Mass cycle down the southside quays

Húrin

In the thread about the cyclist killed on the quays on tuesday morning, some posters suggested temporary occupations of all lanes of the south side quays for a go-slow cycle.

Trucks, cyclists and multitudes of pedestrians cannot safely share a road of this kind.

Some trucks chance their arm driving into town without a permit, and many five-axle trucks transform into "four-axle trucks" merely by lifting the fifth axle off the ground, and sneak around the law that way.

Additionally, getting a permit to drive a large truck into town is as easy as going on the City Council's website and paying the €7 to do so.


It is not acceptable that such a major route as used by all types of traffic be considered dangerous for cyclists. I'm normally not a fan of critical mass type actions but in this location I think it is a legitimate tactic to command attention to this lethal motorised culture.

Thus I am using this thread to check the temperature, i.e. would people be interested in such an action? The occurrence of car-free day next Tuesday presents a suitable time to do this.

Profiler

Interesting suggestion, I would be interested in some form of a protest or awareness heightening.

That being said I would say that it would be vital to let the Gardai know because the last thing that an attempt to raise awareness needs is for someone to get arrested and give the press the excuse they need to miss the whole point.

DualFrontDiscs

Húrin wrote: »

The occurrence of car-free day next Tuesday presents a suitable time to do this.

+1

stopped_clock

I'd also inform the family of the man who was killed. They may or may not wish him to be associated with what could be seen as a political action.

In order to achieve anything, I also think any action should somehow include some element of communicating to drivers exactly what the dangers to cyclists are (flyers or something?). If it's just another case of cyclists holding up traffic or being antagonistic ala some CM rides then I don't see the point (respectfully).

Húrin

Profiler wrote: »

Interesting suggestion, I would be interested in some form of a protest or awareness heightening.

That being said I would say that it would be vital to let the Gardai know because the last thing that an attempt to raise awareness needs is for someone to get arrested and give the press the excuse they need to miss the whole point.

You can't tell the Gardai. They'll deny permission and then when you go and do it they'll be expecting it and come down twice as hard as they would otherwise. Contrary to popular belief the Gardai give warning before they arrest. If you obey them, you don't get arrested.

That said, I think that an arrest or three would be great for publicity and I don't think it would distract from what is really a simple and obvious message. Of course I wouldn't insist than anyone put themselves on the line!

stopped_clock wrote: »

I'd also inform the family of the man who was killed. They may or may not wish him to be associated with what could be seen as a political action.

I don't see why. It's not meant to be a memorial ceremony. He wouldn't be directly mentioned in any press release.

In order to achieve anything, I also think any action should somehow include some element of communicating to drivers exactly what the dangers to cyclists are (flyers or something?). If it's just another case of cyclists holding up traffic or being antagonistic ala some CM rides then I don't see the point (respectfully).

I think the purpose of this is to send a message to the City Council about that dangerous stretch of road, not communicating to drivers. People driving cars are not much of a threat to cyclists IMO.

stopped_clock

Húrin wrote: »

You can't tell the Gardai. They'll deny permission and then when you go and do it they'll be expecting it and come down twice as hard as they would otherwise. Contrary to popular belief the Gardai give warning before they arrest. If you obey them, you don't get arrested.

That said, I think that an arrest or three would be great for publicity and I don't think it would distract from what is really a simple and obvious message. Of course I wouldn't insist than anyone put themselves on the line!

I don't mean to come across as being all negative, but the message might not be simple and obvious to people who stumble across the ride unexpectedly, particularly if they're held up by it.

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see why. It's not meant to be a memorial ceremony. He wouldn't be directly mentioned in any press release.

Fair enough, but some posts in the other thread mentioned such a cycle explicitly as a memorial, and it would be publicising the danger of the route on which the man was killed, so it's not unreasonable for the family in particular to see the connection, and maybe they'd appreciate being informed.

Húrin wrote: »

I think the purpose of this is to send a message to the City Council about that dangerous stretch of road, not communicating to drivers. People driving cars are not much of a threat to cyclists IMO.

It's a chicken and egg situation though surely - if there were no drivers involved, the City Council wouldn't need to do anything about the road. It'll also be the drivers who will be directly affected and who may become irate with cyclists as a result of a go slow. I'd actually meant lorry drivers as much as car drivers tbh.

