East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

check_six

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so they only apply if you're cycling against traffic then
:pac:

I think you may have cracked this conundrum. It's possible to cycle down the cycle path on the North Wall heading east and arrive at the bridge on the wrong side of the road. In this circumstance it might be necessary to remind people to push their bike over the bridge on the footpath rather than cycle on the footpath.

I can't explain the sign on the other side (south side) though as I can't work out how you could end up on the footpath on that side on your bike.

In either event the path on the west side (nearest town) has a good bit of cycle traffic on it going both directions because it is possible to get into/out of Ringsend/Thorncastle St. from that path.

One other thought, due to the size of the path it's a lot easier for cyclists to pass each other (and pedestrians) if they are only taking up one bike width, ie. still sitting on the bike, not wheeling it beside them.

I wonder what would be a good sign that would signify "if you're going to roll along the footpath, take it easy"?

Seve OB

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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)

Look around you, there is one on the other side of the road, and one on the other side of the bridge!



Now I'm not going to tell everyone to do what the sign says because I agree that it is wrong. Cyclists have every right to use the roads as much as cars etc.

However, as both a driver and a cyclist, I really can't abide all the people here that are saying "I use the road all the time and never seen the sign before" crap. If you choose to use the roads well then you should bloody well follow the rules of the road, and look out for signs.

I expect these are the same people who come up to a traffic light thats red and because there is no cars coming think the red light doesnt apply to them, but then again, maybe I'm mistaken though and they do normally stop at red lights but happen to just not see that one they just went through.

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse. One day there will be a proper sign you need to be aware of and maybe you won't see it either, I just hope you don't catch a glipmse of it as you lie under a truck!

oflahero

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

Cookie_Monster

oflahero wrote: »

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

ah, he'll be fine, sure he can just cycle right across the water without any problem at all :D

CramCycle

stevieob wrote: »

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse. One day there will be a proper sign you need to be aware of and maybe you won't see it either, I just hope you don't catch a glipmse of it as you lie under a truck!

Please read previous posts, the first sign is not there anymore and the second one is on the far side of the bridge.

Jawgap

stevieob wrote: »

........ If you choose to use the roads well then you should bloody well follow the rules of the road, and look out for signs.

Does this sign appear in the rules of the road as published by the RSA

the question is rhetorical.

Can a rule that does not exist be followed - maybe this should be posted in the philosophy forum.......

tomasrojo

stevieob wrote: »

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse.

You're better off watching the road conditions and other traffic, rather than scanning the other side of the road on the off-chance that there's a sign incorrectly located there that applies to you.

But I was intrigued to see "codswallop" making an appearance. Got me to thinking where this word comes from.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codswallop

Seems to have been very popular in the UK in the fifties and sixties, with its first recorded appearance in Hancock's Half Hour, which coincidentally I've been watching lately.

Seve OB

nice one on the codswallop info tomasrojo. what channel is hancocks half hour on that you been watching?

think one or two of you picked me up wrong, i understand this sign is flawed and was not having a go regarding this particular sign.

my point was ained at people "not seeing signs" and how many other signs do they not see or think that they dont apply to cyclists.

As a driver, it is so annoying and bloody dangerous when cyclists blatently break the rules of the road such as red lights.

and of course you got to observe what is going on around you i would have thought that was a forgone conclusion!

CramCycle

stevieob wrote: »

.As a driver, it is so annoying and bloody dangerous when cyclists blatently break the rules of the road such as red lights.

Lets not go down that road or over that bridge, stay on topic, the signs from one side of the bridge are not clearly visible (again read previous posts). I doubt many if any motor vehicle drivers saw that sign either.

Its dangerous no matter what road user breaks the rules unless doing so for their own safety.

coolbeans

To be fair this isn't a red light thread and thank God for that. I've cycled that route southbound many, many times and I never once saw that sign. I think that's more to do with cycling quickly and competently than ignoring blatantly difficult to see signs that aren't even legally mandated.

tomasrojo

stevieob wrote: »

what channel is hancocks half hour on that you been watching?

