East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

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.

Beasty

Some reminders (before anyone gets themselves into trouble;))

• Keep it civil.
• Remember this is the cycling forum - anyone coming in here to have general swipes at cyclists can expect to be dealt with appropriately.
• If anyone has a problem with a post, report it.

Thanks

Beasty

justo

These signs we're put up a few years ago in recognition of the fact that crossing this bridge is damn dangerous.

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

The cyclist, Peter Heffernan, was my friend's father.

tomasrojo

I'm very sorry to hear it. Did that not happen on the roundabout in front of The Point though rather than on the bridge?

Cookie_Monster

justo wrote: »

These signs we're put up a few years ago in recognition of the fact that crossing this bridge is damn dangerous.

can you describe how it is dangerous exactly? more so than any other road...

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

you cannot turn left on the bridge and by the time you reach the roundabout if you had dismounted you would have remounted by that point anyway

The cyclist, Peter Heffernan, was my friend's father.

RIP but the bridge design had nothing to do with the above incident, the trucks inoperative lights and the cyclist position in relation to the truck (or vice versa) caused the collision.

justo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear it. Did that not happen on the roundabout in front of The Point though rather than on the bridge?

As far as I am aware it happened at the round-about alright, but the signs were erected after the inquiry to attempt to improve the general area, in athe absence of proper facilities for shared-use in the area.

CramCycle

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

when disobeying the requirements suggestion

justo wrote: »

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

Sorry for your friends loss but in that situation it sounds like road position/situational awareness was the issue and not the bridge.

justo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

can you describe how it is dangerous exactly? more so than any other road...

you cannot turn left on the bridge and by the time you reach the roundabout if you had dismounted you would have remounted by that point anyway

Of course you can't run left on the bridge. At the end of the bridge you can turn left. As mentioned above, the request to dismount is an attempt to prevent more accidents in the general area, I would assume, as the problems with the bridge were highligted at the inquest.

RIP but the bridge design had nothing to do with the above incident, the trucks inoperative lights and the cyclist position in relation to the truck (or vice versa) caused the collision.

The bridge design and the cycling facilities in the area are central to the incident. The accident occured pre-tunnel so the bridge was a main entry/ exit point for 40foot trucks etc. to Dublin port. Even the worst town planner should be able to tell that this kind of traffic should not mix with cyclists if at all possible. Of course the faulty indicator was paramount as well.

tomasrojo

justo wrote: »

As far as I am aware it happened at the round-about alright, but the signs were erected after the inquiry to attempt to improve the general area, in athe absence of proper facilities for shared-use in the area.

I see what you mean, and you aren't necessarily defending the measure, but it doesn't actually make the dangerous bit -- the roundabout -- any safer. It's generally better to give some idea to a road-user what the hazard is, rather than tell them to walk anyway. For example, if the hazard is trucks, there's no reason not to cycle over when there are no trucks about. If the hazard is crosswinds, there's no reason not to cycle on a still day.

I personally don't like the bridge and avoid it, but if I worked in, say, East Point Business Park and lived just south of the East Link, I probably would cycle over it everyday.

tomasrojo

On the subject of roundabouts, it's notoriously difficult to mix cycle facilities with large roundabouts. They're quite incompatible in general.

For example:

Cycle facilities at roundabouts

Research has shown that even in large circular junctions that lack modern roundabout design features, a high rate of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes occurs when bicyclists are riding around the outside. Design guidance for modern roundabouts recommends terminating cycle lanes well before the entrances, so bicyclists merge into the stream of motor traffic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Cycle_facilities_at_roundabouts

There are expensive solutions, but even some of them break down (such as cyclist underpasses in areas of social deprivation).

EDIT:

Off-topic a little, but I couldn't agree more with this on the subject of pedestrian crossings at roundabouts:

Modern design guidance also recommends placing the footpath crossings far enough from the roundabout so that at least one exiting vehicle can wait without blocking the circular roadway. A roundabout with two lanes should place the footpath crossing two car lengths from the junction.

Crossings directly in the mouth of the exit are very hazardous, in my experience.

justo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I see what you mean, and you aren't necessarily defending the measure, but it doesn't actually make the dangerous bit -- the roundabout -- any safer. It's generally better to give some idea to a road-user what the hazard is, rather than tell them to walk anyway. For example, if the hazard is trucks, there's no reason not to cycle over when there are no trucks about. If the hazard is crosswinds, there's no reason not to cycle on a still day.

I personally don't like the bridge and avoid it, but if I worked in, say, East Point Business Park and lived just south of the East Link, I probably would cycle over it everyday.

Agreed. But all too often, an Irish problem is fixed with a make-shift, under-performing, Irish solution.