(Note that none of this is meant to imply that I think the driver was to blame for the cyclist's death - I don't know the full facts of that case.)

I don't mean to sound too pro-motor here - I just think events such as these serve as a means for cyclists to vent their frustration which can be counter-productive. Are the Council going to facilitate a group whose members have been arrested for some reason?

I realise you haven't suggested a format for the event, nor have you suggested civil disobedience - just trying to be constructive.

Gavin

Húrin wrote: »

I think the purpose of this is to send a message to the City Council about that dangerous stretch of road, not communicating to drivers. People driving cars are not much of a threat to cyclists IMO.

What other methods have you used to to communicate this message to the City Council ? Have you contacted your councillors ? Have you contacted your TDs ? Have you contacted the media ?

Before inconveniencing a large number of people trying to get home after a long days work, perhaps you should exhaust all other possibilities.

Jawgap

Gavin wrote: »

What other methods have you used to to communicate this message to the City Council ? Have you contacted your councillors ? Have you contacted your TDs ? Have you contacted the media ?

Before inconveniencing a large number of people trying to get home after a long days work, perhaps you should exhaust all other possibilities.

I would tend to agree with Gavin on this one.

Normally, I'd be well up for a bit of argy-bargy, but this may be too much too soon - I think all that will happen is that a lot of people will be seriously pi$$ed of and the miss the point completely. An action such as proposed runs a high risk of backfiring, imo.

A better tack might be to compile a list of questions and see if some friendly (Green??) TD might be willing to ask of the relevant ministers, for example,

• Asking the minister for justice (or it might have to go to Environment) to provide details of the numbers of HGVs prosecuted in Dublin for breaching the 5 axle ban.
• Asking the minister for transport what actions / projects are being undertaken by the RSA to promote cyclists' safety across the state
• etc
• etc

It's quite unglamourous and bureaucratic, but quite often more change is secured by chipping away at the problem rather than going in with a big bang approach.

mloc123

hmmm yes... get a couple of hundred pobs not used to cycling in a group out on the quays during rush hour traffic, thats not gonna cause more accidents...

flickerx

I think this ride is a good idea, go for it. Definitely.

Writing letters, lobbying politicians, contacting media etc can be good, but sometimes its also good to be visible on the streets and come together as a group, especially when someone is killed, to mark the death, but also to let us know that we're all looking out for each other. The ride shouldnt be the last thing to be done, it should be the first thing to be done, and then people can talk in real life with each other about possible ways to prevent it happening again. The internet is useful but its also alienating at times.

The ride doesnt have to go at a snail's pace, drivers would only be inconvenienced briefly, probably not much more than usual with traffic anyway. Someone was killed, I think that people will understand.

flickerx

Jawgap wrote: »

A better tack might be to

Why is one better than the other?
Why can both things not happen?
They are not mutually exclusive.

I think that both things can be done.
People who feel that a real life, cycle ride to mark the death of a cyclist should happen can do this, and others who think that lobbying politicians will be effective can do this too.

I wouldnt rag on people who decide to organise a group ride.
More power to them for doing something visible and something that brings people together in the real world, instead of being disconnected.

Lumen

I've read (and inadvisedly contributed to) the thread on the cyclist death, and I still don't really understand what this go-slow is about, so there's absolutely no chance that drivers will.

You're more likely to get cyclists banned from the quays than trucks.

If (as suggested by some) there is significant truck traffic servicing the Guinness site, you're up against one of the few functioning export-led businesses in the country.

The headlines in my head don't look good.

Jawgap

flickerx wrote: »

Why is one better than the other?
Why can both things not happen?
They are not mutually exclusive.

I think that both things can be done.
People who feel that a real life, cycle ride to mark the death of a cyclist should happen can do this, and others who think that lobbying politicians will be effective can do this too.

I wouldnt rag on people who decide to organise a group ride.
More power to them for doing something visible and something that brings people together in the real world, instead of being disconnected.

I think a mass cycle is too antagonistic as a starting point and likely to lead to the people you're tryng to influence retreating to their trenches and hiding behind the law.

Just my opinion, but working in an organisation that reguarly has to deal with protesting groups, I find those groups that don't go "balls-to-the-wall" with protest action tend to do worse than those who build up their momentum gradually - they certainly come across as more reasoned or logical.