DVD boxset. Some episodes were wiped, but they have most of them. I have some of the old radio episodes too. Some quite dated, but most are still quite funny, and often very funny. Great dialogue too.

Since most of them were broadcast live, there is an awful lot of corpsing, which is quite entertaining in itself, much like the clearly unplanned laughter in Curb Your Enthusiasm.

coolbeans

tomasrojo wrote: »

DVD boxset. Some episodes were wiped, but they have most of them. I have some of the old radio episodes too. Some quite dated, but most are still quite funny, and often very funny. Great dialogue too.

What's this Hancock's Half Hour; the next blockbusting HBO special I assume?

SuiteCheex

stevieob wrote: »

I really can't abide all the people here that are saying "I use the road all the time and never seen the sign before" crap.

And I can't abide your sanctimony!!

The photos you provided as evidence are out of date as the green hoarding has now been removed, along with the sign. Also your pictures were taken by a camera on top of a ruddy great van in the middle of the road, so of course they're going to be visible!!

For your convenience I've attached photos from my previous post which were taken this morning from a cyclist's point of view. As you can see there is NO sign on the left-hand side as you're heading north and the sign on the left-hand side as you're heading south is obstructed.

stevieob wrote: »

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse. One day there will be a proper sign you need to be aware of and maybe you won't see it either, I just hope you don't catch a glipmse of it as you lie under a truck!

My eyes ARE open as I'm looking out for traffic, NOT concealed (or non-existent) road signs!!

Sr. Assumpta

Dear God/Mod.!!!!!! Please end this madness??????!!!!!

sorry. i just won't open it again. i can resist.

Seve OB

fair point i went off topic, sorry bout that, you know how it is when you start to rant!

sorry to anyone i offended about the sign that is no longer there. i do realise signs should be properly positioned so maybe i will write to whoever it is that is responsible for the bridge and complain about it's position but more imporantly it's legalicy.

my "point in general" still stands though, that paying attention to what goes on around you is not enough if you are a road user and you still need to observe road signs & rules also.

thats it from me on this matter

-Chris-

stevieob wrote: »

fair point i went off topic, sorry bout that, you know how it is when you start to rant!

sorry to anyone i offended about the sign that is no longer there. i do realise signs should be properly positioned so maybe i will write to whoever it is that is responsible for the bridge and complain about it.

my "point in general" still stands though, that paying attention to what goes on around you is not enough if you are a road user and you still need to observe road signs & rules also.

thats it from me on this matter

Question: if you contact the person responsible and they re-erect the sign on the correct side of the road, in a plainly visible position, will you expect cyclists to obey it even though it has no standing in law?

coolbeans

-Chris- wrote: »

Question: if you contact the person responsible and they re-erect the sign on the correct side of the road, in a plainly visible position, will you expect cyclists to obey it even though it has no standing in law?

I'd be ignoring it anyway even if it were transmitted to me via telepathy. It's a short bridge and a competent cyclist can cross it competently without having to dismount or trouble other road users. I know I did it without any bother from motorised users. Also, it's not legally required but more crucially it's obviously been erected by someone who doesn't understand cycling and took a "shur that'll do" attitude to its erection.

monument

stevieob wrote: »

you still need to observe road signs & rules also.

thats it from me on this matter

Nobody needs to observe signs which have no legal meaning.

Seve OB

-Chris- wrote: »

Question: if you contact the person responsible and they re-erect the sign on the correct side of the road, in a plainly visible position, will you expect cyclists to obey it even though it has no standing in law?

monument wrote: »

Nobody needs to observe signs which have no legal meaning.

if you read my previous posts you would know that i think this sign in particular is wrong and that cyclists have every right to use the road

-Chris-

stevieob wrote: »

sorry to anyone i offended about the sign that is no longer there. i do realise signs should be properly positioned so maybe i will write to whoever it is that is responsible for the bridge and complain about it.

stevieob wrote: »

if you read my previous posts you would know that i think this sign in particular is wrong and that cyclists have every right to use the road

Sorry to be pedantic, but you're planning to write to whoever's responsible to complain about the positioning of a sign that you yourself admit is invalid?

