Cycle Route - Leixlip to Ballsbridge

GG21057

Anyone know the safest route from Leixlip to Town / Ballsbridge?
I have cycled the Strawberry Beds but find it a pain with all the speed bumps and dangerous with all the local heroes doing speed trials in their souped up sh8tboxes!
I have also tried the N4 which isn't bad though, I'm unsure how to negoitate the M50 roundabout at Palmerstown. I have seen some cyclists in the outside of the M50 north sliproad and entering the roundabout that way - I haven't had the balls to do that as it looks waaaaay dangerous. The alternative is to go over the flyover into Palmerstown village and rejoin the N4 after that - this isn't bad going to work, but coming home is a pain as I have to cross traffic at the Palmerstown lights. Again, this seems preferable to trying to get onto the roundabout crossing M50 South sliproad.
Any suggestions - Am I missing some obvious alternative?

monument

GG21057 wrote: »

Anyone know the safest route from Leixlip to Town / Ballsbridge?

I'll try to help, but I only know part of the route. If you don't get a response here, try posting your question on the cycling board. It's under sports, but covers commuting and all sorts of cycling too.

I have also tried the N4 which isn't bad though, I'm unsure how to negoitate the M50 roundabout at Palmerstown. I have seen some cyclists in the outside of the M50 north sliproad and entering the roundabout that way - I haven't had the balls to do that as it looks waaaaay dangerous. The alternative is to go over the flyover into Palmerstown village and rejoin the N4 after that - this isn't bad going to work, but coming home is a pain as I have to cross traffic at the Palmerstown lights. Again, this seems preferable to trying to get onto the roundabout crossing M50 South sliproad.[/QUOTE]

I actually misread your post first and I'm now guessing you actually do know about the pedestrian and cyclist bridge over the M50. There should be one of these on each side.

Here a suggestion if you want to avoid the N4:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&vps=1&jsv=209c&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105953078489976936384.000480c5099da64fcd6bf

cyclorunner

The quickest and most car free way into the city is along the tow path on the grand canal, from Adamstown to Inchicore and then to Ballsbridge. The County Council have been resurfacing the towpath for the last couple of months, to a fully paved cycle path. It would be worth doing a rece on the route as i'm not sure if they have completed all sections. Let me know how you get on !

monument

cyclorunner wrote: »

The quickest and most car free way into the city is along the tow path on the grand canal, from Adamstown to Inchicore and then to Ballsbridge. The County Council have been resurfacing the towpath for the last couple of months, to a fully paved cycle path. It would be worth doing a rece on the route as i'm not sure if they have completed all sections. Let me know how you get on !

I was going to suggest that but was not sure what parts were complete.

G-Man

[EDITED due to wrong link given]

The cycle path along the canal appears to have long stretches complete, however the security fencing is still in place at many bridges, so if you were able to get on, there is no guarantee you could get off or indeed meet a jobsworth preventing you going through.

However from where you are coming, you could make a route along the lines of Lucan->Liffey valley > wheatfield prison > park west > kylemore road > Jamestown road

Ther are many new road links in around park west, so this link, requires you to use the new roads between C+D, E+F and the bike/ped route between G+H

I travel that way every day, while waiting for the two path to open. There are not that many heavy trucks as you might think and where you are not segregated, the roads are quite wide.

The tow path from inchicore to near rialto is already done.

Sorry the route is a mess, but the new connections I mention are not on google maps, but you can see them on satellite view OK.

take shortcuts between C+D, E+F, G+H

dogmatix

cyclorunner wrote: »

The quickest and most car free way into the city is along the tow path on the grand canal, from Adamstown to Inchicore and then to Ballsbridge. The County Council have been resurfacing the towpath for the last couple of months, to a fully paved cycle path. It would be worth doing a rece on the route as i'm not sure if they have completed all sections. Let me know how you get on !

I tried a recce today - I live in Parkwest. The tow path looks complete from the M50 to the Kileen road but you can't get down there from Parkwest. Got onto the Tow path at Killeen road but the the path before and after the kylemore road bridge is a huge mess with rocks, lumps of concrete and loads of mud. Still a way to go before this route is open - so much for the January 2010 opening date! From Davitt road on its fine.

