New Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area - cycling content

Doctor Bob

I see that the NTA has finally released its draft transport strategy after three (?) years of preparation.

http://www.2030vision.ie/

Public consultation runs until the 11th of April, if anyone's interested in making a submission.

The chapter on Walking and Cycling is here.

captain P

I didn't read it all thoroughly but this looks positive:

Measure WCY 18:
The Authority will:
• Seek that cycling education and training
becomes part of the school curriculum
for all primary and secondary levels in the
Greater Dublin Area by 2020;
• Facilitate cycle training for schoolchildren
through the Authority’s Smarter Travel
Schools programme; and
• Seek provision of cycling training for adults
– both for those returning to cycling and
those who have never cycled before.

Cookie_Monster

"Cycling training"

apart from learning to physically ride a bike and a few hand signal what exactly would that involve?
Seems a bit woolly to me.

Particular attention will need to be given to:
• Reducing traffic speeds in residential areas
through traffic calming or other means;
• Tightening up of junctions to make them
easier to cross on foot, and safer for cycles to
negotiate;
• Providing more direct walking and cycling links
from residential areas to local centres and to
public transport services on main roads;
• The use of better quality footpath materials; and
• The provision of additional pedestrian crossing
points away from junctions.

1 no impact on cycling
2 anything which reduces road space in favour of off road cycle lanes makes junction more dangerous IMO
3 that sounds like a good one
4 does that mean that awful red paint that crumbles into marbles?
5 slowing everyone down in other words

Consideration will also be given to the redesign of
certain residential streets and neighbourhoods to
provide a “shared space” environment where the
whole street (footpath and carriageway) becomes
a multi-use space, with unambiguous priority for
people over vehicles29.

That sounds really dangerous IMO

Enforcement of traffic laws against offences that
impede pedestrian movement.

LOL, there is zero enforcement of that now so shouldn't be too difficult to ticket a few cars parked in cycle lanes or footpaths...

Adequate cycle parking provision;

good, but it should be covered if you want to really encourage people to leave their bikes for long periods.

The Department of Transport’s National Cycle
Policy Framework sets a target of 10% of employees
cycling to work by 2020. To support this target,
cycle parking provision at workplaces will need to
be increased. Standards should differ by area, with
higher provision in more centrally located areas and
for more employment intensive uses such as offices.
Development plans should specify that spaces are
securely located and sheltered.

Good stuff but they should also be pushing for office and employers to provide shower and changing facilities also, this would make a big difference I think.

dave.obrien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

"Cycling training"

apart from learning to physically ride a bike and a few hand signal what exactly would that involve?
Seems a bit woolly to me.
________

4 does that mean that awful red paint that crumbles into marbles?
________
That sounds really dangerous IMO
________
LOL, there is zero enforcement of that now so shouldn't be too difficult to ticket a few cars parked in cycle lanes or footpaths...
________
good, but it should be covered if you want to really encourage people to leave their bikes for long periods.
________
Good stuff but they should also be pushing for office and employers to provide shower and changing facilities also, this would make a big difference I think.

I reckon if you teach kids correct road behaviour for cycling, that if when they end up driving, they might be more sypathetic/understanding of the difficulties faced by cyclists caused by negligent driving, or more specifically, a driving education that marginalises the importance of cyclists to a negligible degree. Which is good, no?

Christ, I hope not! Although it is directed at footpaths...

Studies have repeatedly shown the benefit of things like this, where the car has no specific place, and therefore no sense of "this is my space, you stay in your space". The driver will feel more nervous, and consequently drive more carefully, as a rule. It's a popular way of traffic calming in continental Europe, and was the norm even here at the inception of the motor car, in the first half of the 20th century. In fact, problems of interaction between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists have only become more exacerbated the more segregated the systems by which they must transport themselves have become.

Ticket them ALL!!!

Covered would be crucial, and observed in some way, probably through cctv.