The only course of action is to remove the signs.
To re-erect the meaningless sign, and then to endure the haphazard obeying of the meaningless sign (depending on how informed the cyclist is) seems pointless.
The added danger posed to the cyclists who (rightfully) ignore the sign, by irate drivers who believe the sign is legitimate and that the cyclist has no business being infront of them and impeding their driving across the bridge, cannot be tolerated.

Jawgap

It's the wrong type of sign.

Now we know the unfortunate and tragic story that led to them being put there it's clear that what should have gone up are signs warning truck drivers to take a bit of extra care and look out for other road users on the bridge especially cyclists and pedestrians.

The rules of the road show warning signs for low flying aircraft, pedestrians, deer and wild animals, sheep, cattle and farm animals, horses and ponies, and children - nothing for cyclists.

Seve OB

sorry i meant it tongue in cheek, im not writing to anyone.....

wile1000

Back to the OPs original question... no I don't obey (however I *DID* notice the sign early on), and no I haven't been stopped by the Gards. Take this bridge regularly.

Heading northbound I often pass traffic queueing up at the roundabout anyway, and southbound I have been known to pedal harder if I know there might be a car behind me that might get a little frustrated by holding them up an additional 3 seconds for their journey to work because I'm doing 25 instead of 40 over the bridge...

galwaycyclist

Jawgap wrote: »

It's the wrong type of sign.

Now we know the unfortunate and tragic story that led to them being put there it's clear that what should have gone up are signs warning truck drivers to take a bit of extra care and look out for other road users on the bridge especially cyclists and pedestrians.

The rules of the road show warning signs for low flying aircraft, pedestrians, deer and wild animals, sheep, cattle and farm animals, horses and ponies, and children - nothing for cyclists.

That triggered a memory since 2003 (ish) the Galway Cycling Campaign has been looking for the attached sign to be used at road narrowings and pinch points and places where its generally a bad idea for motor vehicles to overtake cyclists.



It got a giggle at the time but the point should be clear. The city council roads department does not acknowledge any problem with pinch points. In fact in their draft walking and cycling strategy they say they want more of them.

tomasrojo

Quite revealing that they thought it was funny. Pinch points are no joke.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Quite revealing that they thought it was funny. Pinch points are no joke.

Indeed, my missus uses them to maximum effect :pac:

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Quite revealing that they thought it was funny. Pinch points are no joke.

In fairness, the laughter was in house within the campaign. That said not too long before this (2000 ish?), at a city development board transport committee, a city official had laughed at a campaign member because she wanted to raise the issue of walking as a form of transport in Galway. If I have it right, the source of this official's mirth was that "everyone knows walking is not a form of transport". (Or at least thats what they knew in Galway City Council)

Later

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In fairness, the laughter was in house within the campaign. That said not too long before this (2000 ish?), at a city development board transport committee, a city official had laughed at a campaign member because she wanted to raise the issue of walking as a form of transport in Galway. If I have it right, the source of this official's mirth was that "everyone knows walking is not a form of transport". (Or at least thats what they knew in Galway City Council)

Later

Oops!

Well then, I carry my harrumphing over to the council's implicit (or perhaps explicit) dismissal of walking as a form of transport!

I rather like the "don't overtake cyclists" sign. It's pretty clear anyway.

Cookie_Monster

galwaycyclist wrote: »

to me that implies that both cars and cycles are banned from that point on.
Why not simply copy the one currently in use for cars:

the reverse of this, with the black car replaced by bicycle

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

to me that implies that both cars and cycles are banned from that point on.
Why not simply copy the one currently in use for cars:

the reverse of this, with the black car replaced by bicycle

Cant see the notion being adopted. A much more likely solution is for a mandatory cycle track to be installed on the bridge. It makes sense and despite contrary opinion here, it is far safer for HGV's and cyclists to be segregated rather than trying to share the road.
Safety should be a priority but must not comproise the reasonable movement of traffic in the city. Whatever way you cut it, a cycle track at this location is the optimum solution for all concerned.