Ham'nd'egger

dogmatix wrote: »

I tried a recce today - I live in Parkwest. The tow path looks complete from the M50 to the Kileen road but you can't get down there from Parkwest. Got onto the Tow path at Killeen road but the the path before and after the kylemore road bridge is a huge mess with rocks, lumps of concrete and loads of mud. Still a way to go before this route is open - so much for the January 2010 opening date! From Davitt road on its fine.

There is a cycle path and bus lane along the length of Grange Cross and the New Nangor Road towards Dolphins Barn. There is also a cycle path on the canal and it's a fairly straight route.

Dubluc

GG21057 wrote: »

The alternative is to go over the flyover into Palmerstown village and rejoin the N4 after that - this isn't bad going to work, but coming home is a pain as I have to cross traffic at the Palmerstown lights. Again, this seems preferable to trying to get onto the roundabout crossing M50 South sliproad.

I don't want to sound condecending but this isn't an alternative as you state.

It's actually the law for a cyclist to use a cycle lane where it's provided.

I would agree it's definitely preferable to getting onto the M50 junction. It's scary driving along when cyclists try to do this manoveure in front of you and expect you to suddenly creat room out of nowhere.

monument

Dubluc wrote: »

I don't want to sound condecending but this isn't an alternative as you state.

It's actually the law for a cyclist to use a cycle lane where it's provided.

Can mandatory use really apply heading away from town when you can't even see the cycle bridge from the road? I don't think so.

Both ways, can a cycle route which diverts so far away from the main road be viewed as part of that road?

Is it signposted and marked as an actually cycle lane? I don't know.

Dubluc

monument wrote: »

Can mandatory use really apply heading away from town when you can't even see the cycle bridge from the road? I don't think so.

As I said the law setting up cycle lanes specifies that cyclists use them where provided. It doesn't to my knowledge provide exceptions. You can see the cycle bridge from the road.

Both ways, can a cycle route which diverts so far away from the main road be viewed as part of that road?

Is it signposted and marked as an actually cycle lane? I don't know.

The cycle route does divert from the road but two things make it part of the road. Firstly you'd have a hard job convincing any rational person that a special seperate bridge built with the intention of making cyclists safer by taking them off the main carriageway of the N4 at the busy M50 junction was not part of the road project when it was built at the same time.

Also on the Dublin bound side at any rate if you follow the cycle lane you end up crossing the bridge. I acknowledge that on the outbound lane it is not obvious at the Palmerstown junction where to go on a bicycle to continue in the cycle lane unless you already know where you are going. This is something which the relevant local authority should remedy.

monument

Dubluc wrote: »

As I said the law setting up cycle lanes specifies that cyclists use them where provided. It doesn't to my knowledge provide exceptions. You can see the cycle bridge from the road.

You can see lots of things (including the M50) from the road but that does not mean you have to (or even if you are allowed to) cycle on them.

Dubluc wrote: »

The cycle route does divert from the road but two things make it part of the road. Firstly you'd have a hard job convincing any rational person that a special seperate bridge built with the intention of making cyclists safer by taking them off the main carriageway of the N4 at the busy M50 junction was not part of the road project when it was built at the same time.

It's simple: It does not follow the route of the road, thus it's not a part of the road.

The road continues on straight. The pedestrian / cycle bridge does not, it feeds into another road. It is a different route. A different carriageway. There's a big question mark as to if mandatory use applies here.

In any case, if the signs and markings are not correct (and these are usually not with off-road cycle tracks) then mandatory use again does not apply.

Cookie_Monster

I am certainly in favour of cyclists having to use lanes where provided rather than the road but am in agreement with monument on this one. The bridge is off the direct route of the road and I see no reason to divert to use it when you are not going that way.

Dubluc

Cookie and Monument you both seem to be hard to please.

I think we can all agree that the seperate bridge was put there for the added safety of cyclists. Agreed?

