Beckett Bridge shambles

tomasrojo

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Back to hiding behind standards again. Who cares what OUR national standards are? They're complete crap anyway.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

The Minister finds them adequate

:rolleyes:

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

tomasrojo

On the point of signage, the cyclists groups are correct: the shared-use sign is not included in any regulations. It's a UK sign that councils and local authorities started using here without incorporating it into our regulations.



According to that article, they are going to introduce the sign to the regulations, about a decade after they started using it.

The law explicitly forbids cycling on the footpath without a Cycle Track being present. A Cycle Track is defined by having one of these two signs:





So, strictly speaking, the cycling groups are correct as things currently stand. You can't make something legal just by saying "We, the local authorities made it, so it's legal." You have to use what's in the regulations.

Chips Lovell

The doctrine of ministerial infallibility?

Anyway, Dempsay did not say he found them adequate, but issued a no comment and an acknowledgement that many facilities are substandard.

TimAllen

The substantive point I was making (before some started side tracking it with their usual and boring efforts to discredit and chastise) was that this kind of whingeing in public by cycling lobbyists is counter productive to achieving results.
I am quite confident that the Minister will see the disparate groups that represent cyclists as being impossible to please and will pay lip service to them but not take them too seriously. Maybe put in some cycle tracks and then stop listening to the clamour of whingeing from lobbyists who seem to in my opinion want:
More cycle tracks
Less cycle tracks
Get rid of cycle tracks
Better cycle tracks
Continuity cycle tracks
Real cycle tracks
I cant believe its not a cycle track
Cycle tracks that give cyclists right of way everywhere
Get rid of the mandatory use of cycle tracks
Less traffic
More cyclists
Less cyclists (because they hate each other anyways, going too fast, going too slow, stopping at red lights, jumping red lights)
More testing of drivers
More testing of cyclists
Continued non testing of cyclists
Yep, the cycling lobby is the one to be listening to as a Minister and taking serious - if you want a headache!:eek:

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

(before some started side tracking it with their usual and boring efforts to discredit and chastise)

before some started pointing out your inability to read an article.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

I am quite confident that the Minister will see the disparate groups that represent cyclists as being impossible to please and will pay lip service to them but not take them too seriously.

You're quite wrong on that. The Cycling frame work document that the government released was a topic for discussion at a Dublin Cycling Campaign meeting during the summer. They regarded the document so good they have fully endorsed it. So the Minister and the Dublin Dycling Campaign are in agreement about how cycling policy and infrastructure should be laid out for the future. In fact all parties have endorsed the document except Fine gael(who plan to issue their own). But once again maybe your mind reading skill are better than your article and fuel gauge reading skills and you know the minister better.

It is the implementation of the framework and policies laid down where the problem has occurred in this instance.

TimAllen wrote: »

Maybe put in some cycle tracks and then stop listening to the clamour of whingeing from lobbyists who seem to in my opinion want:

As far as I know there is only one large cycling lobby group for Dublin City and thats the Dublin Cycling Campaign. Maybe you are taking the disaparate views of people who post on here and confusing them as lobby groups. In fact the only group refferred to the article is the Dublin Cycling campaign. There are a few smaller groups (Skerries Cycling Initiative, Fingal Safe Cycling Action Group) but they are based in County Dublin and I would doubt their goals are markedly different to the Dublin Cycling Campaign. Neither of these were mentioned in the article as they are not based in the city

Can you name a few of these disparate lobby groups you are referring to?

TimAllen

petethedrummer wrote: »

before some started pointing out your inability to read an article.

Now I remember you. You were going on about some crotch grabbing responses to motorists a few months back. I suggested a more apt handle for you in that context but got into some trouble for it. Right, now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

You have a pro-cycling minister who wishes to make political capital from the improvements he's making for cyclists and it gets thrown back at him on a mainstream Sunday newspaper.

There is no criticism of the minister in the article or the original http://www.dublincycling.com/beckettbridge article. There is criticism of how the cycling infrastructure is implemented on the bridge which is a criticism of the engineers involved and Dublin City council.