Tax breaks for the installation of a shower system could be an idea. From a sustainable point of view, an incentive for a recycling shower system, where the water is re-used for use in cisterns or for watering external planting could be a way of also reducing both water usage and, from the employers point of view, water rates in a commercial property. But that might be a bit too hippy-ish for people to take seriously...

enas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

2 anything which reduces road space in favour of off road cycle lanes makes junction more dangerous IMO

Like this type of cycle paths you mean?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

5 slowing everyone down in other words

Eh? Yes, the purpose is to slow down car traffic to make walking a bit more civilised.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That sounds really dangerous IMO

Surely like this you mean, or this?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

good, but it should be covered if you want to really encourage people to leave their bikes for long periods.

I show you again Dutch examples of non-covered cycle parking facilities that are heavily used to say the least, but you got the idea. I've never heard of anyone using the lack of covered cycle parking as an excuse for not cycling, but I'd admit that would count as one of the lamest excuses

Good stuff but they should also be pushing for office and employers to provide shower and changing facilities also, this would make a big difference I think.

Again, that's beside the point. To make cycling more used, it has to be made more mainstream. And the average utility cyclist in the Netherlands or Denmark doesn't ride to sweating levels. In fact, there are very poor shower facilities in Denmark. Lobbying for shower facilities as part of cycle lobbying actually sends the wrong message and is counter productive: it makes people think that you DO need showers to cycle to work, and will put off most people who don't have showers at work.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

"Cycling training"

apart from learning to physically ride a bike and a few hand signal what exactly would that involve?
Seems a bit woolly to me.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0301/1224291075826.html

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0301/1224291075826.html

all seems like common sense rather than needed training to me...
but with an attitude like this:

I’m used to cycling, but I can still find negotiating the city centre in rush hour a stressful and sometimes terrifying experience.

It's not surprising that some people think it's needed.

Highway_To_Hell

Victor wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0301/1224291075826.html

Not wearing helmets and lack of hi-vis jackets will probably provoke a few letters to the editor.:)

I did like this comment - ‘You’re a road user, not a gutter user. Be assertive’.

sconhome

Anyone cycling without a helmet needs their head examined IMO

Cookie_Monster

amphkingwest wrote: »

Anyone cycling without a helmet needs their head examined IMO

:rolleyes:
why?

Do you were a helmet while driving or walking? Its proven to be safer for those activities too.

mcmoustache

amphkingwest wrote: »

Anyone cycling without a helmet needs their head examined IMO

Uh oh... now you've gone and done it.

sconhome

I perceive that there are greater risks to a cyclist of the unforeseeable kind, where you will be better off wearing a helmet to offer some protection to your skull.

In simple terms if someone opens a car door in front of a pedestrian there is an opportunity to step aside and avoid injury at 20kph on a bike there is not so much opportunity. If you go head first off a bike you get injured.

Cars are bubble wrapped for their occupants and generally do damage to other road users so unless you are car racing a helmet is not likely to be necessary or practical.

sconhome

mcmoustache wrote: »

Uh oh... now you've gone and done it.

Didn't see your post. I've obviously scratched a wound somewhere.
Ah well!

mcmoustache

amphkingwest wrote: »

Didn't see your post. I've obviously scratched a wound somewhere.
Ah well!

The helmet question has been done to death here.
The consensus seems to be that while they are handy for a small subset of cycle injuries (low impact head-pavement collision), a wider head provides more leverage to twist the neck and drivers tend to give helmets less space than cyclists. Evidence was presented in the other threads as well to show that mandatory helmet use did not decrease the number of fatalaties despite there being fewer cyclists on the road. Also, the arguments in favour of their use could just as easily be applied to driving, walking, or even sleeping.

In short, while making you feel safer on a commute, they don't. There is a different case to be made for racing which I won't get in to right now as I only commute.

sconhome

Thanks for the heads up. Was definitely not trying to stir up a debate so apologies to all.

Bunnyhopper

amphkingwest wrote: »

I perceive

Evidence > Subjective Perception

Do a quick search and you'll find loads of discussion on here about helmet use. It's not at all as straightforward as it might appear, so the responses to your post are grounded in an awareness of that complexity and of the fact that every now and then someone posts a (to be blunt) simplistic opinion that leads to a repeat of a discussion that has happened a dozen times before.