The law states that where provided a cycle lane should be used by cyclists. Agreed?

The N4 is a busy national route and to negotiate the junction in question is difficult for an accomplished cyclist not to mind anyone of a nervous dispostition as to do so in each direction involves crossing the lane leaving for the M50 in order to stay on the N4 which is potentially dangerous and will no doubt someday lead to the death or serious injury of someone sho attempts it. Agreed?

Given the above and the fact that a quieter seperate bridge is provided is it not common sense to use it. There are enough examples of places countrywide where cyclists would be glad of such a facility and the spending it no doubt took to provide it. A few bob more for a couple of signs and a drop of paint to point people, who are unfamiliar with the geography, into Palmerstown village on the outbound leg is the only deficiency in my view.

It's also the law for cyclists to stop at red lights which many don't do and to give hand signals which many don't do and to have lights fitted at night which many don't do. Like your viewpoint in respect of the cycle lanes just because it's your view that you shouldn't have to use it doesn't change the fact that it's your legal obligation or the fact that it is not wise to ignore a safer option.

Keep ignoring the cycle lane if you want but I sincerely hope you are never injured or worse as a result. Doesn't change my view that indulging in such a practice with a safer alternative available is patent lunacy.

I strongly agree however that the lanes in question need to be better signposted!

monument

Dubluc wrote: »

Cookie and Monument you both seem to be hard to please.

I think we can all agree that the seperate bridge was put there for the added safety of cyclists. Agreed?

The law states that where provided a cycle lane should be used by cyclists. Agreed?

The N4 is a busy national route and to negotiate the junction in question is difficult for an accomplished cyclist not to mind anyone of a nervous dispostition as to do so in each direction involves crossing the lane leaving for the M50 in order to stay on the N4 which is potentially dangerous and will no doubt someday lead to the death or serious injury of someone sho attempts it. Agreed?

Given the above and the fact that a quieter seperate bridge is provided is it not common sense to use it. There are enough examples of places countrywide where cyclists would be glad of such a facility and the spending it no doubt took to provide it. A few bob more for a couple of signs and a drop of paint to point people, who are unfamiliar with the geography, into Palmerstown village on the outbound leg is the only deficiency in my view.

It's also the law for cyclists to stop at red lights which many don't do and to give hand signals which many don't do and to have lights fitted at night which many don't do. Like your viewpoint in respect of the cycle lanes just because it's your view that you shouldn't have to use it doesn't change the fact that it's your legal obligation or the fact that it is not wise to ignore a safer option.

Keep ignoring the cycle lane if you want but I sincerely hope you are never injured or worse as a result. Doesn't change my view that indulging in such a practice with a safer alternative available is patent lunacy.

I strongly agree however that the lanes in question need to be better signposted!

You're better off learning how to share the road than going off on a rant about cyclists. Even in countries with a lot of segregated cycle lanes there's always places you'll have to share the road, junctions being the main place. Having cycled in Denmark, Germany, and other European countries the main difference is motorist behaviour, not cycle lanes.

If you want me to counter your rant about cyclists, I have a long list of rules motorists break on a daily bases in Dublin.

Anyway, if you can't share the road, you should not be driving.

Nevyn

Which law is this, please cite it, are you sure it's not a bylaw?

Cycle lanes are often not safe to us and under the law a non motorised bycycle is still a vehicle and entitled to use the road.

monument

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which law is this, please cite it, are you sure it's not a bylaw?

Cycle lanes are often not safe to us and under the law a non motorised bycycle is still a vehicle and entitled to use the road.

The other poster is correct in saying there is a law on mandatory use, it's in one of the traffic SIs. It does, however, not always apply.

Many cycle lanes are not legally marked as such (not marked at all, no sign, shared use sign with a pedestrian and cyclist -- all of these do not come under mandatory use). More threads on this on the cycling board.

With the road we're talking about, it's hard to see how the cycle lane which diverts so much away from the road could be viewed as a part of the road. Heading away from town even more so.

Also the Minister of Transport said he would scrap mandatory use.