Something like a mass cycle, I think has more credibility if the participants can say "Look we tried everything else and no one's listening or taking action so we've had to resort to this."

tunney

can we find the route that morlar drives to work and do the go slow on that?

Carb

I've seen this form of rally mentioned a couple of times and the proposal seems to be for 5.30 in the evening. The only point I would make is if people feel that an event such as this is appropriate, why rush hour in the evening. Taxi drivers even keep their protests to lunchtime/afternoon. The idea is to get a message across, not piss people off.

Jip

I'll echo that rush hour would not be an ideal time to do it, lunch time would be much more appropriate. Plus people will have more time for you to find out what it's all about. Whereas in the evenings most people just want to get out of the city centre as quick as possible.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

I've read (and inadvisedly contributed to) the thread on the cyclist death, and I still don't really understand what this go-slow is about, so there's absolutely no chance that drivers will.

You're more likely to get cyclists banned from the quays than trucks.

If (as suggested by some) there is significant truck traffic servicing the Guinness site, you're up against one of the few functioning export-led businesses in the country.

The headlines in my head don't look good.

I agree 100% with your post Lumen. The quick fix here is to ban cyclists from the quays and such a protest cycle might just lead to a ban.
What do you want the protest to achieve? The vulnerability of cyclists? If so, that has been achieved through the death of that unfortunate cyclist.
Lets get the facts of this case straight before protesting - remember the death of the Chinese cyclist on the southside (cant remember the location)!

A lot of people might argue that trucks are a necessary road user at that point (not just Guinness trucks) as its a major route out of the city and that 100% safety for cyclists versus trucks/lorries is impossible and that safety is best achieved by taking cyclists of that route!

Lumen

Oh noes.

mloc123

oh noes is right, not even Friday yet..

flickerx

TimAllen wrote: »

The quick fix here is to ban cyclists from the quays and such a protest cycle might just lead to a ban.

Nonsense. You dont actually believe that, do you.

This group ride will probably last about 20 minutes. These rides seem to happen once every six months or so after a cyclist dies. For the other 262,060 minutes in those six months, the motorists occupy prime space on the roads. For 20 minutes, they should learn to share the space with a group of cyclists. They can deal with the inconvenience - us cyclists deal with the inconvenience of cars potentially killing us as they travel in groups for those other 262,060 minutes of the six months.

Jawgap wrote: »

Something like a mass cycle, I think has more credibility if the participants can say "Look we tried everything else and no one's listening or taking action so we've had to resort to this."

I've tried everything else, no one is listening or taking action so I've had to resort to this.

blorg

@flickerx- you do not reason with TimAllen. noob

Jumpy

*gruntgruntgruntgrunt*

Poncherello

I'll come out but I doubt you will get much of a turnout.

After NAMA I have lost all faith in the Irish people standing up for anything

stopped_clock

To be fair, the OP hasn't suggested a format or time for the event, or even that it be a go-slow.

@TimAllen: I think one aim of the event may be to highlight the ease with which the 5-axle ban can be circumvented. While the quays are a major route out of the city, the port tunnel is supposed to be the route out of the city for lorries coming from the port. If it's the case (for example) that it's as easy to get a permit to drive through the city centre as it is to pay the toll, and as a consequence lorry traffic increases the dangers to cyclists then that's something worth publicising.

stopped_clock

blorg wrote: »

@flickerx- you do not reason with TimAllen. noob

I need to learn how to post more quickly.

Jumpy

blorg wrote: »

(I don't know quite why I am doing this...)

I have a vague recollection that €750 million was spent on something or other specifically to ensure that trucks would NOT need to use the quays to get out of the city, can't for the life of me remember what it was though... some sort of inverted bridge maybe.

ITS A TUNNEL YOU FOOL.


oh... oh now I see what you did there.

*chuckle*

TimAllen

stopped_clock wrote: »

To be fair, the OP hasn't suggested a format or time for the event, or even that it be a go-slow.

@TimAllen: I think one aim of the event may be to highlight the ease with which the 5-axle ban can be circumvented. While the quays are a major route out of the city, the port tunnel is supposed to be the route out of the city for lorries coming from the port. If it's the case (for example) that it's as easy to get a permit to drive through the city centre as it is to pay the toll, and as a consequence lorry traffic increases the dangers to cyclists then that's something worth publicising.