Infrastructure improvements in Dublin sound like a good idea until I consider the (dreadful) quality of the existing infrastructure. Lower speed limits also sound nice, but the conduct of Fine Gael's City Councillors in the debates about the 30 kph limit and the College Green bus gate (and the bike hire scheme) doesn't fill me with confidence. FG are also lukewarm at best on the national policy document.

Similarly, I'm not sure that the provision of more direct cycling and walking links to/from/through residential areas won't be derailed by local representatives caving in to alarmist nimby bleatings. The evidence I've seen suggests that shared space or naked streets solutions actually work very well, but again my caustic cynicism about Irish politics and public administration means I have doubts about whether we'll see something so counterintuitive actually being properly implemented. I hope I'm proved wrong.

Training for schoolkids would be useful. I agree with dave.obrien. In fact, I think experience of cycling makes you a safer driver in general, not just when you're driving near cyclists. On the question of parking I'd favour secure and supervised rather than covered. I don't mind a wet saddle as long as the bike's still there when I get back to it.

seamus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

all seems like common sense rather than needed training to me...
but with an attitude like this:
It's not surprising that some people think it's needed.

From what I gather anecdotally, most people are afraid of being struck from behind and not being able to see what's happening back there. You'll even see loads of plebs riding around with a rear light and no front lights.

Of course the actual stats say that you're quite unlikely to be hit from behind. Collisions tend to happen from the front.

Cookie_Monster

seamus wrote: »

Of course the actual stats say that you're quite unlikely to be hit from behind. Collisions tend to happen from the front.

True, I would be most wary of being hit from the side front/side though, either being clipped while being overtaken (fairly unlikely) or having drivers come out of side roads having fail to see you (much more likely)

petethedrummer

amphkingwest wrote: »

In simple terms if someone opens a car door in front of a pedestrian there is an opportunity to step aside and avoid injury at 20kph on a bike there is not so much opportunity. If you go head first off a bike you get injured.

That's why one doesn't cycle right next to parked cars. One takes a position so that if a car door opens, one doesn't get hit. Accident avoidance trumps damage limitation.

dave.obrien

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

On the question of parking I'd favour secure and supervised rather than covered. I don't mind a wet saddle as long as the bike's still there when I get back to it.

Yeah, I agree. Although it would be nice to have a secure, supervised, covered option for long term bike parking, ie, overnight/over weekend. I cycle into and out of town daily, and sometimes I like a pint, and hate leaving my bike overnight to the point that I wake up at stupid o clock to get into town to get it, which only makes my hangover worse! I'd be happy to see a number of covered, supervised bike parks, where you left your bike in for a small fee, say €1.50 per night, to have an extra couple of hours in bed!

Wishful thinking?! I'll see myself out so...

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

"Cycling training"

apart from learning to physically ride a bike and a few hand signal what exactly would that involve?
Seems a bit woolly to me.

...

amphkingwest wrote: »

In simple terms if someone opens a car door in front of a pedestrian there is an opportunity to step aside and avoid injury at 20kph on a bike there is not so much opportunity. If you go head first off a bike you get injured.

@ Cookie_Monster -- do you still think cycling training isn't needed?

Seriously, have a look at the vast bulk of cyclists who cycle way too close to the kerb, or those who can't or don't look behind while cycling etc.

Lawrence1895

Training for school children? Good idea :cool:

I had that in school in Germany...well...decades ago, like in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was compulsory in school and the Police Traffic Corps were doing it. After that, your bike was registered and you got some kid of driver's licence.

One training during the summer, one during the winter, one week each. The first one was when children were 6 years of age, the second one with 10 years of age, plus a voluntary session when you were 14 years of age.

