East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

le petit braquet

I noticed signs requesting cyclists to dismount and use the footpath. I can see that since the roadway on the bridge is narrow that this might be a practical approach in rush hour, but a blanket ban at all times seems excessive. Do people obey this? Has anyone ever been stopped by the Gardai for ignoring it?

lpb

tomasrojo

I assume the phrasing is something like "Cyclists Please Dismount"? Not an official sign, as far as I know, so not binding. Someone else might know better.

If you dismounted every time you saw a sign like this, you'd be walking a lot. It's ass-covering, as far as I know. "Well, we warned them not to cycle there."

Cookie_Monster

Never gotten off, never even noticed the signs to be honest

maloner

I used to cycle over that bridge a few years ago and as I recall the foot path is a daft size there.

Regardless of what bike you were on, there'd be no hope of hopping up onto it, you'd have to get off and climb on.

I never dismounted, but thats a really risky part of the world for cycling. Its better now that the road beyond the point towards the tunnel has been widened and there's a cycle lane now I think, but quite a few cyclists have been killed on that stretch afaik.

tomasrojo

I've always tried to avoid cycling over that bridge. However, I have had to go that way the odd time, and I've never dismounted.

Magic Beans

Why not just do as the sign says?

Dismount, cross safely on foot, remount and be on your way.

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

tomasrojo

Because it's much slower.

Hermy

Why not just stay on your bicycle and cycle across safely just as you would do on any other road?

Jawgap

Magic Beans wrote: »

Why not just do as the sign says?

Dismount, cross safely on foot, remount and be on your way.

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

Quite right too Mr Beans, we should do exactly as you say......

tomasrojo

I love that photo.

TinyExplosions

Magic Beans wrote: »

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

Yes, and I think that bringing it up is quite hurtful, and frankly, a little discriminatory -it's not our fault we're made this way, you should have some more respect for us.

BTH

Jawgap wrote: »

Quite right too Mr Beans, we should do exactly as you say......

Surely thats not in Ireland?

tomasrojo

It's in Harlow. But we have this:



Internationally recognised as inspired by Harlow:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/September2010.htm

Magic Beans

Hermy wrote: »

Why not just stay on your bicycle and cycle across safely just as you would do on any other road?

And pay the toll? Or squeeze through with a vehicle?

Earth calling cyclists, Earth calling cyclists...

Jawgap

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Yes, and I think that bringing it up is quite hurtful, and frankly, a little discriminatory -it's not our fault we're made this way, you should have some more respect for us.

By the way - just to be clear, if we're going with the idea that cyclists are genetic freaks or mutants, I'm claiming the "Wolverine" as my moniker.....

tomasrojo

Magic Beans wrote: »

Or squeeze through with a vehicle?

Earth calling cyclists, Earth calling cyclists...

Cast your mind back to the start:

le petit braquet wrote: »

I noticed signs requesting cyclists to dismount and use the footpath. I can see that since the roadway on the bridge is narrow that this might be a practical approach in rush hour, but a blanket ban at all times seems excessive

Is there a genetic problem with you that prevents you reading?

Cookie_Monster

http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.345146,-6.227531&spn=0.003753,0.032487&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.345029,-6.227505&panoid=SV6LDOTpyjNmPsEqV4XE4w&cbp=12,9.34,,0,2.08

There's the offending sign.

1) on the wrong side of the road, why would you even be looking over there while on the corner
2) Request only, not a direction/order.
3) Look at the positions of both cars in that photo, there is clearly enough room within the lane for a cyclist to safely traverse the bridge and be passed by cars (as the Renault is doing)

Magic Beans

Agreed, the sign is on the wrong side of the road. That is just stupid.
There does seem to be plenty of room to cycle alongside cars but that is not the issue really. The fact remains that the bridge is private property and the owners/operators are legally entitled to give reasonable directions as to how guests on their property comport themselves.

tomasrojo

daragh_

Magic Beans wrote: »

Agreed, the sign is on the wrong side of the road. That is just stupid.
There does seem to be plenty of room to cycle alongside cars but that is not the issue really. The fact remains that the bridge is private property and the owners/operators are legally entitled to give reasonable directions as to how guests on their property comport themselves.

