Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

patrickbrophy18

In the last few days, I have noticed yellow road markings on the roundabout in front of Killiney Towers which indicate that is going to be made narrower. I don't understand why this is the case. It is mind-bogglingly annoying that in the last two years, the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council have implemented such idiotic measures. The other measures carried out where as follows:

1. The replacement of the roundabout at Mountown Avenue and Kill Lane with a traffic light arrangement which has effectively made the through-flow of traffic much slower. The 46A rerouting was supposed to make the route more attractive. The new traffic light arrangement does defeat the purpose of this slightly.
2. The narrowing of the roundabout at Stradbrook making for a much tighter situation for buses.
3. The building out of curbs at Marine Road parallel to The Pavilion which has again, made the road more unsuitable for buses. As with point 2 above, these roads are heavily used by buses.
4. The installation of a mini roundabout at the junction of Saval Park Road, Dalkey Avenue and Burton Road (entrance to Killiney Hill Car Park) where the entrance to Saval Park Road has been made narrower. There are 29 Aircoaches that have to negotiate their way around this from Saval Park Road which appears to be a bit of a struggle. This is with the shorter 12 Meter Setra Coaches.
5. There are other areas where there have been curb build-outs implemented.

Are the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council trying to make bus use and other large-vehicular traffic less attractive in the area?:eek:

They don't seem to realize that they are dis-improving the infrastructure in these areas when, in fact, they should be doing the very opposite! It irritates the life out of me that tax payers money is being squandered on quite significant down-grades to the infrastructure. Building out curbs and other similar infrastructure works actually makes the roads more dangerous for vehicles in general. The further apart vehicles are when traveling in opposite direction the safer they will be. Currently, it is becoming a more claustrophobic road network.:mad:

Seaswimmer

As annoying as it is for bus drivers, it improves things for pedestrians and cyclists. I presume DLRCC see these measures as traffic calming. I am familiar with the Mountown roundabout that was and while it undeniably contributed to smooth traffic flow, it was a nightmare as a pedestrian or cyclist. The general thrust in all urban areas is now to slow down traffic. By international standards our speed limits are still high in built up areas and given that these are routinely exceeded then maybe traffic calming is the way to go..

crushproof

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

1. The replacement of the roundabout at Mountown Avenue and Kill Lane with a traffic light arrangement which has effectively made the through-flow of traffic much slower. The 46A rerouting was supposed to make the route more attractive. The new traffic light arrangement does defeat the purpose of this slightly.
2. The narrowing of the roundabout at Stradbrook making for a much tighter situation for buses.
3. The building out of curbs at Marine Road parallel to The Pavilion which has again, made the road more unsuitable for buses. As with point 2 above, these roads are heavily used by buses.

In fairness the new improvements on Marine Road look fantastic and add alot to Dun Laoghaire town centre, alot better than having an overly wide road dominated by cars and buses. And I had a look today, the road is still rpetty wide and plenty of space for buses.
I despise Stradbrook squareabout but as was said, it does make it easier for cyclists to get around. In my opinion they should just some how either build traffic lights or a much smaller roundabout there, throw in a playground or whatever on the spare land that's left over.
I was on the 46A yesterday and the bus lanes around Kill Avenue have made a difference, I suppose at the end of the day traffic lights and proper car/bus/cycle lanes are much safer than a free for all roundabout in a busy suburb. Although I am bewildered when it comes to the 24hr bus lanes on Glenageary Rd Upper, all for the always empty No. 8 bus. They should be a bit pro active and put in road seperated cycle lanes instead.

patrickbrophy18

The Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council have recently built out the curb at the junction between St. Catherine's Road and Castlepark Road, another area served quite frequently by the 59 bus. Effectively, the front of the bus will now have to swing out to the other side of the road to enter at this junction. Is there no end to this nonsense?

Before, the bus was able to keep to it's side of the road the whole way around this corner. This is the way junctions should be where-ever a bus is 40 minutely or higher in frequency. Curb build outs should only be confined to neighborhoods that are Cul De Sacs or at least roads that are currently not served by buses.

Otherwise, you will have buses cutting corners on entering a road which is not supposed to happen. Furthermore, cutting corners is against the rules of the road. Now that the curb at the aforementioned junction has been built out, it will leave moderate sized vehicles no other choice but to cut the corner. At least, have an alternative measure (such as traffic lights) which keeps the road at the same width.

ted1

Cyclists are over accomdated for. I'd love to see how much money is spent per cyclist v any other road user bear in mind cyclists don't actual pay road tax or any tax if brought on cycle to work scheme

delta_bravo

ted1 wrote: »

Cyclists are over accomdated for. I'd love to see how much money is spent per cyclist v any other road user bear in mind cyclists don't actual pay road tax or any tax if brought on cycle to work scheme

Nobody pays road tax.

Motor vehicle owners (some of whom may also be cyclists) pay motor tax. Perhaps that's what you meant?

Fratton Fred

If DLRCC really wanted to help cyclists they would patch up a few more roads. You practically need a 4x4 to get along Church Road in Ballybrack these days.

nomdeboardie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If DLRCC really wanted to help cyclists they would patch up a few more roads. You practically need a 4x4 to get along Church Road in Ballybrack these days.

+1 on road surfaces generally!

Cookie_Monster

I have to agree on the Farm roundabout replacement being stupid and some of the measures put in place around DL in recent time have been mind boggiling to say the least and downright dangerous to cyclists in place due to curbs moving out and so forth. The bottom of Marine road having the bus laybys removed makes no sense to me at all.

patrickbrophy18

I thought I would resurrect this thread given that the work's relating to it are currently taking place. I've seen the "progress:rolleyes::D" of this and it appears as though the cycle lanes have now been paved over by curb build outs. So much for making it safer for cyclists. Effectively, car users will now have to share the same lane with cyclists. I don't see how it is being made safer for pedestrians either as there was already ample sidewalk space for them. Unless the sidewalk is bursting at the seams which is far from the case, I don't see how extra sidewalk space is needed.