You even learn weird things like 'how to fall off your bike properly'...which proved vital this winter

seamus

dave.obrien wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. Although it would be nice to have a secure, supervised, covered option for long term bike parking, ie, overnight/over weekend. I cycle into and out of town daily, and sometimes I like a pint, and hate leaving my bike overnight to the point that I wake up at stupid o clock to get into town to get it, which only makes my hangover worse! I'd be happy to see a number of covered, supervised bike parks, where you left your bike in for a small fee, say €1.50 per night, to have an extra couple of hours in bed!

Wishful thinking?! I'll see myself out so...

This is what I find bizarre - surely it can't be that difficult to do this? You have what are standard bike stands, covered with what is effectively a large storage locker with deadbolts on the door. You have it on a smartcard/registration type system where you pay a small yearly sub (€20 or so). So you pick an open locker, stick your bike in, lock it to the stand, close the door and swipe outside to activate the deadbolt. Then you pay a nominal fee, like 10c per hour or something. Presto, your bike is safe from both theft and tampering.

There are so many wasted corners and spaces in car parks, you could fit tonnes of these things in (they'd be fairly unsightly on the street). I'm sure it would be fairly easy to get insurance too, and you could even look at providing showers close by and hooks in the locker for hanging bags and jackets and the like.

mgmt

Lars1916 wrote: »

Training for school children? Good idea :cool:

I had that in school in Germany...well...decades ago, like in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was compulsory in school and the Police Traffic Corps were doing it. After that, your bike was registered and you got some kid of driver's licence.

One training during the summer, one during the winter, one week each. The first one was when children were 6 years of age, the second one with 10 years of age, plus a voluntary session when you were 14 years of age.

You even learn weird things like 'how to fall off your bike properly'...which proved vital this winter

Encouraging school children to cycle is a must. My primary school banned us from cycling to school :mad:.

Lawrence1895

mgmt wrote: »

Encouraging school children to cycle is a must. My primary school banned us from cycling to school :mad:.

And by banning cyclists from school, you encourage parents to drop their kids by car, even if they live just round the corner from school...no matter, if that adds to the existing traffic congestion :mad:

tomasrojo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

"Cycling training"

apart from learning to physically ride a bike and a few hand signal what exactly would that involve?

Cyclecraft, which is one of the reference works for the UK's Bikeability programme, is about two hundred pages long.

You obviously don't need anything like that level of detail to use a bike, but it's an excellent book.

dave.obrien

seamus wrote: »

This is what I find bizarre - surely it can't be that difficult to do this? You have what are standard bike stands, covered with what is effectively a large storage locker with deadbolts on the door. You have it on a smartcard/registration type system where you pay a small yearly sub (€20 or so). So you pick an open locker, stick your bike in, lock it to the stand, close the door and swipe outside to activate the deadbolt. Then you pay a nominal fee, like 10c per hour or something. Presto, your bike is safe from both theft and tampering.

There are so many wasted corners and spaces in car parks, you could fit tonnes of these things in (they'd be fairly unsightly on the street). I'm sure it would be fairly easy to get insurance too, and you could even look at providing showers close by and hooks in the locker for hanging bags and jackets and the like.

Absolutely, but I'd be keen to have them transparent and supervised. Otherwise an organised thief would pay their €20 sub, and have all the time they wanted to have a van pull up outside and unload what they could. The surveillance of the system is necessary, whether that be in a "car park" or on the streets.

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

Like this type of cycle paths you mean?

Interesting comment at the end of that:

What I meant was that [Dutch] cycle "paths" are DESIGNED just like ROADS are: careful thought is given to junction design, traffic lights work for cyclists as well as cars, routes are continuous and have priority over side roads, litter is cleared away, they're gritted and snow-ploughed in winter, etc. The result is that cycling along them is no less convenient, and is quite a lot safer, than cycling on the motor roads.

In the UK cycle paths are not designed anything like our roads are. They are designed like our FOOTPATHS are (in fact they're often the same thing!). The result is that cycling along them is MUCH less convenient, and quite a bit more dangerous the cycling on motor roads.