Dubluc

monument wrote: »

You're better off learning how to share the road than going off on a rant about cyclists. Even in countries with a lot of segregated cycle lanes there's always places you'll have to share the road, junctions being the main place. Having cycled in Denmark, Germany, and other European countries the main difference is motorist behaviour, not cycle lanes.

If you want me to counter your rant about cyclists, I have a long list of rules motorists break on a daily bases in Dublin.

Anyway, if you can't share the road, you should not be driving.

Who said anything about driving a car. I'm writing this as a regular cyclist who does his best to obey the rules of the road. It's a pity you all want to argue and won't appreciate a resource which was provided for your safety at I'm sure great expense and use it. Most road traffic rules were not made to make things difficult for people but rather to add to road safety.

I merely added my original post to try to be helpful to another person by stating what I know to be the legal situation. I did not write to provoke an argument. I have nothing against cyclists, or motorists for that matter. I am regularly a cyclist and regularly a motorist. I was merely trying to be helpful by trying to promote obedience to the law and the rules of the road and a little bit of common sense.

If you don't want to use the lane we're discussing which was provided for your own safety suit yourself. Stop picking arguments and nitpicking.

For the record I look forward to the opening of the new cycle path by the canal as I think it'll be the safest route the original poster might be able to take!!

Statutory Instrument 182/1997 Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997
14. (1) Where traffic sign numbers RUS 009 or RUS 009A and either RRM 022 or RRM 023 [cycle track] are provided, the part of road to which they relate shall be a cycle track.

(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009 or RUS 009A.

(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

(4) Where a cycle track is one-way, pedal cycles shall be driven in the same direction as traffic on the side of the roadway adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel.

(5) When a cycle track is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.

(6) ( a ) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track.

( b ) A reference in sub-article (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

( c ) This sub-article shall not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

trellheim

To return to the OP,
I've cycled out the Royal Canal several times, this will leave you at Newcomen Bridge on the inbound. Then Seville Place/Beckett Bridge/Macken St/Grand Canal St/Shelbourne Rd = Ballsbridge, and its mostly downhill too all the way from Leixlip:)



Howewer I haven't been out in ages; two problems : antisocial elements in the Broombridge area, plus I don't know if they've removed pedestrian access at the new Pace/Navan rail spur where it crosses the Royal on the old alignment

monument

Dubluc wrote: »

I don't want to sound condecending but this isn't an alternative as you state.

It's actually the law for a cyclist to use a cycle lane where it's provided.

I would agree it's definitely preferable to getting onto the M50 junction. It's scary driving along when cyclists try to do this manoveure in front of you and expect you to suddenly creat room out of nowhere.

Dubluc wrote: »

Who said anything about driving a car. I'm writing this as a regular cyclist who does his best to obey the rules of the road

You did!

And you're saying it again in your latest post.

Wording like "It's scary driving along when cyclists" is worrying. You should be able to adjusted to your driving to fit road conditions and what every you meet on the road. The only time it should be "scary" is when you are not doing so. And, by the way, being able to drive to suit the road conditions and keep in control of your vehicle is the law, a law taken far more seriously than mandatory use.

In any case, learning how to share the road is also good advice to cyclists -- see 'Cycle Craft'

Dubluc wrote: »

It's a pity you all want to argue

I don't want to argue, I just have a different view than you.

Dubluc wrote: »

and won't appreciate a resource which was provided for your safety at I'm sure great expense and use it.

Great expense? Making a footbridge slightly, if at all bigger?

Dubluc wrote: »

Most road traffic rules were not made to make things difficult for people but rather to add to road safety.

We're not talking about most road traffic rules.

We're talking about a law the Minister for Transport has said he would remove. A law that a Programme for Government policy document says will be removed.

How on earth is making people use cycle tracks like these adding to road safety? -- http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

Dubluc wrote: »

I merely added my original post to try to be helpful to another person by stating what I know to be the legal situation. I did not write to provoke an argument. I have nothing against cyclists, or motorists for that matter. I am regularly a cyclist and regularly a motorist. I was merely trying to be helpful by trying to promote obedience to the law and the rules of the road and a little bit of common sense.