The 8 bus is already struggling to enter the Upper Glenageary Road Junction now that the entry radius has been significantly tightened. I was on the 59 bus today and the driver thinks that the works are ridiculous. I would love to ask the DLRCOCO why they are trying to fix something that isn't broken. The same thing goes for the Ballinclea/Killiney Road junction. Essentially, there will be less space and lanes for both junctions. How is reducing the amount of space between motorists and cyclists making the road safer? Would it not increase the likelihood of an accident?

nomdeboardie

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I thought I would resurrect this thread given that the work's relating to it are currently taking place. I've seen the "progress:rolleyes::D" of this and it appears as though the cycle lanes have now been paved over by curb build outs. So much for making it safer for cyclists. Effectively, car users will now have to share the same lane with cyclists. I don't see how it is being made safer for pedestrians either as there was already ample sidewalk space for them. Unless the sidewalk is bursting at the seams which is far from the case, I don't see how extra sidewalk space is needed.

The 8 bus is already struggling to enter the Upper Glenageary Road Junction now that the entry radius has been significantly tightened. I was on the 59 bus today and the driver thinks that the works are ridiculous. I would love to ask the DLRCOCO why they are trying to fix something that isn't broken. The same thing goes for the Ballinclea/Killiney Road junction. Essentially, there will be less space and lanes for both junctions. How is reducing the amount of space between motorists and cyclists making the road safer? Would it not increase the likelihood of an accident?

Interesting - I've cycled through this a few times recently but hadn't worked out what's actually being done (too busy concentrating on staying alive, as always ). If it's being made into a single-lane roundabout, like the one at Stradbrook, then I actually prefer this, even when driving. Paradoxically, the narrower the lane and the tighter the junctions the better for cyclists, in that it should force them (us) to "take the lane", and prevent following traffic from cutting them off on exit. Of course if the geometry makes manouevering almost impossible for buses, then that's a problem!

Re Ballinclea/Killiney Road: Again, I've been through the roadworks here on a bike a couple of times recently too - didn't know what they were doing, and didn't think there was previously a problem there

Fratton Fred

They are doing something with the ramps on Avondale as well. Maybe they are planning on sending the main flow of traffic through there rather than Ballinclea road.

It all does seem like an incredible waste of money though, especially when the Glenageary roundabout just down the road is such a death trap.

helimachoptor

The new lights in the farm are a bit of a pain at peak but off-peak they change pretty quick i think.

patrickbrophy18

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They are doing something with the ramps on Avondale as well. Maybe they are planning on sending the main flow of traffic through there rather than Ballinclea road.

Good point actually! Out of the five roads branching off Killiney Towers Roundabout, Avondale Road probably has the most potential. It could easily be widened as well in due course (20-30 years:D) given that there is more than enough space for an extra lane on both sides. It appears as though smoother ramps are being installed to bring traffic back on to the road.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It all does seem like an incredible waste of money though, especially when the Glenageary roundabout just down the road is such a death trap.

really? Is it that dangerous, I've not heard of any major accidents there...

The only part of it I dislike is the cycle lane around the outside, dangerous for cyclists to stay in it, drivers pay no attention to it and I've nearly been squashed a couple of times by cars cutting in front of me to exit

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

really? Is it that dangerous, I've not heard of any major accidents there...

The only part of it I dislike is the cycle lane around the outside, dangerous for cyclists to stay in it, drivers pay no attention to it and I've nearly been squashed a couple of times by cars cutting in front of me to exit

No major accidents, which is a miracle.

The roundabout is too small, badly laid out and has too many exits. Most people seem to just close their eyes, foot their foot down and hope for the best.

Cookie_Monster

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No major accidents, which is a miracle.

The roundabout is too small, badly laid out and has too many exits. Most people seem to just close their eyes, foot their foot down and hope for the best.

I actually think we are talking about different ones, Avondale roundabout is the one I mean, always known it as Glenageary Rdb, whereas you're talking about the Noggin Rdb, right? (which is actually called Glenageary Rdb on google)

The Noggin one is so bad because people cannot use it properly, especially crossing the shops entrance. But there's little to be done to it to improve it, lights or a junction would be a ****ing disaster there.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The only part of it I dislike is the cycle lane around the outside, dangerous for cyclists to stay in it, drivers pay no attention to it and I've nearly been squashed a couple of times by cars cutting in front of me to exit

I never really thought of it like that. The fact that a cycle lane is on the outside makes it easier for a collision when a car exits as they could collide in a crisscross fashion. Okay, I'll buy that. I suppose if the car and bicycle share the outer lane of the roundabout it does make it safer for both types of road users. I still don't get why they are making it safer for the low density pedestrian traffic given that there is already ample room for them. Nevertheless, I do think that the exit for Upper Glenageary Road is way too tight.

TheVoodoo

A car overturned on the Avondale roundabout at the weekend, it's mad that it's not even finished and there has already been several accidents at it.

Eever

Is it my imagination or does it seem to have been abandoned at this stage?

The work they were doing to the ramps on Avondale Road was to fix them as most of them were falling apart. When I first saw the work they were doing on the roundabout I presumed they'd just made up a silly project to inconvenience everyone because they had some extra money leftover in their budget that needs to be used up by the end of the year and I was raging as I was thinking if they have money it should be going into fixing the speed ramps so I'm delighted they've done that.

As for the roundabout, I didn't really get the point but if people are saying it's a safety measure for cyclists then fair enough. What I don't get though is why they didn't just widen the whole thing, what they seem to have done is add a small, dark brick ledge to the roundabout which I would say is quite hard to see properly in the dark, especially if you're used to having that space. I haven't seen them do any work to it in the last week though, and there's cones everywhere, making it quite difficult to get around. Maybe they're still working on it and I just haven't been there at those times so it looks a bit abandoned to me!

blossom180

Eever wrote: »

Is it my imagination or does it seem to have been abandoned at this stage?