I'm starting to think that the term "segregated infrastructure" or variations thereon is a misleading description, since the distinguishing feature of good infrastructure is not the segregation, but the thoughtful treatment of junctions, and the determination not to make the cyclist cede right of way. Some of the worst lanes in Ireland are segregated, but they're not remotely safe, or very usable.


Maybe it should be called "joined-up infrastructure" or something like that.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

Maybe it should be called "joined-up infrastructure" or something like that.

It should be "better than an 8 year old with learning difficulties could design-infrastructure".

seamus

dave.obrien wrote: »

Absolutely, but I'd be keen to have them transparent and supervised. Otherwise an organised thief would pay their €20 sub, and have all the time they wanted to have a van pull up outside and unload what they could. The surveillance of the system is necessary, whether that be in a "car park" or on the streets.

Well properly implemented, you'd need your card and your PIN to unlock the locker that you've put your bike into. Nobody else's will do. It does mean that the lockers need to be fairly tough and not your standard aluminium affair that can simply be beaten into submission, but that would also be the point of locking the bike inside the locker too. At least if the door fails, your bike is still locked to something.

daragh_

seamus wrote: »

Well properly implemented, you'd need your card and your PIN to unlock the locker that you've put your bike into. Nobody else's will do. It does mean that the lockers need to be fairly tough and not your standard aluminium affair that can simply be beaten into submission, but that would also be the point of locking the bike inside the locker too. At least if the door fails, your bike is still locked to something.

Saw something like this in Manchester last year - might have been in the grounds of the University. Sturdy looking secure units with a roof. Entry by swipe card or pin. Size of a small shed.

Will see if I can find a link.

mgmt

daragh_ wrote: »

Saw something like this in Manchester last year - might have been in the grounds of the University. Sturdy looking secure units with a roof. Entry by swipe card or pin. Size of a small shed.

Will see if I can find a link.

Is this what you mean (4min03sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEp4f-mFEo

Actually watch that clip. It shows how bikes should be integrated into a public transport system.

ciotog

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I see that the NTA has finally released its draft transport strategy after three (?) years of preparation.

http://www.2030vision.ie/

Public consultation runs until the 11th of April, if anyone's interested in making a submission.

The chapter on Walking and Cycling is here.

I see the NTA remain committed to ignoring the NCPF and instead want to force their cycle manual upon cyclists. Ref: Chapter 9, Page 4:

The use by designers of the design guideline principles and approaches for residential areas set out in the Authority’s National Cycle Manual and forthcoming Walking Facilities Manual, and DoT/DoEHLG ‘Manual for Streets'

That would be the manual which has been roundly condemned by cyclist.ie for proposing structures hazardous to cyclists. It's also interesting to see how they've cherry picked from the NCPF in terms of training; the strategy doesn't recognise that infrastructure designers also require training (Objective 18.3). This is important because in its absence you end up with the mess that Galway City Council call their Cycling and Walking Strategy. If Fine Gael want to get rid of another quango then look no further than the NTA.

daragh_

mgmt wrote: »

Is this what you mean (4min03sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEp4f-mFEo

Actually watch that clip. It shows how bikes should be integrated into a public transport system.

More like a shared space for say 10 bikes than the individual lockers at 4:06.

Very interesting clip though. Thanks

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

It should be "better than an 8 year old with learning difficulties could design-infrastructure".

A judicious phrase.

What I'm getting at is that just because a facility is "segregated" does not mean it's a Dutch-style facility, since these have their own traffic lights and other measures to minimise the heightened risk of collision at junctions (their main disadvantage compared with using the road).

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

A judicious phrase.
What I'm getting at is that just because a facility is "segregated" does not mean it's a Dutch-style facility

You're absolutely right. But the converse is true: Dutch-style infrastructures are segregated.