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

Now I remember you. You were going on about some crotch grabbing responses to motorists a few months back. I suggested a more apt handle for you in that context but got into some trouble for it. Right, now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

that was me. hello. you said i might end up on a sex offenders register. i haven't....yet.

I'd also like to point out a slight error I made earlier. Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie is also quoted in the article. But he is the former chairman of the Dublin Cycling Campaign so he can't be considered a disparate view. And Cyclist.ie is the umbrella group for all the other cycling campaigns in Ireland, so another reason why he is not a disparate voice. http://cyclist.ie/

petethedrummer

TimAllen wrote: »

Now that I know how you keep your hands warm on these cold mornings, go on, enlighten me on your solution to the bridge.

So you have now moved the debate so far, you want me to propose solutions to the bridge?

The solution is simple. No cycle lanes and just ride on the road, easier, safer, better.

Was looking at the pics in the vintage cycling pics thread, and noticed how many cyclists there were on the streets, and how completley unconcerned they were by the lack of cycle lanes.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

The solution is simple. No cycle lanes and just ride on the road, easier, safer, better.

That's what James Leahy is alluding to when he says:

The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list.

The new policy is supposed to be to examine every possible alternative before putting in a cycle lane. For reasons that are obvious to most people who post here, I think.

tomasrojo

If the road engineers want to try out something new (for them), they could take away part of the very wide footpath and create an extra-wide bus lane. That way bikes and buses can share the same lane, both able to overtake the other without leaving the lane. I'd be very happy with that.

Failing that, I'd be happy enough to share a standard bus lane with them. I am not going to use that shared-use thing.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

If the road engineers want to try out something new (for them), they could take away part of the very wide footpath and create an extra-wide bus lane. That way bikes and buses can share the same lane, both able to overtake the other without leaving the lane. I'd be very happy with that.

That's what I'd prefer myself.

Victor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

Cyclists deem new bridge ‘dangerous’
Sarah McInerney

Dublin’s new Samuel Beckett bridge, which will form part of the government’s €10m cross-city cycle route, has been described as “dangerous, unusable and unacceptable” by a cycling lobby group.

The landmark €60m piece of infrastructure, which opened last week, is an integral part of a circuit that will link Rathmines and Fairview Park. When launching the 7km route in September, Noel Dempsey, the transport minister, said it would “open up the city” to cyclists and show that “cycling can be safe for everyone”.

However, the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after testing the course that the cycle lanes are of insufficient width and in some cases put cyclists in danger. The group also claims that many lanes stop without warning and much of the signage appears to be illegal.

“It’s just not usable,” said James Leahy, who tested the route for the cycling body. “You cannot use it safely or without breaking the law. This is meant to be a new flagship phase in cycle routes for the next generation, but in this case they have just repeated all the same mistakes of the past.”

Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie, an umbrella group for Irish cycling campaigns, said the design of the facilities suggests they were an afterthought. “I suspect that when the bridge was designed it had no cycle lanes, and then last year Dempsey gave the city council €10m for the cycle route across the city,” he said.

“At that point it was too late. They couldn’t make the bridge wider, so they just put lanes in willy nilly wherever they could find the space. It really makes us despair. The engineers in Dublin city council just don’t get things right for cyclists.”

Leahy claimed the cycle lane on the east side of the bridge leads directly into oncoming traffic. The one on the west side has a “a very narrow cycle track on the footpath” which turns sharply on to the road, he added.

“These particular instances are actually quite dangerous,” Leahy said. “It would have been much better for the council not to draw out any cycle lanes and leave cyclists on the road.”

In a number of instances, the council has erected signs directing cyclists on to the footpath, which Leahy believes may be against the law.

“It is illegal to cycle on footpaths unless there is a designated cycle lane, and on one side of the bridge, there’s no cycle lane,” he said. “It’s meant to be a ‘shared space’ but that only works in an area where pedestrians and cyclists are taking their time. This is a commuter route where cyclists are likely to be going at high speed. This signage also is not in the Traffic Signs Regulations, so I would question its legality.”