The work they were doing to the ramps on Avondale Road was to fix them as most of them were falling apart. When I first saw the work they were doing on the roundabout I presumed they'd just made up a silly project to inconvenience everyone because they had some extra money leftover in their budget that needs to be used up by the end of the year and I was raging as I was thinking if they have money it should be going into fixing the speed ramps so I'm delighted they've done that.

As for the roundabout, I didn't really get the point but if people are saying it's a safety measure for cyclists then fair enough. What I don't get though is why they didn't just widen the whole thing, what they seem to have done is add a small, dark brick ledge to the roundabout which I would say is quite hard to see properly in the dark, especially if you're used to having that space. I haven't seen them do any work to it in the last week though, and there's cones everywhere, making it quite difficult to get around. Maybe they're still working on it and I just haven't been there at those times so it looks a bit abandoned to me!

They were working on it last Friday.

Lola92

They are still working on the roundabout by Killiney Towers. I was driving past there today and the place was a death trap with traffic cones everywhere and work vans parked on junctions. You could hardly tell where the exits actually were! Also they are using cobble lock around the roundabout! :eek: Completely unnecessary expense.

I agree with the new monkstown junction being fairly useless, if you are not familiar with the junction it can be very unclear. The recently developed TK roundabout also. They should have left the TK roundabout as it was with two lanes.

I think the pedestrian lights on Kill Avenue are a great development though. There are 4 primary schools very close by between the Holly park estate and Kill o'the grange. It was very difficult to cross the road safely there especially at rush hour and school times. A necessary and practical safety measure IMO!

Cookie_Monster

Lola92 wrote: »

Also they are using cobble lock around the roundabout! :eek: Completely unnecessary expense.

Sounds like their trying their best once again to cause cyclists to get hurt with stupid, dangerous road surfaces. :rolleyes:

patrickbrophy18

I thought I would resurrect this thread given that the bulk of the work done to the roundabout in question has been complete for roughly a month now. Anyway, here is my postmortem of it beginning with the biggest problem:

1. Junction Exits: Each exit has been significantly tightened resulting in a round about that is no longer suitable for vehicles such as articulated trucks. Additionally, the bus routes which traverse the roundabout are now struggling to fit into their exits. This holds true, particularly for the exits to Upper Glenageary Road and Avondale Road. In other words, the front of the bus is nearly touching the central median at these exits because they are hemmed in by the rubber barriers to their left.
2. Cycle Lane: The cycle lane on the outer ring of the roundabout still remains which is a problem as I believe that side by side travel is the root cause of collisions in the first place. Think about it, if you are a cyclists on the outer lane of a roundabout (be it for cars or cyclists or both) and a car on the inner lane wants to exit before you, a collision is possible as the car could cut across your path. On the other hand single file traversal removes this possibility.
3. Positioning Of Road Furniture: This is closely tied in with point 1 above. The installation of road furniture such as sign posts and rubber barriers coupled with the repositioning of overhead lights directly beside the road-space further hems the buses in. There are loads of places where they could have been otherwise placed without being on top of the motorist whilst remaining visible.
4. Tailbacks: A new problem has emerged as a result of these measures and that is tailbacks. These tailbacks are now frequently present regardless of the time of day. Tailbacks weren't really an issue with the old layout and only built up at rush hour. Essentially, the new layout has made traffic flow less efficient. This is a major flaw with road narrowing.
5. Capsule Shaped Medians: Quite simply, I don't understand how these are safer for pedestrians than the old triangular medians given that the standing space is now significantly lower.

While I do agree with making roads safer for cyclists, points 1-4 highlight major flaws with the work carried out in Killiney Towers. There are loads of other ways in which the roundabout could have been made safer for cyclists.

Speed ramps (zebra crossings) at each exit would have been a much better method than junction tightening which is the biggest flaw. A dip in the center would allow the cyclist to keep their momentum. As such, the exit is both smooth and slower.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Junction Exits: Each exit has been significantly tightened resulting in a round about that is no longer suitable for vehicles such as articulated trucks.

The roundabout is very much so designed with HGVs in mind -- in the middle of the roundabout there's an extra bit of surface HGVs can use if they need it.

You're again confusing DLR Co Co stopping HGVs from using some very much so residential roads with something to do with the roundabout. The route around is along the R119 and R118 -- this route is far more suitable that Avondale Road with all of it's speed bumps, houses facing out onto it and the school.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

[*]Cycle Lane: The cycle lane on the outer ring of the roundabout still remains which is a problem as I believe that side by side travel is the root cause of collisions in the first place. Think about it, if you are a cyclists on the outer lane of a roundabout (be it for cars or cyclists or both) and a car on the inner lane wants to exit before you, a collision is possible as the car could cut across your path. On the other hand single file traversal removes this possibility.

"Single file" really does not removed the all or any dangers as given the roundabout has to be kept large enough for HGVs, that's more than enough room for other motorists to pass out cyclists and swing in on front of them.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Capsule Shaped Medians: Quite simply, I don't understand how these are safer for pedestrians than the old triangular medians given that the standing space is now significantly lower.

Standing space does not have to be significantly larger because crossing the junction overall has been made much easier with the shorter distances and narrow angles for motorists.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

The roundabout is very much so designed with HGVs in mind -- in the middle of the roundabout there's an extra bit of surface HGVs can use if they need it.

Is it now?

Given that buses are already struggling at the exits, articulated trucks which are up to 4 meters longer will find it next to impossible to negotiate the new exit radii.

monument wrote: »

You're again confusing DLR Co Co stopping HGVs from using some very much so residential roads with something to do with the roundabout. The route around is along the R119 and R118 -- this route is far more suitable that Avondale Road with all of it's speed bumps, houses facing out onto it and the school.

The fact still remains that the old layout made it much more suitable for HGVs to use all exits. Ergo, the new layout is makes it next to impossible to negotiate the new exit radii and hence, is a downgrade.