Why I mentioned them is to show how nice well designed infrastructure can be. Most people discard on principle segregated infrastructure on the basis of what happens here in Ireland (and in the UK, and in many european cities), which I find a shame. Honestly, who would say they wouldn't want what you can see in the first video I linked in my previous post? Of course, I'm not even fooled for a second that this kind of infrastructure will ever be built, on a large scale at least, in Ireland. I don't even believe that the people who wrote the report are aware of the details of what made the success of the Dutch facilities. But I believe that people should lobby for the better, not the status quo on the basis that we'll never do it correctly anyway. Having said that, I'm not campaigning myself on anything, I'm pretty happy with my vehicular cycling (or survival) techniques, and being selfish, I don't try to get others into cycling.

Doctor Bob

ciotog wrote: »

I see the NTA remain committed to ignoring the NCPF and instead want to force their cycle manual upon cyclists. Ref: Chapter 9, Page 4:

The use by designers of the design guideline principles and approaches for residential areas set out in the Authority’s National Cycle Manual and forthcoming Walking Facilities Manual, and DoT/DoEHLG ‘Manual for Streets'

That would be the manual which has been roundly condemned by cyclist.ie for proposing structures hazardous to cyclists. It's also interesting to see how they've cherry picked from the NCPF in terms of training; the strategy doesn't recognise that infrastructure designers also require training (Objective 18.3). This is important because in its absence you end up with the mess that Galway City Council call their Cycling and Walking Strategy. If Fine Gael want to get rid of another quango then look no further than the NTA.

I'm not sure I follow your logic there, ciotog. Is Objective 18.3 not satisfied by the very section of the strategy that you've cited above?

This is the full text of 18.3:

18.3 Training of Professionals
We will organise training workshops / sessions for all design professionals
in understanding and using the new guidance produced.
We will also stipulate that all local authority roads engineers and any engineer
wishing to tender for government road contracts should be required to have
taken an approved cycling skills course, together with a course on cycling
friendly infrastructure design.

This 'new guidance produced' is explained in 18.4, viz.:

18.4 New Cycle Guidelines Manual
We will produce new Design Guidance to supersede the existing Cycle
Guidelines Manual / Traffic Management Manual produced by the Dublin
Transportation Office to reflect best international practice and latest
thinking on creating a cycling friendly infrastructure.
We will ensure that the new guidance developed is consistent with new
guidance on Urban Design Policy (Policy 1.4) and informs a revision of
the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and other relevant guidance
and standards.

(NCPF, pp.48-49.)

I assume that 'the Authority's National Cycle Manual' is the document referred to in 18.4, and it seems reasonable to assume that the 'training workshops / sessions' will follow the Manual's publication.

tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

monument

Doctor Bob wrote: »

....tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

There is / was a fear that the NTA's cycle manual will be used to explain away or excuse forgetting about some of the stronger sections of the National Cycle Policy Framework.

That may be a bit of a cynical view, but there's a lot to be cynical about. I'm on the fence for now.

ciotog

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow your logic there, ciotog. Is Objective 18.3 not satisfied by the very section of the strategy that you've cited above?

This is the full text of 18.3:

This 'new guidance produced' is explained in 18.4, viz.:

(NCPF, pp.48-49.)

I assume that 'the Authority's National Cycle Manual' is the document referred to in 18.4, and it seems reasonable to assume that the 'training workshops / sessions' will follow the Manual's publication.

tl;dr: How can the production of design guidance in fulfilment of an objective of the NCPF be construed as 'ignoring the NCPF and [...] 'forc[ing] their cycle manual upon cyclists'?

No, it's not satisfied by that section. The cycling manual being produced by the NTA has serious flaws as highlighted by the responses to that draft from Cyclist.ie. It picks and chooses from the NCPF - this was highlighted with the use of the draft manual here in Galway City on the last minute design that was chosen to be used for the Seamus Quirke Road works. This design, for those cyclists not aware (it has been mentioned and discussed on here previously), places cyclists in dangerous road positions in relation to other traffic, inconveniences cyclists rather than creates incentives to cycle, creates conflict points with pedestrians and ends up encouraging pavement cycling. These issues have been raised to the GTU and ignored with the GTU reporting the NTA considered the design 'top drawer'. So I don't agree that it fulfils the NCPF objective.