Not true - owned by DCC.

tomasrojo

And since the notice is not binding, you're free to ignore it.

Magic Beans

daragh_ wrote: »

Not true - owned by DCC.

Technically yes, Link, but DCC have contractually passed the running of it over to NTR. Go to DCC with a problem regarding the bridge and I'm sure they will direct you to NTR.

daragh_

Magic Beans wrote: »

Technically yes, Link, but DCC have contractually passed the running of it over to NTR. Go to DCC with a problem regarding the bridge and I'm sure they will direct you to NTR.

Fair point.

TinyExplosions

tomasrojo wrote: »

And since the notice is not binding, you're free to ignore it.

Also the sign says "requested" not "required", so you don't have to get off

droidus

Magic Beans wrote: »

Technically yes, Link, but DCC have contractually passed the running of it over to NTR. Go to DCC with a problem regarding the bridge and I'm sure they will direct you to NTR.

The phoenix park is full of 'private' roads. If they put a sign up requesting that you get out of your car and push - would you do it?

DirkVoodoo

Magic Beans wrote: »

Agreed, the sign is on the wrong side of the road. That is just stupid.
There does seem to be plenty of room to cycle alongside cars but that is not the issue really. The fact remains that the bridge is private property and the owners/operators are legally entitled to give reasonable directions as to how guests on their property comport themselves.

Try walking in road cleats and then come back with a more informed opinion.

So, you agree that the sign is poorly placed, it is not legally binding and now you have been told that the bridge is not private but owned by Dublin City Council. Any other reason why cyclists should obey the sign now?

Maybe we should inquire as to why the sign is there in the first place. The road is not dangerous, it is short enough for a bike to cross it without causing any hinderance to traffic, so why does it exist? This is not a case of cyclists flaunting the law as you suggest magic beans (seeing as it is not a legally enforceable one), but an attempt to further undermine the rights of cyclists. Signs like this give people the impression that you shouldn't be on the road in the first place and passing you a little closer is ok.

-Chris-

I'd say the only point of that sign is to hopefully get some cyclists on the foot path so that drivers aren't held up by them as they cross the road, and so they aren't tempted to overtake the cyclist and cross the solid white line.

DirkVoodoo

NTR operate the bridge, they don't own it. There is a difference. When it was built, it was the first public private partnership, Tom Roche, chairman of NTR proposed the idea and the bridge was built in 1984. The cost was to be recouped through tolls with ownership reverting to DCC after 20 years, but DCC continued to allow NTR to operate it.

What this means in terms of the legality of placing signs is unclear to me, I would imagine though that since it is legally public property, any signs have to come from DCC.

Magic Beans

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Try walking in road cleats and then come back with a more informed opinion.

How does the presence or absence of cleats make my opinion more or less informed?

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

So, you agree that the sign is poorly placed,

Of course.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

it is not legally binding

I never said that, quite the opposite.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

and now you have been told that the bridge is not private but owned by Dublin City Council.

NTR bear legal responsibility for the bridge as discussed and accepted above.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Any other reason why cyclists should obey the sign now?

Nothing you have said absolves the cyclist of the obligation to follow reasonable instruction by the proprietor of the property.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

This is not a case of cyclists flaunting the law as you suggest magic beans (seeing as it is not a legally enforceable one), but an attempt to further undermine the rights of cyclists.

What right exactly?

Doctor Bob

A few points:

The sign is not legally binding, so there is no obligation to 'do as [it] says'.

When I first saw the sign a few years ago, I took the (reasonable) position that I was free to ignore it, and did, with no dire consequences.

When I dug around subsequently to find out why it was erected, I heard that it happened after a motorcyclist was killed when he was blown across the path of traffic by a severe cross-wind.

NTR may be the legal guardian of the bridge, but I assume that guardianship is, at least, conditional, i.e. NTR can't just decide what rules to apply on a whim.