Also, the roomy nature of Avondale Road is essentially what makes it a suitable route for HGVs. Speed ramps shouldn't be a problem to any vehicle if they are approached with caution. It doesn't matter about the size of the gun, it matters the power of the shot.

Green patches were also left at each side to anticipate the ultimate widening of the road to become a possible QBC.

I don't really see why houses facing onto the road is a problem as the speed ramps on Avondale Road restrict the speed. Additionally, visibility onto the road from these houses is perfectly fine.

I can't understand how a school should dictate what type of traffic goes up and down it's road. Bear in mind that two roads serve the school. These are Avondale Road and Ballinclea Road (the location of your favourite new junction;) which I might add, is more spacious than I previously thought and less ambiguous). That's about it.

monument wrote: »

"Single file" really does not removed the all or any dangers as given the roundabout has to be kept large enough for HGVs, that's more than enough room for other motorists to pass out cyclists and swing in on front of them.

Again, I beg to differ about it being kept large enough for HGVs as the tightened exit radii are barely suitable for double-Decker buses let alone articulated trucks which are up to 4 meters longer.

Single file (in theory) prevents swing outs by virtue of the fact that side by side traversal leaves cyclists on the edge of a roundabout prone to being swept off by cars exiting before them. Therefore, single file traversal and wide exit radii coupled with speed ramps at exits should be a better alternative. Look no further than the Stradbrook Roundabout. This approach would have made far more sense than the mess at Killiney Towers.

monument wrote: »

Standing space does not have to be significantly larger because crossing the junction overall has been made much easier with the shorter distances and narrow angles for motorists.

As for pedestrians, I frequently walked along this roundabout in the old layout and I didn't see any problem with using it. So, if it ain't broken, don't try fixing it.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Is it now?

Given that buses are already struggling at the exits, articulated trucks which are up to 4 meters longer will find it next to impossible to negotiate the new exit radii...

The fact still remains that the old layout made it much more suitable for HGVs to use all exits. Ergo, the new layout is makes it next to impossible to negotiate the new exit radii and hence, is a downgrade.

...Again, I beg to differ about it being kept large enough for HGVs as the tightened exit radii are barely suitable for double-Decker buses let alone articulated trucks which are up to 4 meters longer.

You can beg to differ all you like but there really does not seem to be any of the major problems you are claiming. There's much more to the world and to our roads and streets than HGVs and the line about it being "next to impossible" seems little more than hot air.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Also, the roomy nature of Avondale Road is essentially what makes it a suitable route for HGVs. Speed ramps shouldn't be a problem to any vehicle if they are approached with caution. It doesn't matter about the size of the gun, it matters the power of the shot.

Green patches were also left at each side to anticipate the ultimate widening of the road to become a possible QBC.

I don't really see why houses facing onto the road is a problem as the speed ramps on Avondale Road restrict the speed. Additionally, visibility onto the road from these houses is perfectly fine.

I can't understand how a school should dictate what type of traffic goes up and down it's road. Bear in mind that two roads serve the school. These are Avondale Road and Ballinclea Road (the location of your favourite new junction;) which I might add, is more spacious than I previously thought and less ambiguous). That's about it.

Look, it's a traffic calmed road and there's an alternative route which is more suited to HGVs. It's as simple as that.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

(the location of your favourite new junction;) which I might add, is more spacious than I previously thought and less ambiguous). That's about it.

It's not my "favourite new junction", I was just amazed by how anybody could get worked up about the junction.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Single file (in theory) prevents swing outs by virtue of the fact that side by side traversal leaves cyclists on the edge of a roundabout prone to being swept of by cars exiting before them. Therefore, single file traversal and wide exit radii coupled with speed ramps at exits should be a better alternative. Look no further than the Stradbrook Roundabout. This approach would have made far more sense than the mess at Killiney Towers.

It's not what is now shown on Google Maps, is it? ...or I'll have a look at it next time...

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

As for pedestrians, I frequently walked along this roundabout in the old layout and I didn't see any problem with using it. So, if it ain't broken, don't try fixing it.

Some people don't see any problem with running across dual carriageways... Just because it was fine for you does not mean it is not an improvement for others!

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

You can beg to differ all you like but there really does not seem to be any of the major problems you are claiming. There's much more to the world and to our roads and streets than HGVs and the line about it being "next to impossible" seems little more than hot air.

Than why invest the guts of a quarter of a million that was needlessly blown on this roundabout if there is more to the world than our roads?

My answer: Leave it the way it was. There was no problem their to begin with!

monument wrote: »

It's not what is now shown on Google Maps, is it? ...or I'll have a look at it next time...

It is quite different now to the way it was back then and is now only one lane in width.

monument wrote: »

Some people don't see any problem with running across dual carriageways... Just because it was fine for you does not mean it is not an improvement for others!

Here's the thing. I observe my surroundings before crossing the road to make sure it is safe to do so. Not a problem to me. It requires this little thing called patience.

Moreover, it is a lesson that most of us learn in play school i.e. "Look left and right before crossing the road". Is this too hard to obey?

Pedestrians who fail to do so are a nuisance. Yet, the infrastructure in question has been tailored to suit them.

Pedestrians and like minded cyclists can say that they are being marginalized all they like. And yes, motorists, bus operators and truck drivers will have higher priority over other road users because they are paying tax (road tax and motor tax) towards the general up keep of the road system. It isn't exactly value for money when it is wasted on downgrades to roundabouts like the one in question.

zszs

was just much easier before they started work, everyday i use that roundabout and i always get pissed off, life and everything else should be simple rrrrrrrrr:mad:

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Than why invest the guts of a quarter of a million that was needlessly blown on this roundabout if there is more to the world than our roads?

My answer: Leave it the way it was. There was no problem their to begin with!

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"

-- George Bernard Shaw

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It is quite different now to the way it was back then and is now only one lane in width.