If you don't want to use the lane we're discussing which was provided for your own safety suit yourself. Stop picking arguments and nitpicking.

I don't want to sound condescending but welcome to boards.ie. It's an internet forum. People disagree with each other, you're under no obligation to reply. But I would say you disagreed with me first, and you knew well you were disagreeing with me.

And if you don't want to start further arguments you might start with forgetting about randomly ranting about cyclists breaking the law, as I said already motorists do far worst every day of the week.

And as I've also already said: The road continues on straight. The pedestrian / cycle bridge does not, it feeds into another road. It is a different route. A different carriageway. There's a big question mark as to if mandatory use applies here.

So, a cycle lane is not provided alone the road, it goes by a completely different route. In my non-legal view, the law does not apply.

Dubluc

monument wrote: »

You did!

And you're saying it again in your latest post.

Wording like "It's scary driving along when cyclists" is worrying. You should be able to adjusted to your driving to fit road conditions and what every you meet on the road. The only time it should be "scary" is when you are not doing so. And, by the way, being able to drive to suit the road conditions and keep in control of your vehicle is the law, a law taken far more seriously than mandatory use.

In any case, learning how to share the road is also good advice to cyclists -- see 'Cycle Craft'

I don't want to argue, I just have a different view than you.

I don't want to argue either but I just hope for your sake that your militancy in using the road instead of the cycle lane does not result in any injury or worse for you. Best of luck to you. You might win arguments like this one, unfortunately if in exercising your right to use the road instead of the expensively provided cycle lane on a special bridge seperate from the rest of traffic against all reason and common sense you're unlikely to win an argument with a car if it all goes pear shaped but like I say best of luck to you and I hope it never comes to that!


Great expense? Making a footbridge slightly, if at all bigger?

We're not talking about most road traffic rules.

I was talking about a whole bunch of them!

We're talking about a law the Minister for Transport has said he would remove. A law that a Programme for Government policy document says will be removed.

This wouldn't be the first 'brilliant' idea he came up with but lets not go starting another argument.

How on earth is making people use cycle tracks like these adding to road safety? -- http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

I as I've said am a regular cyclist I use cycle lanes every day. If some of them are not up to standard campaign to have them upgraded and when they are available use them. Ye can't have it both ways!

Incidentally if you want pictures of really bad cycle lanes have a look at the North Circular Road near Hanlon's Corner!! Those pictures of lanes aren't too bad.

By the way if that's you on the bike aren't you being the naughty fella going onto the footpath! You are really determined to use anything but the cycle lane. If your determination could only be channelled in a different direction!

I don't want to sound condescending but welcome to boards.ie. It's an internet forum. People disagree with each other, you're under no obligation to reply. But I would say you disagreed with me first, and you knew well you were disagreeing with me.

I don't mind people disagreeing tis just when they don't see how silly they sound. As I've said I and many other cyclists are glad to use a cycle lane when it's provided!

And if you don't want to start further arguments you might start with forgetting about randomly ranting about cyclists breaking the law, as I said already motorists do far worst every day of the week.

Nothing random about it. I'm giving out about insistence on using the road against all common sense when the cycle lane is provided for you. I have said many times that you are free to do so. I just pointed out that it's illegal and you might want to take that into consideration. As for motorists do you really want to red my 'rant' on them? I'll start by mentioning use of indicators learning to use roundabouts and running orange lights just cos they're not red... need me to go on?

And as I've also already said: The road continues on straight. The pedestrian / cycle bridge does not, it feeds into another road. It is a different route. A different carriageway. There's a big question mark as to if mandatory use applies here.

Can't argue with the fact that the road goes on straight. However you have to come over a kerb and cross a slip lane to the M50 to get to the N4 traffic lane inbound to use the traffic bridge. The cycle lane does feed into another road but that road comes onto the main road at the next lights. Also most cyclists would probably prefer to move away from the traffic if the lane was properly signed especially in the other direction. After all who wants to have an accident.

So, a cycle lane is not provided alone the road, it goes by a completely different route. In my non-legal view, the law does not apply.