Leahy said that even if the design does not break the rules, it is still unsuitable for cyclists to be on the pavement. “We’re constantly hearing calls from pedestrian groups to get us off the path, and we agree,” he said. “For elderly people it’s disconcerting to have cyclists zipping past in a blur, and it’s also been a big issue for the blind.”

Fionnuala Murphy, communications officer for the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, said the group is opposed to having cyclists on the pavement. “If you’re trying to navigate the city with a guide dog or a cane, it already takes a lot of concentration,” she said. “Trying to be aware of people flying past you at high speed just adds to the difficulty.”

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge but admitted there were substandard cycling facilities in urban areas. “One of the reasons I published Ireland’s first national cycle policy in April was because I recognised there were so many problems to be addressed before we could have a cycling culture,” he said.

Leahy and McKillen praised the principles set out in the policy, but said they were not in evidence on the bridge. “The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list,” Leahy said.

amacachi

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

penexpers

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

I constantly get 404's from it too.

blorg

amacachi wrote: »

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

I often get 404s, I think it is related to Opera.

404s? Where? I want a pair.:p

blorg

Deleted User wrote: »

404s? Where? I want a pair.:p

Here you go, I got a pair, he may still have some

ba

i agree that most of the cycling infrastructure surrounding the samuel beckett bridge is a shambles (as evidenced by the linked article) but the cycle lanes on the bridge seem to function fine. the engineer ( santiago calatrava) has left ample room on either side for the bridge for the circulation of pedestrians and cyclists as distinct from road users. as for the author of that lengthy report on cycle lanes... get a life mate.

i also agree with el tonto, just get on with it and cycle.

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

Bunnyhopper

ba wrote: »

i agree that most of the cycling infrastructure surrounding the samuel beckett bridge is a shambles (as evidenced by the linked article) but the cycle lanes on the bridge seem to function fine. the engineer ( santiago calatrava) has left ample room on either side for the bridge for the circulation of pedestrians and cyclists as distinct from road users. as for the author of that lengthy report on cycle lanes... get a life mate.

i also agree with el tonto, just get on with it and cycle.

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

It's still shambolic, however wide those lanes are. It simply doesn't function fine unless you ignore all of the signage, road markings, etc., etc., etc. (Ignoring the law, while you're at it.) All the things wrong with it are still wrong whether the lanes are wide or not and I think the author of the lengthy report on it is damn right to point out how shambolic it is.

This is a bridge that was touted as "an important pedestrian and cycle crossing facility", has had €59,950,000 of public money spent on it, and yet is still a shambles from a cyclist's point of view. To shrug our shoulders and say, 'Sure ignore it and it'll be grand' would be a typical Irish response of the sort that's been letting local authorities and central government get away with this kind of wasteful nonsense for years.

Saw some Council lads changing the signs from the cycleway sign to a buslane one there on the north quays. Was in a car so don't have pics or something.

dave.obrien

ba wrote: »

personally i hate that bridge and all of Calatravas work.

Down in front!!!

I actually agree with you on part of this, I think a lot of his buildings are rubbish, but his bridges are ok, no?! What about this one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2723670654_11e48c7c4a.jpg

Or this one:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_K72O_1efmX0/R5uwxVS3rrI/AAAAAAAAAGU/DSvNs9u1-9E/s320/Puerto+Modero+-+The+Woman+Walking+Bridge+-+Buenos+Aires+-+compressed.JPG

Wait a second, am I spotting a theme...

I have to say though that there seems to be a lot of disparate requests from cycling lobbyists: do we want totally segregated special lanes and junctions, or equal status on existing roads, with perhaps better driver-cyclist education? If we want them to be better educated in their tests about cyclists, should we not have to prove that we are capable of using the roads with them there too? Why aren't errant cyclists suffering the same level of punitive measures that their equivalent drivers are? If a driver drives on the footpath, he is a criminal, if a cyclist cycles on the footpath, why is he just a d1ckhead?

petethedrummer

I think the general view from the cycling lobby groups is:

1. Ideally there should be no need for cycle lanes.
2. If there must be cycle lanes they should be done properly.
3. Stop making criminals of us for not using the existing sh!t cycling facilities.