I'll have a look at it next time I'm that way.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Here's the thing. I observe my surroundings before crossing the road to make sure it is safe to do so. Not a problem to me. It requires this little thing called patience.

Moreover, it is a lesson that most of us learn in play school i.e. "Look left and right before crossing the road". Is this too hard to obey?

Pedestrians who fail to do so are a nuisance. Yet, the infrastructure in question has been tailored to suit them.

Refer to the George Bernard Shaw quote above.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Pedestrians and like minded cyclists can say that they are being marginalized all they like. And yes, motorists, bus operators and truck drivers will have higher priority over other road users because they are paying tax (road tax and motor tax) towards the general up keep of the road system. It isn't exactly value for money when it is wasted on downgrades to roundabouts like the one in question.

It was about time... There's no such thing road tax. There has not been for a long time.

If all drivers were paying their way, daily motoring commuters, taxi drivers, truck companies / drivers, and other professional drivers would be paying a far higher percentage of motor tax. Currently somebody parked up in their drive most days and not going anywhere or walking or cycling or taking the bus or the train is paying more than those who drive. Those parked up on the council's streets are paying even more again.

There's no link between motor tax and road upkeep (it goes into central funding) and there's even less of a link between motor tax and road usage!

Furthermore, it's national and local policy to encourage cycling. Given the rising price of oil, the state's carbon commitments, and cycling's ability to help with major health issues (cycling reduces the chances of heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity and the most common form of diabetes!).

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Furthermore, it's national and local policy to encourage cycling. Given the rising price of oil, the state's carbon commitments, and cycling's ability to help with major health issues (cycling reduces the chances of heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity and the most common form of diabetes!).

To begin with, I find that George Bernard Shaw quote quite amusing and almost Darwinian (erm..Bernard Shawnian...:D)

Anyway, I do appreciate this part of the comment as it is a greener mode of transport, economical and good for the ticker:). However, can we agree that buses and bicycles should both play a part in making greener travel methods?

If so, I think all main roads should ultimately have a cycle lane, a bus lane and a car lane. A width of 10 meters per direction should suffice: 2 meters for pedestrians, 2 meters for cyclists, 3.25 meters for buses/trucks and the remaining 2.75 for cars. If an intermediate area is architecturally sensitive (as is the case with much of Monkstown, Dun Laoghaire, Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney), a one way system would suffice. The South of France has a phenomenal system in place whereby large sections of cycle tracks are completely separated from the road.

In the case of roundabouts, here are my recommendations:

• Wide entry and exit radii for all vehicles.
• Zebra crossing at entries and exits to restrict speed.
• Maybe lane sharing is going to far. However, where possible, have a completely separated outer orbital cycle roundabout located 5 meters radius out from the main roundabout with grass in between.
• Laser activated cycle traffic lights which halt traffic at junctions where cyclists may either continue at their exit or go straight on.

At the end of the day, I think that roads should be suitable for all modes of transport i.e. cycling, bus travel, etc..

It's all about reaching a balance but sadly, I don't believe that Killiney Towers Roundabout struck a balance as it's exits are way too tight to the extent that some of them are almost right-angled particularly, the one at Upper Glenageary Road. The rest of it is not all that bad actually and quite aesthetic too.:D

monument

The buses seem to be managing just fine. And if there is a major problem it's up to Dublin Bus to work it out with the council.

None of these are primary roads to start with, and they are not high frequency bus routes serving then. And your idea amounts to complaining about the spend on a roundabout but then wanting an even larger job done on the roundabout and roads in genral?

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

None of these are primary roads to start with, and they are not high frequency bus routes serving then. And your idea amounts to complaining about the spend on a roundabout but then wanting an even larger job done on the roundabout and roads in genral?

I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can. However, you keep on being a smart-ass. My complaints are in relation to the spending of money which has left the roundabout less efficient for motorists and buses. As it is less efficient, it is effectively, a downgrade and hence, a waste of money. I was merely saying that money should have been spent on doing the opposite i.e. making it more efficient.

Making a road more suitable for cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be done at the expense of road-space for buses, trucks and cars. Otherwise, it is a downgrade. Then again, I can tell that you are pro-cyclist & pedestrian and anti-every other road user. So, of course, you're going to come out with statements like: "Ah sure, they (motorists, buses and trucks) can manage"!

Take Blackrock for example. It has wide roads in all directions and allows for extremely efficient flow of all vehicles because of the ample space. It also helps in making an area more accessible and helps sustain businesses along their path. Towns like Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney are surrounded by tight infrastructure which hinders lot's of potential business because of their poor accessibility.

monument

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

So essentially, we both agree that it is a downgrade. Finally, we agree on something.

However, I find it frustrating because it has already resulted in tailbacks.:mad:

monument

An upgrade overall, even if a slight downgrade for some.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

...roads are not designed just for cars, they're designed for motor vehicles which also include trucks, buses, ambulances, refuse vehicles, service vehicles etc. Also, I dread as a motorist and pedestrian, a cyclist dominated future - as motorists, we have to take both a theory (heavy emphasis on vulnerable road users) and practical test - what do cyclists have to do? Who are cyclists accountable too? - Where's the balance there?

Also, the cycle manual needs a major rethink as it's IMO unrealistic and seems very pedestrian unfriendly. Also, who came up with 3.0m lane widths for buses and other traffic? - Try traveling the Northside (especially by bus) where 3.0m lane widths are common - buses need 3.5m while other traffic should get 3.25m in urban areas IMO. Also, this thing of removing left lanes is a :mad: for me as either a pedestrian or motorist. By experience, slip lanes and medians allow pedestrians to cross traffic streams individually thereby reducing the time it takes for crossing main roads. As a motorist, busy tight junctions are extremely dangerous - as a bus passenger, tight roads and junctions are a nightmare and makes the ride unpleasant (stop/start) - all for promoting public transport.