So, was the lorry in question a 5 axle, coming from the port, that should have used the tunnel (or "inverted bridge" as blorg prefers)? You seem to know far more about the circumstances here than I thought. Please enlighten us all.

stopped_clock

TimAllen wrote: »

So, was the lorry in question a 5 axle, coming from the port, that should have used the tunnel (or "inverted bridge" as blorg prefers)? You seem to know far more about the circumstances here than I thought. Please enlighten us all.

No idea - as I've said anywhere it's relevant, I know very little about the facts of the case. This thread isn't really about the fatal accident this week though, it's about the merits of a protest cycle highlighting dangers to traffic along the quays.

You questioned what such a protest would seek to achieve. Since the OP had mentioned the trucks driving into town without a permit, I merely suggested publicising this as one possible aim of the protest.

CheGuedara

1. Who said his name three times? - remember the rule

2. Life is easier like this

TimAllen

stopped_clock wrote: »

No idea - as I've said anywhere it's relevant, I know very little about the facts of the case. This thread isn't really about the fatal accident this week though, it's about the merits of a protest cycle highlighting dangers to traffic along the quays.

You questioned what such a protest would seek to achieve. Since the OP had mentioned the trucks driving into town without a permit, I merely suggested publicising this as one possible aim of the protest.

So highlighting the dangers of cycling down the quays by cycling down the quays ... not sure about the logic of that.

Trucks driving into town without a permit - dont know what proof you have on that but really the undertone here is a protest at having trucks in the city at all - there will always be a need for trucks and HGV's in the city so I dont see what the protest will achieve except the ire of motorists

Húrin

stopped_clock wrote: »

I don't mean to come across as being all negative, but the message might not be simple and obvious to people who stumble across the ride unexpectedly, particularly if they're held up by it.

In which case a banner addressing Dublin City Council might be in order.

It's a chicken and egg situation though surely - if there were no drivers involved, the City Council wouldn't need to do anything about the road. It'll also be the drivers who will be directly affected and who may become irate with cyclists as a result of a go slow. I'd actually meant lorry drivers as much as car drivers tbh.

The design of the road makes accidents inevitable. It isn't the fault of drivers.

I don't mean to sound too pro-motor here - I just think events such as these serve as a means for cyclists to vent their frustration which can be counter-productive. Are the Council going to facilitate a group whose members have been arrested for some reason?

I realise you haven't suggested a format for the event, nor have you suggested civil disobedience - just trying to be constructive.

I am suggesting civil disobedience, because it has worked before as a protest technique.

Jawgap wrote: »

I would tend to agree with Gavin on this one.

Normally, I'd be well up for a bit of argy-bargy, but this may be too much too soon - I think all that will happen is that a lot of people will be seriously pi$$ed of and the miss the point completely. An action such as proposed runs a high risk of backfiring, imo.

A better tack might be to compile a list of questions and see if some friendly (Green??) TD might be willing to ask of the relevant ministers, for example,

It's quite unglamourous and bureaucratic, but quite often more change is secured by chipping away at the problem rather than going in with a big bang approach.

The Dublin Cycling Campaign works this way and they are doing a fine job. I would see the kind of protest I am suggesting as complementing their job, not competing with them.

Lumen wrote: »

I've read (and inadvisedly contributed to) the thread on the cyclist death, and I still don't really understand what this go-slow is about, so there's absolutely no chance that drivers will.

You're more likely to get cyclists banned from the quays than trucks.

If (as suggested by some) there is significant truck traffic servicing the Guinness site, you're up against one of the few functioning export-led businesses in the country.

The headlines in my head don't look good.

Good point about Guinness but I neither expect nor want trucks to be banned from the quays. It is legally impossible to ban cyclists from a stretch of road without designating it a motorway AFAIK.

Jawgap wrote: »

Just my opinion, but working in an organisation that reguarly has to deal with protesting groups, I find those groups that don't go "balls-to-the-wall" with protest action tend to do worse than those who build up their momentum gradually - they certainly come across as more reasoned or logical.

Something like a mass cycle, I think has more credibility if the participants can say "Look we tried everything else and no one's listening or taking action so we've had to resort to this."

