt Bridge 150 yds up the road......esp when crosssing from North to South.
Now to really get me going the motor bike couriers who ride across this bridge side saddle ............

Jawgap

shaungil wrote: »

Re Legality: Have seen the Gadai here a few times in the middle of the bridge stopping cyclists making them walk back to the side from whence they came with bike and then walk over. Kind of funny watching their humiliated heads walking back over.
Yup it's lethal when wet there's a sign not to cycle so not feeling much sympathy for cyclists who fall on it, there a bike lane over Butt Bridge 150 yds up the road......esp when crosssing from North to South.
Now to really get me going the motor bike couriers who ride across this bridge side saddle ............

Butt Bridge goes one way - south to north and I don't think there's any cycle lanes on it.

penexpers

Jawgap wrote: »

Butt Bridge goes one way - south to north and I don't think there's any cycle lanes on it.

The bridge goes north to south and the is a contra flow cycle lane south to north.

Jawgap

penexpers wrote: »

The bridge goes north to south and the is a contra flow cycle lane south to north.

i think you're confusing Butt Bridge with Matt Talbot Bridge

buffalo

MicraBoy wrote: »

I think you might be confusing that with Samuel Beckett bridge which has integrated cycle lanes.

Nay, my point was that the Sean O'Casey was intended to have cycling lanes originally, but this was dropped somewhere along the way - in design or construction.

Again though, this is hearsay.

kmart6

Pics or GTFO :pac:

iant

Yeah there is a sign, which I didn't spot, before going on arse while cycling slowly across the bridge. Hurt myself and damaged my bike. Only in Ireland, would they build a bridge with no friction, then put up a sign up and think "well that's, that fixed". Here's an idea build a ****ing bridge you can cycle across. IDIOTS.

iant

iant wrote: »

Yeah there is a sign, which I didn't spot, before going on arse while cycling slowly across the bridge. Hurt myself and damaged my bike. Only in Ireland, would they build a bridge with no friction, then put up a sign up and think "well that's, that fixed". Here's an idea build a ****ing bridge you can cycle across. IDIOTS.

It is a pedestrian bridge (i.e. not for bikes), but I agree about the lack of grip. Whenever there's any bit of moisture it feels very dodgy when you're walking down at the second half of the bridge. Was terrible during the snow last year.

alexanderomahon

Also funny that it's no cycling when on the North side of the bridge there is a Dublin Bike scheme bike station (or whatever you call the place you can get a bike)

doozerie

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Also funny that it's no cycling when on the North side of the bridge there is a Dublin Bike scheme bike station (or whatever you call the place you can get a bike)

Yes, the bridge helps when walking to the bikes. There is also conveniently a road beside the bike parking so that you can cycle away one you've got your bike. It's almost as if they thought about it before positioning the bikes there.

alexanderomahon

doozerie wrote: »

Yes, the bridge helps when walking to the bikes. There is also conveniently a road beside the bike parking so that you can cycle away one you've got your bike. It's almost as if they thought about it before positioning the bikes there.

Still strange to have the intention of having a cycle lane on the bridge, then to remove the cycle lane provision, then to place a bike station right beside it.

Surely if the bike station and the bridge had to go through planning approval etc at Dublin City Council, then joined up thinking would not have a no cycling bridge beside a bike station.

The provision of a bike station at this point draws cycle traffic towards it in order to return or collect bikes. If you are on the south side then the quickest route is over the bridge, so people will use it and clearly cycle over it to get to the south side.

So to me it is strange to encourage cycle traffic to a particular point and ban much of that cycle traffic from using one of the most obvious routes away from that point. Especialy given that the bridge was originally intended to have a cycle path and surely could be adapted to have one.

All I'm expecting is a bit of joined up thinking.

doozerie

@alexanderomahon, The Dublin bike stations, at least those that I have seen, are generally sited where there is a lot pedestrian traffic. That makes sense, as pedestrians are more likely to use the bikes if they don't have to go far off the beaten track to get one. In some cases at least it also means that the stations are easily accessible by virtue of the route to and from the bike stations being pedestrian friendly (pedestrian lights, etc.) - that's certainly the case for the station at Sean O'Casey Bridge which is about as pedestrian friendly from north and south directions as Dublin gets. The bike station would arguably be less user-friendly if it were positioned at Talbot Memorial Bridge instead.

The idea that the proximity of the pedestrian bridge is an open invitation for users of Dublin bikes to cycle across it is about as reasonable as suggesting that the proximity of Grafton Street to traffic driving past Trinity is an open invitation for motorists to use it as a shortcut to the Stephen's Green car park. At least cyclists have an easy option - just walk across the bridge with the bike, it's not exactly a hardship.

As for Sean O'Casey Bridge being intended as a cycle route, I find that hard to believe unless the original design was very different from what exists now. For a start it's too narrow to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians.

alexanderomahon

Doozerie / you have your opinion on how people think and I have mine Watch the bridge and the station and see how many people push their bike over it. For me
planning and joined up thinking should deal with the reality of how people behave. Why not make the bridge cycle friendly? Why not allow bikes use it? What is your problem with this idea?

doozerie

alexanderomahon wrote: »

Doozerie / you have your opinion on how people think and I have mine Watch the bridge and the station and see how many people push their bike over it. For me
planning and joined up thinking should deal with the reality of how people behave. Why not make the bridge cycle friendly? Why not allow bikes use it? What is your problem with this idea?

I see people behaving oddly every day. I see motorists double parking or parking in cycle lanes, I see people on bikes cycling the wrong way up one-way streets, I see pedestrians walk in front of traffic in the full expectation that it'll stop to accommodate them, etc. etc. Yerra feck it, leave them at it, sure it's far more convenient for them and expecting them to do otherwise is clearly inconsiderate.

Joined up thinking is all well and good but even the best planning in the world doesn't stand up well to those whose actions take no account of others so somebody still ends up being pissed on - in this case cycling on that bridge imposes on the pedestrians. Try it as a pedestrian and see how much fun it is to have the particularly obnoxious of the bike riders shove past you. Try it with a small child in tow if you want yet another perspective.

For my part I don't understand why you have such a difficulty with the idea of walking a bike across the bridge - think of it as training for cyclocross, throw the bike up on your shoulder and sprint across, to admiring glances from the pedestrians.

alexanderomahon

pushed my DB over the bridge plenty of times doozie. Just think it should be designed/adapted for use by pedestrians and cyclists Think we can agree to differ on this because I don't see any meeting of minds happening.

alexanderomahon

Councillor Kieran Binchy has been pushed for improvements on the bridge and sent me this reply recently to how things were progressing.

I've been fobbed off a bit on this (I've brought it up twice now) but will continue - I'm pushing for better cycling infrastructure in the city, and would like to see a cycle lane on the bridge as I think that the current situation of a large number of cyclists using it despite it officially being pedestrianised is a recipe for an accident, but the fairest thing to do is not to just clamp down on the illegal cycling but to first provide a safe alternative. (Incidentally, if you cycle in that area you might be interested to know that I am also looking to have the north and south dockland cycle paths clearly marked as the amount of pedestrians using them is making them very dangerous).

I'll check my files over the weekend to see if there is anything substantial in the responses I've received and if so will send them on. If not I will continue to raise the matter and let you know how I get on.