As for 'Dismount, cross safely on foot, remount and be on your way', what makes you (Magic Beans) so sure that it's safe to cross on foot? The footpath is barely wide enough for a single pedestrian, never mind a pedestrian walking a bike, or a pedestrian walking a bike who meets another pedestrian coming the other way, or... you get my point.

As for 'And pay the toll? Or squeeze through with a vehicle?', as the man said, it's not just A or B, there's always C, which in this case is the gap in the wall adjacent to the south bridge abutment which is where the majority of cycle traffic in the vicinity comes from/goes to. Most cyclists don't go anywhere near the toll gates at all.

Have I missed anything?

Magic Beans wrote: »

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

Is there a genetic problem with non-cyclists that they think their ill-informed opinions and sweeping generalisations don't constitute trolling?

Earth calling Magic Beans, Earth calling Magic Beans... :rolleyes:

TinyExplosions

Magic Beans wrote: »

How does the presence or absence of cleats make my opinion more or less informed?

Because, depending on conditions, you are safer crossing on the bike, than walking in road cleats, and your ignorance of this fact makes your opinion less informed

Magic Beans wrote: »

Of course.

This is another possible reason why cyclists 'disobey' (in your opinion) the sign, as it's very possible they are unaware of it's presence

Magic Beans wrote: »

I never said that, quite the opposite.
NTR bear legal responsibility for the bridge as discussed and accepted above.

They bear responsibility for the running of it, not for the bridge itself. If there's a problem with the toll system, it's NTR's problem, if the bridge itself needs resurfacing or repair, it's DCC's problem, which would include any road signage, or laws imposed on the bridge (NTR for example, couldn't stick a sign up saying "Motorists must cross at 100kph" -as this would be breaking the legal speed limit (ignoring the fact that this is impossible, it's the point that matters))

Magic Beans wrote: »

Nothing you have said absolves the cyclist of the obligation to follow reasonable instruction by the proprietor of the property.

As I pointed out, the sign requests, not requires, so it's perfectly reasonable to ignore it, as it's only a suggestion

Jawgap

Magic Beans wrote: »

How does the presence or absence of cleats make my opinion more or less informed?

As Cheyenne say - "Do not judge your neighbor until you walk two moons in his moccasins Sidi Eagle 6's"

CramCycle

Magic Beans wrote: »

Why not just do as the sign says?

Dismount, cross safely on foot, remount and be on your way.

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

Because it is neither a rule or an instruction possibly, it is a suggestion that is both unnecessary and if listened too and adhered too causes more problems than it solves.

Magic Beans wrote: »

What right exactly?

Feel free to correct me but the law perhaps?

Magic Beans

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Because, depending on conditions, you are safer crossing on the bike, than walking in road cleats, and your ignorance of this fact makes your opinion less informed

The normal commuting cyclist does not wear cleats.

This is a great forum but one thing I have learned one here is that there is a vociferous body of cyclists who will do as they choose regardless and who will wheedle, squirm, finagle, fillibuster and ignore every request, instruction, legal requirement, papal encyclical etc if it suits them.

Cycle on lads. be safe.

Idleater

Magic Beans wrote: »

The normal commuting cyclist does not wear cleats.

Define normal :P

I'd actually be willing to wager that on average a significant proportion of commuting cyclists do in fact wear cleats. I don't normally commute into town, but happened to be going along the canal last week and noticed a lot of people wearing mtb/city style SPD's. Maybe >50% of those commuting from outside the canals say.

Cookie_Monster

the sign is nothing more than a request, just like the RotR now contains lots of "shoulds", it's trying to dictate to people what they should be doing in some busybody's opinion instead of what they are entitled to do under the law.

DirkVoodoo

Magic Beans wrote: »

The normal commuting cyclist does not wear cleats.

This is a great forum but one thing I have learned one here is that there is a vociferous body of cyclists who will do as they choose regardless and who will wheedle, squirm, finagle, fillibuster and ignore every request, instruction, legal requirement, papal encyclical etc if it suits them.