This wouldn't be the beginning of cycling activism in Dublin. This isn't "civil disobedience as a first resort".

I'm not suggesting forming a permanent organisation. Just an ad hoc protest ride. Everything else is being tried already by the Dublin Cycling Campaign and they are having some success, but actions like this are for the purpose of commanding attention to an issue and thus accelerating that success.

TimAllen

CheGuedara wrote: »

1. Who said his name three times? - remember the rule

2. Life is easier like this

Fair play to you Che ... put me on your ignore list then respond to a thread that I am posting on, to tell everybody! Got to love the (il)logic of it!

Guess what I do when someone posts something I dont like and dont want to enagge on - I just ignore the post and or the poster. I dont feel the need to be a tosser and put them on an ignore list and then post same on a thread.A bit schoolboy isnt it:pac:

Húrin

flickerx wrote: »

Nonsense. You dont actually believe that, do you.

This group ride will probably last about 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a very long time in city centre traffic. I would suggest between five and ten minutes.

Lumen wrote: »

Oh noes.

AT this point I'll say that Lumen had some valid points despite Tim's agreement! I would like to see a segregated cycle lane on both sides of the south side quays. That way it would be safer to share with trucks.

Chips Lovell

I'm still not sure what you're protesting, or proposting to protest against.

ROK ON

Firstly the OP has a right to a civil protest, and fair play to him for at least wanting to do something.

I would personally not protest.

I use the sth quays daily on my commute home. True it is dangerous, but you can make it safer as a cyclist. I travel in the outer (riverside lane) as there are rarely busses and trucks in this lane.
Also btween OConnell bridge and Capel St bridge I cycle in the middle of the lane and do not go up the side. That way vehicles see me and I am part of the traffic flow rather than skirting around other traffic. I do not believe that this inconveniences car traffic behind, as at rushhour and with traffic lights we are all going at very low speeds.

I think more cyclists should do this for areas of road that are bottlenecks. Or else just avoid that road.
Also, Dublin is an old city. The quays were not ever meant for the vol of traffic on them.

biomed32

i dont think the cycle is going to work at this point in time, just going on general reactions, we could instead set up a petition to dublin corporation on the need for a better road structure for cyclists and highlighting the current situation with trucks and what not.

i would also try to get in contact with the minister of transport and highlight the dangers too, and get the green party involved as it was pretty much their idea about the bike scheme or so im led to believe.

we also need to get out on the streets and hand out flyiers and posters and educate the people. i think the main issue here is the attitudes of a majority of drivers towards cyclists and its their actions that are putting us at risk

Lumen

biomed32 wrote: »

we could instead set up a petition to dublin corporation on the need for a better road structure for cyclists

Like what?

The south quays would be less scary without all the bus/HGV leapfrogging. But then we have buses to thank for the north quays being so easy.

Whilst intelligent road engineering unarguably reduces casualties, I don't know that it's possible to make a general case for cyclist specific improvements which wouldn't annoy either the pro- or the anti-segregationists. Apart from really badly designed cycle lanes, which nobody likes.

Some stretches of road are just best avoided by slow/inexperienced/unskilled cyclists.

TimAllen

biomed32 wrote: »

i think the main issue here is the attitudes of a majority of drivers towards cyclists and its their actions that are putting us at risk

Hold on. Where did you get your evidence of the attitude of the majority of motorists?????
And their actions putting "us" at risk??? All traffic must share the road and by sharing that includes the risks.
I perceive a continued undercurrent of blaming motorists here. While it is tragic for anyone to lose their life on the roads, one cannot assume that motorists are 100% at fault or that their actions are deliberate (as otherwise your point on drivers actions putting "us" at risk implies that motorists should be allowed to drive on the rods at all [which I assume was not what you meant])

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

Like what?

The south quays would be less scary without all the bus/HGV leapfrogging. But then we have buses to thank for the north quays being so easy.

Whilst intelligent road engineering unarguably reduces casualties, I don't know that it's possible to make a general case for cyclist specific improvements which wouldn't annoy either the pro- or the anti-segregationists. Apart from really badly designed cycle lanes, which nobody likes.