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable - what will cyclists want next - calming the LUAS (wouldn't it be too fast for cyclists) or even getting rid of it altogether (due to cycle wheels getting stuck in the grooves)? Oh, cyclists don't like one way systems as they'd rather take the short route - OMG, if they want the shortest route for every trip, will their war even extend to railways/canals in future years (they're never happy it seems)? :eek: In any case, I think that cycle manual will get a good watering down over time, now that the Greens are totally wiped out of politics. Also, the most effective way to slow down traffic is ramps - simple as - by experience, road narrowing has failed to do this - if in doubt, why do so many narrow roads have ramps - today, I traveled a 2 way road (don't think it was any more than 5m) which was extremely narrow with high walls on both sides - it also had very severe ramps installed - all for narrow roads reducing speed! :rolleyes:

Let's cut the BS!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It's about a balance.

And given our roads have been designed mostly with the car in mind, for balance, there needs to be give and take from cars. That will include some downgrading for some types of road users.

But it's about what's most safe and efficient overall, not just what efficient for some road users.

...roads are not designed just for cars, they're designed for motor vehicles which also include trucks, buses, ambulances, refuse vehicles, service vehicles etc. Also, I dread as a motorist and pedestrian, a cyclist dominated future - as motorists, we have to take both a theory (heavy emphasis on vulnerable road users) and practical test - what do cyclists have to do? Who are cyclists accountable too? - Where's the balance there?

Also, the cycle manual needs a major rethink as it's IMO unrealistic and seems very pedestrian unfriendly. Also, who came up with 3.0m lane widths for buses and other traffic? - Try traveling the Northside (especially by bus) where 3.0m lane widths are common - buses need 3.5m while other traffic should get 3.25m in urban areas IMO. Also, this thing of removing left lanes is a :mad: for me as either a pedestrian or motorist. By experience, slip lanes and medians allow pedestrians to cross traffic streams individually thereby reducing the time it takes for crossing main roads. As a motorist, busy tight junctions are extremely dangerous - as a bus passenger, tight roads and junctions are a nightmare and makes the ride unpleasant (stop/start) - all for promoting public transport.

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable - what will cyclists want next - calming the LUAS (wouldn't it be too fast for cyclists) or even getting rid of it altogether (due to cycle wheels getting stuck in the grooves)? Oh, cyclists don't like one way systems as they'd rather take the short route - OMG, if they want the shortest route for every trip, will their war even extend to railways/canals in future years (they're never happy it seems)? :eek: In any case, I think that cycle manual will get a good watering down over time, now that the Greens are totally wiped out of politics. Also, the most effective way to slow down traffic is ramps - simple as - by experience, road narrowing has failed to do this - if in doubt, why do so many narrow roads have ramps - today, I traveled a 2 way road (don't think it was any more than 5m) which was extremely narrow with high walls on both sides - it also had very severe ramps installed - all for narrow roads reducing speed! :rolleyes:

Let's cut the BS!

What an anti-cycling / strange random rant! If you want to cut the bull ****, do so and tell us: Why are you so bitter towards cycling?

I was taking in genral terms when I said roads were designed for cars, but roads were first and foremost designed for cars in the recent past (... Did you know before that they were paved for cyclists mainly?). Buses and trucks came second at best. A lot has/is been done to rebalance things for buses, now the same is slowly being done for the bicycle.

I'm fairly clealy on the record in saying that on-the-spot fines for cyclists would be a good thing and could be done with ease. There's the balance. Beyond that cycling is quite different than driving, so the balance is good as it is. Motorist are tested etc and you still get widespread poor driving!...

People on bicycles have killed how many drivers, pedistrains and other cyclist?... Yes, and all of the people cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, and yet the manslaughter on roads is still the domain of people driving.

And what exactly is so "unrealistic" and "very pedestrian unfriendly" about the cycle manual? Althought I agree there's a good chance it won't be followed too well.

And strangely enoufe in the city centre and else where poor motorists do at least as good of a job as slowing the Luas down as cyclists do. You'll find it has little to do with the greens one way or another.

On lane widths you only seem to half know what you are talking about. Buses are mostly about 2.55m -- so, 3m works. The problem with the apparent 3m bus lanes on the northside is that in many cases the buses are as wide as the lane -- that means the lane can't be 3m! And the 3m in the manual excuses the gutter or buffer widths -- and if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed.

le petit braquet

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Take Blackrock for example. It has wide roads in all directions and allows for extremely efficient flow of all vehicles because of the ample space. It also helps in making an area more accessible and helps sustain businesses along their path. Towns like Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney are surrounded by tight infrastructure which hinders lot's of potential business because of their poor accessibility.

So you want the equivalent of the Blackrock bypass in Dalkey, Killiney and Sandycove:eek: As someone who lives close to the old golf club stretch of the Glenageary Road which has been transformed into the type of super highway you desire - NO THANKS!

patrickbrophy18

Irish and Proud wrote: »

You see, there is really only one mode that's seemingly not fitting in too well - making all other modes suffer is completely unacceptable

Couldn't have put it better myself. The treatment to Killiney Towers Roundabout was very regressive!

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

What an anti-cycling / strange random rant! If you want to cut the bull ****, do so and tell us: Why are you so bitter towards cycling?

I'm not bitter towards cycling in general - I'm just bitter towards this pen pushing nonsense by the powers that be that anything with a motor in it is evil and that cycling is the best thing since sliced bread - bear in mind that I've been a cyclist for many years, so I'd know all about it! While I'd believe the cycle campaigns in saying that it only rains 8% of the time (if even that), there are other major problems with cycling such as wind, aggressive dogs (in rural areas), bike crime, narrow roads, road maintenance etc. Wind, dogs and narrow roads were the main problems for me - however, you can't get rid of wind and you can't widen every road in the country - however, dogs and poor road maintenance need to be tackled IMO. In short, I don't think cycling is the be all and end all solution for transport, even in urban areas - what about old people, children, families, people with disability etc?

monument wrote: »

I was taking in genral terms when I said roads were designed for cars, but roads were first and foremost designed for cars in the recent past (... Did you know before that they were paved for cyclists mainly?). Buses and trucks came second at best. A lot has/is been done to rebalance things for buses, now the same is slowly being done for the bicycle.