blorg

Cycle tracks can be useful for families with kids or anyone pootling along at a gentle pace. Cross country ones can be quite nice for touring cyclists if there are long distances between junctions. The UK government recognises this and recommends that faster cyclists not use them but stay on the road instead. I don't mind them being there if they are in good condition and not compulsory.

dave.obrien

I agree with that view completely. I just find it confusing when I hear about the various expectations of cycling lobby groups, which at times seem to run contrary to each other. Like the demand for sufficiently wide cycle paths that don't start in the middle of the footpath would be negated by the simple provision that we are allowed the choice not to use those facilities and can instead cycle on the road, which is a very do-able around there.

I realise that's more or less just what you said, but this Leahy character had an awful lot to say on top of that, and as someone sad earlier, pointing out every flaw in a plan made by a bunch of traffic engineers to one of the few councilors with a genuine interest in cycling matters as if it was his fault might over time be perceived as belly-aching, and might frustrate him to the point of apathy.

In summary, Calatrava's bridges all look the same, and us cyclists should be allowed to use the road, which would render all those stupid 75m bike lanes a cute antiquated relic of a less enlightened previous civilisation.

But mostly Calatrava's bridges all look the same.




EDIT: Good point Blorg, they are handy for families, my uncle takes his son(8) and all the young fella's in their estate for a Snday morning bike path spin in Kilboggit Park, there'll be a new Cabinteely CC yet...

petethedrummer

dave.obrien wrote: »

I agree with that view completely. I just find it confusing when I hear about the various expectations of cycling lobby groups, which at times seem to run contrary to each other. Like the demand for sufficiently wide cycle paths that don't start in the middle of the footpath would be negated by the simple provision that we are allowed the choice not to use those facilities and can instead cycle on the road, which is a very do-able around there.

As was pointed out to TimAllen previously in this thread, there aren't a whole load of cycling lobby groups. There is 1 covering the area where this bridge is located, Dublin Cycling Campaign.

dave.obrien wrote: »

I realise that's more or less just what you said, but this Leahy character had an awful lot to say on top of that, and as someone sad earlier, pointing out every flaw in a plan made by a bunch of traffic engineers to one of the few councilors with a genuine interest in cycling matters as if it was his fault might over time be perceived as belly-aching, and might frustrate him to the point of apathy.

1. I don't know if you have ever been involved in an engineering project but pointing out flaws before, during and after a project is how things get done properly and how lessons are learned for future projects. In fact any engineer worth his salt would want his work rigorously reviewed.

2. Who is Leahy? and when did he single out Cllr Montague?

dave.obrien

petethedrummer wrote: »

As was pointed out to TimAllen previously in this thread, there aren't a whole load of cycling lobby groups. There is 1 covering the area where this bridge is located, Dublin Cycling Campaign.



1. I don't know if you have ever been involved in an engineering project but pointing out flaws before, during and after a project is how things get done properly and how lessons are learned for future projects. In fact any engineer worth his salt would want his work rigorously reviewed.

2. Who is Leahy? and when did he single out Cllr Montague?

To the first point, fair enough, I don't know enough about the topic, but I do seem to hear/read numerous different requests which at times seem to be easier to summarise as you did earlier, with ideally no need for separate infrastructure; if needed, make it work; don't victimise us for using our own intelligence. The requests from the cycling lobby often seem to be far more complex and confusing than necessary.

And yes, I have been involved in many engineering projects. I am of the opinion that as many flaws as identified and designed through as possible, the better the project will be. The flaws identified and after are far more difficult to deal with, and more often than not impossible to deal with in a manner that is as efficient, intelligent and thorough than the result would be had it been identified at the design stage. Retrofitting something is never as efficient as getting it right in the first place, but that does not relieve one of the duty to try to make up for the mistakes that were made. These flaws sure do provide one with very worthy lessons for later projects, but that doesn't change the inherent difficulty posed by the original "lesson", which in this case is a major, and expensive, piece of infrastructure of national importance.

James Leahy is the Leahy to whom I was referring, but I take your point, nowhere can I identify any point where he singles out Cllr Montague.