This goes back to my original point. The lane is provided for everyone's safety and is currently mandated for use by cyclists just cos it's there. The fact that the local authority went to the bother of providing the bridge especially for cyclists might go a long way to convincing a judge that you are wrong in your belief if you were ever unlucky enough to be brought to court for your infractions.

As ever nice discussing this with you! You have some good points about the state of cycle lanes but for the sake of safety if nothing else use them!

monument

Dubluc wrote: »

I don't want to argue either but I just hope for your sake that your militancy in using the road instead of the cycle lane does not result in any injury or worse for you. Best of luck to you. You might win arguments like this one, unfortunately if in exercising your right to use the road instead of the expensively provided cycle lane on a special bridge seperate from the rest of traffic against all reason and common sense you're unlikely to win an argument with a car if it all goes pear shaped but like I say best of luck to you and I hope it never comes to that!

I’m still confused as to how the slightly adapted footpath and the pedestrian bridge was “expensively provided” for cyclists?

Dubluc wrote: »

This wouldn't be the first 'brilliant' idea he came up with but lets not go starting another argument.
I as I've said am a regular cyclist I use cycle lanes every day. If some of them are not up to standard campaign to have them upgraded and when they are available use them. Ye can't have it both ways!

It’s strange that all cyclists groups seem to be agreeing with him. So do the majority of cyclists on boards.ie’s cyclist forum etc

I’m not sure how much you know about international best practise for cycle lane design, but a large proportion of Irish cycle lanes are below best practise in one way or another. Even where best practise is used for stretches, most fail at the most important section – junctions. Even the old Irish standards, which were low to start with, were and continue to be widely ignored.

Even the Government’s own National Cycle Policy says: “it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained”

Even cycle reviews for county councils – including recent ones – have noted how poor the lanes continue to be made.

Dubluc wrote: »

Nothing random about it. I'm giving out about insistence on using the road against all common sense when the cycle lane is provided for you. I have said many times that you are free to do so. I just pointed out that it's illegal and you might want to take that into consideration. As for motorists do you really want to red my 'rant' on them? I'll start by mentioning use of indicators learning to use roundabouts and running orange lights just cos they're not red... need me to go on?

I’m talking about where you started ranting about cyclists running red lights etc – something which has no link to the topic at hand. Why did you feel the need to have a rant about cyclists?

Dubluc wrote: »

Can't argue with the fact that the road goes on straight. However you have to come over a kerb and cross a slip lane to the M50 to get to the N4 traffic lane inbound to use the traffic bridge. The cycle lane does feed into another road but that road comes onto the main road at the next lights. Also most cyclists would probably prefer to move away from the traffic if the lane was properly signed especially in the other direction. After all who wants to have an accident.

You’ll need to explain why it’s a given somebody will have an accident by cycling straight on. This is not clear at all.

If you’re this scared of the road, I would again recommend picking up a copy of Cycle Craft -- http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/ It’s linked with the UK national cycle training system.

Dubluc wrote: »

This goes back to my original point. The lane is provided for everyone's safety and is currently mandated for use by cyclists just cos it's there. The fact that the local authority went to the bother of providing the bridge especially for cyclists might go a long way to convincing a judge that you are wrong in your belief if you were ever unlucky enough to be brought to court for your infractions.

As ever nice discussing this with you! You have some good points about the state of cycle lanes but for the sake of safety if nothing else use them!

Cycling provision by local authorities is being criticised by everybody from cycling groups to national Government (via their policy document) to reports written for and commissioned by said local authorities.

The law in question is due to be repealed.

Common law would also take into account that what happens in the UK (no mandatory use) and that their national standard of training warns against always trusting cycle lanes (more so, give we lack such standards for training and policy documents point to the UK’s standard).

I’d have no trouble finding expert witnesses to back my points up.

Anyway, mandatory use does not apply as it’s a different route than the road.

All of that is mute because it is highly unlikely to go to court. And we’re still unsure if the signage leading to the bridge is correct, if it is not, mandatory use simply does not apply.