I'd find it hard to believe that roads were originally paved for cyclists mainly - must look it up. Now, a lot of re-balancing work in favour of cyclists has already taken place. Many of the newer junctions give a lot of priority to cyclists IMO - the cycling manual however insists that the type of junctions that stream cyclists amid the traffic lanes are too car friendly - the cycle manual talks of cyclists being cut out by turning traffic - the burning question is, is it the road design that's wrong or is it the law? IMO it's this simple, on approach to a junction, if a cyclist (going straight on) is ahead of a turning vehicle, the turning vehicle should stay behind the cyclist and cross over in turn - on the other hand, if a cyclist (going straight on) is behind a turning vehicle, then the cyclist should let the turning vehicle cross over, but the turning vehicle should not proceed if to do so would cause a prolonged blockage of the cycle lane (that's a good reason for providing left lanes!) If a turning vehicle is stationary having not yet crossed over, there should be no problem with a cyclist (going straight on) proceeding as long as the vehicle remains stationary. Large vehicles such a trucks should require a rear mounted blind side video in order to make the vehicle safe as far as I'm concerned - this would allow drivers to see a cyclist coming up on the blind side. If the traffic laws reflected the above, a lot of problems would be solved in a fair way IMO.

monument wrote: »

I'm fairly clealy on the record in saying that on-the-spot fines for cyclists would be a good thing and could be done with ease. There's the balance. Beyond that cycling is quite different than driving, so the balance is good as it is. Motorist are tested etc and you still get widespread poor driving!...

Maybe free state insurance cover for registered cyclists over 18, but only for those that successfully complete a proper cycling course with a practical and theory test at the end. Cyclists should have to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge regarding the rules of the road as well as demonstrating proper bicycle command (like using the gears and general rider stability) as well as good road craft. I do agree however that motorists should face a far tougher grilling in the test regarding lane disciple - this IMO should cover cycle tracks, motorways, roundabouts etc.

monument wrote: »

People on bicycles have killed how many drivers, pedistrains and other cyclist?... Yes, and all of the people cycling in the Netherlands and Denmark, and yet the manslaughter on roads is still the domain of people driving.

Zero I guess, but that still doesn't necessarily make them safe - cyclists are often the cause of complaint amid pedestrians and motorists alike - it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc - I'm sure some pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists - I was very nearly one of them in O'Connell Street years ago - mind you I was jay walking like everyone else, but the cyclist was cycling on the right hand side of the carriageway (not the wrong way, but in the wrong position) and at speed.

monument wrote: »

And what exactly is so "unrealistic" and "very pedestrian unfriendly" about the cycle manual? Althought I agree there's a good chance it won't be followed too well.

Removing slip roads makes road crossing much more difficult by my experience as a pedestrian - of course, the war is AFAIK about to extend to jaywalking pedestrians which I think will be more of the pen pushing nonsense - however, left slips should be angled 30/60 deg with a zebra crossing incorporated which would allow pedestrians to reach the mainline with little or no delay - both motorists and cyclists turning left could share these type of slips. Removing left lanes and slips will only cause more confusion for pedestrians and motorists - as a pedestrian, I hate approaching traffic with no declaration lane thereby making unclear to me what the vehicles are going to do at the junction (and the lack of slips causes even more pedestrian severance) - it especially drives me mad when I'm making my way to a bus or train - there you have it: motorists, pedestrians and users of public transport are unfairly treated. Again, cyclists should have their rightful place, but not a dominant place in the street.

monument wrote: »

And strangely enoufe in the city centre and else where poor motorists do at least as good of a job as slowing the Luas down as cyclists do. You'll find it has little to do with the greens one way or another.

Agreed - and there should be guards going up and down slapping obnoxiously sticky reminders (my Dad wrongfully got one of these regarding a new parking regime in London years ago) upon the wind screens - I bet it would stop very quickly!

monument wrote: »

On lane widths you only seem to half know what you are talking about. Buses are mostly about 2.55m -- so, 3m works. The problem with the apparent 3m bus lanes on the northside is that in many cases the buses are as wide as the lane -- that means the lane can't be 3m! And the 3m in the manual excuses the gutter or buffer widths -- and if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed.

OK, it think it's safe for me to say you don't drive because a vehicle width of 2.55m is the width of a 3.0m lane in driving terms - vehicles are not robots that travel in a perfect straight line - but I bet you would agree with the NTA that cyclists need a lot of wobble room (2.0m). Also, when you're at cruising speed on a bike, would you be able to stay so steady that a 1.0m cycle lane would suffice - now consider wind, road camber, debris etc. Now, since your arms would probably span no more than 800mm when cycling (I have cycled a lot in the past remember), 1.0m should be enough for you if 3.0m is enough for a bus - well isn't that fair??? Now, I'd recommend 1.75m for Cyclists, 3.50m for Buses and 3.25m for General Traffic (and a median strip of 0.50m if required).

Regards!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'm not bitter towards cycling in general - I'm just bitter towards this pen pushing nonsense by the powers that be that anything with a motor in it is evil and that cycling is the best thing since sliced bread - bear in mind that I've been a cyclist for many years, so I'd know all about it! While I'd believe the cycle campaigns in saying that it only rains 8% of the time (if even that), there are other major problems with cycling such as wind, aggressive dogs (in rural areas), bike crime, narrow roads, road maintenance etc. Wind, dogs and narrow roads were the main problems for me - however, you can't get rid of wind and you can't widen every road in the country - however, dogs and poor road maintenance need to be tackled IMO.

Dublin has less rail fall than Amsterdam and Copenhagen, both of which have high cycling numbers. Copenhagen is known to be a very windy city.

There's no need to "widen every road in the country". It's about getting things right. Given we're talking about south Dublin -- the N11 is a good example. The **** cycle track on it have been redesigned something like six times now and still need a good deal of work. It's like putting lipstick on a pig at this stage.