Cycle on lads. be safe.

Oh I must have misread the sign and your "request", does it say "Normal commuting cyclists" on it?

No one is trying to squirm there way out of this except you. People have just pointed out a sign that is as ridiculous as "Dogs must wear paper hats in the park at all times" and you have jumped on this as a chance to lambaste "law breaking cyclists", despite no law being broken.

Get real. And if you don't like the forum, there is the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

TinyExplosions

Magic Beans wrote: »

The normal commuting cyclist does not wear cleats.

You are posting on this forum, and the norm for posters on here would be, by and large, the wearing of cleats. That doesn't make any difference to the rebuttal of your argument however

CramCycle

Magic Beans wrote: »

The normal commuting cyclist does not wear cleats.

This is a great forum but one thing I have learned one here is that there is a vociferous body of cyclists who will do as they choose regardless and who will wheedle, squirm, finagle, fillibuster and ignore every request, instruction, legal requirement, papal encyclical etc if it suits them.

Cycle on lads. be safe.

If you actually spent anytime reading through the threads on this forum you will find that the average poster (at least claims) to obey the law and wish others to do the same for the betterment of all road users.

I call TROLL

Gingaling

I've cycled across the East Link bridge hundreds of times and never even noticed that sign!

If I'm recalling correctly, there is a cycle lane though, at the far left toll station which somewhat contradicts the message!

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

When I dug around subsequently to find out why it was erected, I heard that it happened after a motorcyclist was killed when he was blown across the path of traffic by a severe cross-wind.

Interesting, if true. Why no warning to motorcyclists? Also, I think the correct response to an occasional hazard of that nature is to put one of those warning signs with a windsock on it, rather than a blanket request not to cycle.



Reminds me a little of the warning sign I saw in a car park that requested cyclists to walk across the car park, because a cyclist had been struck by a car reversing out a parking space. The correct approach should have been to warn cyclists to keep a safe distance from parked cars, and for motorists to exercise care when pulling out of spaces.

hardCopy

If DCC/NTR are so concerned with cycle safety they should remove those obsolete rails from the road surface on the roundabout

tomasrojo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the sign is nothing more than a request, just like the RotR now contains lots of "shoulds", it's trying to dictate to people what they should be doing in some busybody's opinion instead of what they are entitled to do under the law.

I've been given to understand that in the event of injury, these "shoulds" in the RotR can be used to claim contributory negligence, where they haven't been followed by the injured party, and to reduce compensation awards.

EDIT: The Highway Code in the UK has these "shoulds" sprinkled all over the place too. Are these a recent phenomena? A way of placating busybodies without creating thickets of unenforceable laws?

RobertFoster

Magic Beans wrote: »

Earth calling cyclists, Earth calling cyclists...

We're reading you, Earth, over.

glic71rods46t0

tomasrojo wrote: »

Interesting, if true. Why no warning to motorcyclists? Also, I think the correct response to an occasional hazard of that nature is to put one of those warning signs with a windsock on it, rather than a blanket request not to cycle.



Reminds me a little of the warning sign I saw in a car park that requested cyclists to walk across the car park, because a cyclist had been struck by a car reversing out a parking space. The correct approach should have been to warn cyclists to keep a safe distance from parked cars, and for motorists to exercise care when pulling out of spaces.

Its perfectly reasonable for society to have societal norms such as, in this case, expecting cyclists to dismount when going by the eastlink and, in your specific example, when travelling through a carpark.
The owners have no real interest in whether their requirements (not request) is obeyed by cyclists or not - its just a civil matter not a criminal matter. It does make a difference if a cyclist is hit when disobeying the requirements of use imposed by the property owner.
If a motorist is involved in a collision with a cyclist disobeying the stated requirement will be able to rely on the fact that the cyclist contributed to the collision.
In a carpark a reversing motorist is looking out for other cars and slow moving pedestrians, not cyclists, especially cyclists moving at speed.

SuiteCheex

Gingaling wrote: »

I've cycled across the East Link bridge hundreds of times and never even noticed that sign!