Some stretches of road are just best avoided by slow/inexperienced/unskilled cyclists.

wow, we agree yet again, this is turning into a habit - I'm scared too!:eek:

biomed32

TimAllen wrote: »

Hold on. Where did you get your evidence of the attitude of the majority of motorists?????
And their actions putting "us" at risk??? All traffic must share the road and by sharing that includes the risks.
I perceive a continued undercurrent of blaming motorists here. While it is tragic for anyone to lose their life on the roads, one cannot assume that motorists are 100% at fault or that their actions are deliberate (as otherwise your point on drivers actions putting "us" at risk implies that motorists should be allowed to drive on the rods at all [which I assume was not what you meant])

im not saying that moterists have 100% of the blame but most do drive recklessly and pay no heed to cyclists in general or so i have discovered. cyclists are in part to blame, so there is shared blame. i just find most drivers to be ******* in general with no patients or manners

IM0

Húrin wrote: »

Trucks, cyclists and multitudes of pedestrians cannot safely share a road of this kind.

So find a different route then



or move to Holland or something :pac:

stopped_clock

Húrin wrote: »

The design of the road makes accidents inevitable. It isn't the fault of drivers.

I'd usually say road users have a duty to drive/cycle safely in the conditions they find themselves in, but I agree that the design of the south quays is terrible. I've only ever driven on it, but I particularly enjoy how the lanes switch from side to side at junctions (as one example).

TimAllen wrote: »

Trucks driving into town without a permit - dont know what proof you have on that

I've no proof at all, but then I never said it was happening

TimAllen wrote: »

the undertone here is a protest at having trucks in the city at all - there will always be a need for trucks and HGV's in the city so I dont see what the protest will achieve except the ire of motorists

I don't know if it's been decided/announced what the aims of the protest would be, hence my speculation. I share your concern that other road users would be annoyed and nothing gained.

stopped_clock

biomed32 wrote: »

i just find most drivers to be ******* in general with no patients or manners

Except the ambulance drivers.

Sorry

cosmic

I promised myself I wasn't going to join in but...

i think it's all futile, leaflets, go-slows, petitions. If nothing was done to make this area safer 5 years ago when (in the EXACT same spot) two buses collided and one toppled over, killing 5 people, nothing will be done now. Sad but true.

Haleakala

I originally posted in favour of some sort of action like a go-slow but since I've gathered my thoughts my opinion has changed.

Really the issue is a bad busy road with a mix of traffic modes including HGVs, where cyclists are at greater risk.

Probably a much better idea is to focus on limiting the numbers of HGVs that must enter the city exclusion zone, and on routes where this happens - lobby Cllr, TD, DCC etc. to ensure that steps are taken to inform cyclists/peds, increase segregation, lower speeds, improve road surface etc in these locations.

I think the general reaction from a guy driving home on the quays would be WTF are they at? It probably wouldn't publicise the real issues and would likely incite a bit of cyclist bashing

Raam

cosmic wrote: »

I promised myself I wasn't going to join in but...

i think it's all futile, leaflets, go-slows, petitions. If nothing was done to make this area safer 5 years ago when (in the EXACT same spot) two buses collided and one toppled over, killing 5 people, nothing will be done now. Sad but true.

Bus drivers are now required to switch off their engines while waiting, as far as I know

cosmic

Raam wrote: »

Bus drivers are now required to switch off their engiens while waiting, as far as I know

Because of that incident? Sorry, I stand corrected

Mucco

What do people see as the solution to the dangers of the quays?

Fewer trucks?
30kph speed limit with speed cameras?
There's already a bus lane for most of it

You'd have to be very careful not to end up antagonising people.
I've been on a few critical mass rides in London. It's nice to have the sort of freedom where you don't have to worry about traffic, but they generate a lot of aggro from the motorists caught up in them and don't achieve any sort of 'campaigning' goal.

M

Trojan

I've never been a big fan of disruptive cycling protests. I don't think it sends the correct message at all. We need road user education, not angry drivers.

biomed32

i agree totally with Mucco but still feel something needs to be done to raise awareness and it should be done by the governmnt, they have flooded dublin with 2000 bikes between the velob system and the bike to work scheme with no particular road safety system in place, and no offence to drivers but at times your attitudes can suck towards cyclists for no reason at times

Chips Lovell

Mucco wrote: »

What do people see as the solution to the dangers of the quays?

I think the first step would be to establish what, if any, dangers there are.