East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

le petit braquet · 19-07-2011 11:00am #1

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 · 19-07-2011 11:07am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:08am

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

maloner · 19-07-2011 11:12am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:14am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:16am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:19am

Because it's much slower.

Hermy · 19-07-2011 11:21am

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

Jawgap · 19-07-2011 11:23am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:25am

I love that photo.

TinyExplosions · 19-07-2011 11:26am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:27am

Jawgap wrote: »

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

Surely thats not in Ireland?

tomasrojo · 19-07-2011 11:29am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:33am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:36am

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.....

il_fullxfull.239909661.jpg

tomasrojo · 19-07-2011 11:37am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:39am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:46am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:49am

daragh_ · 19-07-2011 11:49am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:49am

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

Magic Beans · 19-07-2011 11:53am

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_ · 19-07-2011 11:54am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:55am

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 · 19-07-2011 11:57am

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 · 19-07-2011 12:01pm

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- · 19-07-2011 12:09pm

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 · 19-07-2011 12:11pm

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 · 19-07-2011 12:28pm

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 · 19-07-2011 12:33pm

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 · 19-07-2011 12:35pm

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

East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

Comments