I must be nearing 500 trips across that bridge and also have never once seen the aforementioned sign. I might stop off for a souvenir snap with the celebrity sign on my way home tonight.........but then again I probably won't as that would require me to dismount

Doctor Bob wrote: »

When I dug around subsequently to find out why it was erected, I heard that it happened after a motorcyclist was killed when he was blown across the path of traffic by a severe cross-wind.

In fairness, the breezes on that bridge have given me more than a few brown-shorts moments. I'd normally just pull out into the middle of the road to deter cars from over-taking me until the traumatic crossing is over.

tomasrojo

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

Its perfectly reasonable for society to have societal norms such as, in this case, expecting cyclists to dismount when going by the eastlink and, in your specific example, when travelling through a carpark.
The owners have no real interest in whether their requirements (not request) is obeyed by cyclists or not - its just a civil matter not a criminal matter. It does make a difference if a cyclist is hit when disobeying the requirements of use imposed by the property owner.
If a motorist is involved in a collision with a cyclist disobeying the stated requirement will be able to rely on the fact that the cyclist contributed to the collision.
In a carpark a reversing motorist is looking out for other cars and slow moving pedestrians, not cyclists, especially cyclists moving at speed.

Tim? I admire your tenacity. Sort of.

TinyExplosions

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

The owners have no real interest in whether their requirements (not request) is obeyed by cyclists or not - its just a civil matter not a criminal matter. It does make a difference if a cyclist is hit when disobeying the requirements of use imposed by the property owner

Ok, I'll say this one more time for you. The sign is below:



The text on it says "Cyclists are requested to dismount and walk bicycles across east-link bridge via the footpath".

Note the important word on the sign, I'll even embolden it for emphasis: requested. Now, I'm not sure if English is your first language, or if your comprehension is off, or if you're just a bit dim, but in the real world, requested does not equal a requirement. That's nothing to do with law, common sense or anything else, it's the English language, and isn't open to interpretation.

I can request that you fuck off and stop trolling the thread, and you could, quite rightly, ignore that with no consequences at all. If a moderator required you to do it on the other hand, you'd have to comply, or face a ban. Is that clear enough, or would you like to twist things a bit more to fit your agenda?

Cookie_Monster

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

In a carpark a reversing motorist is looking out for other cars and slow moving pedestrians, not cyclists, especially cyclists moving at speed.

would they specifically not be looking for cyclists?

DirkVoodoo

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

In a carpark a reversing motorist is looking out for other cars and slow moving pedestrians, not cyclists, especially cyclists moving at speed.

No Tim, FAIL. Please re-take your driving test.

If you are reversing, you should be looking for any hazards. I do believe that you are meant to yield to them too.

Plenty of bike racks located in car parks too. Again, just displaying your bias and general dislike of cyclists with comments like that.

monument

Legally sign could actually be more of a problem for DCC and the toll company.

There are no provisions to ban cyclists from roads or ask them to remove them self from the road (other than motorways, pedestrian streets, and other limited areas such as contra-flow bus lanes). It's quite the opposite, under the Roads Act, provision must be made for all road users:

17.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part and, in particular, to such directions and guidelines as may be given by the Minister under section 41 , it shall be the general duty of the Authority to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads and for that purpose it shall have— ...

(2) In the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority shall consider the needs of all road users.

(shall = must)

In this case, asking cyclists to dismount while in traffic on a narrow road to walk their bikes on a narrow footpath just for some impatient motorists who won't wait behind the cyclists for all of 150m or so, does not seem to fit the bill.

Magic Beans wrote: »

The fact remains that the bridge is private property and the owners/operators are legally entitled to give reasonable directions as to how guests on their property comport themselves.

No.

Regardless of ownership (DCC ultimately), it's a public road. The rules of the road apply -- there's no such sign in the rules of the road or the traffic signs manual.

Magic Beans wrote: »

Cycle on lads. be safe.

We will, on the road, where we're legally and morally allowed to be.