There's also loads of scope to improve things in other parts of the city off-road. The canals alone offer a great chance to have the low amount of stop routes in and out of the city centre. The detail again needs to be right to get the best results.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

In short, I don't think cycling is the be all and end all solution for transport, even in urban areas - what about old people, children, families, people with disability etc?

Who said cycling is the be all and end all solution? Nobody did and the councils, the NTA, or the governments are nowhere near treating it as that.

What about old people? Some can cycle and many more would be able to if they had kept up cycling.

What about children? They can cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQ-d2PBUto

Families can also cycle. What makes you think they can't?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I'd find it hard to believe that roads were originally paved for cyclists mainly - must look it up.

Excuse the pun, but cycling paved the way for motorists in many ways. For example John Boyd Dunlop invented the pneumatic tire for the bicycle.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Now, a lot of re-balancing work in favour of cyclists has already taken place.

Very little has overall outside a few example.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If the traffic laws reflected the above, a lot of problems would be solved in a fair way IMO.

The idea that it's only a law or enforcement of current law issue [1] discounts the idea that our road layouts were not designed for cyclists and [2] is not very practical when the goal both nationally and locally is to make cycling more attractive to more people, not just make things safer for those who currently cycle.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Maybe free state insurance cover for registered cyclists over 18, but only for those that successfully complete a proper cycling course with a practical and theory test at the end. Cyclists should have to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge regarding the rules of the road as well as demonstrating proper bicycle command (like using the gears and general rider stability) as well as good road craft.

There's no proven need for any of this. Roads have gotten safer at the same time as there has been a boom in cycling numbers! It would be a waste of time and money.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Zero I guess, but that still doesn't necessarily make them safe - cyclists are often the cause of complaint amid pedestrians and motorists alike - it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc - I'm sure some pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists - I was very nearly one of them in O'Connell Street years ago - mind you I was jay walking like everyone else, but the cyclist was cycling on the right hand side of the carriageway (not the wrong way, but in the wrong position) and at speed.

Motorists were at one point seen as cyclists are now, as it becomes more mainstream this will slowly changed -- just as it did with motorists (one theory is when cars were still out of reach of the masses, that buses made cars more acceptable, see here). Still to this day every type of road user gives out about others and "their own".

Cyclists are allow on the right hand side oft he carriageway, very much so when there's a load of people j-walking (he could have been trying to avoid others). Legally and morally, your j-walking invalidates any point you may have had.

Many motorist park on footpaths, speed, block cycle lanes, block advance stop lines, block ped crossing, tailgate, use the overtaking lane when they should not etc. These are really not lawbreaking cyclists or motorists, but lawbreaking people.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Removing slip roads makes road crossing much more difficult by my experience as a pedestrian

In my experience it means much longer crossing times and filter traffic lights are the least obeyed by motorists.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Removing left lanes and slips will only cause more confusion for pedestrians and motorists

People adapt pretty quickly.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

OK, it think it's safe for me to say you don't drive because a vehicle width of 2.55m is the width of a 3.0m lane in driving terms - vehicles are not robots that travel in a perfect straight line - but I bet you would agree with the NTA that cyclists need a lot of wobble room (2.0m). Also, when you're at cruising speed on a bike, would you be able to stay so steady that a 1.0m cycle lane would suffice - now consider wind, road camber, debris etc. Now, since your arms would probably span no more than 800mm when cycling (I have cycled a lot in the past remember), 1.0m should be enough for you if 3.0m is enough for a bus - well isn't that fair??? Now, I'd recommend 1.75m for Cyclists, 3.50m for Buses and 3.25m for General Traffic (and a median strip of 0.50m if required).

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

There's no need to "widen every road in the country". It's about getting things right. Given we're talking about south Dublin -- the N11 is a good example. The **** cycle track on it have been redesigned something like six times now and still need a good deal of work. It's like putting lipstick on a pig at this stage.

To be fair though, the section between Leopardstown Road and the junction at Foxrock Church has been improved for cyclists significantly. For example, they have now re-arranged the layout of the cycle track to go around the bus stop. This holds true for many other bus stops along the N11 in general. They have also straightened many parts of the cycle lane where a sharp change in direction may destabilize the cyclist in motion. This is another reason why I strongly disagree with tightened junctions such as those on the roundabout in question because it leads to a sudden change in direction.

monument wrote: »

What about old people? Some can cycle and many more would be able to if they had kept up cycling.

To certain extent, this is true. As you have said before, it is good for the ticker;). However, past a certain age, over exercise can cause heart attacks. For those who are in this bracket, I would recommend a cautious approach to exercise.:cool:

monument wrote: »

There's no proven need for any of this. Roads have gotten safer at the same time as there has been a boom in cycling numbers! It would be a waste of time and money.

I will quote a statement by 'Irish and Proud' that "it's well known that some cyclists break red lights, cycle on footpaths, cycle the wrong way down one way streets etc". I also see this very frequently and attests to such a need.

monument wrote: »

Many motorist park on footpaths, speed, block cycle lanes, block advance stop lines, block ped crossing, tailgate, use the overtaking lane when they should not etc.

And this is deplorable. I completely agree with you in this regard. In fact, I would go so far as to fine people who do this.

While cyclists are known for breaking the rules of the road, many motorists are also equally (if not more) guilty of this given that the car becomes a weapon in these circumstances.

In any case, failure to comply with the rules of the road, be it a cyclists or motorist, increases the likelihood of an accident 100%. For this very reason, I believe that most road accidents are caused by a failure to comply.

monument wrote: »

In my experience it means much longer crossing times and filter traffic lights are the least obeyed by motorists.

As I have said in another thread, I do think that the synchronization of pedestrian lights does need to be tweaked to provide far more frequent crossing opportunities at a lot of junctions in The Greater Dublin Area.

monument wrote: »

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

I will also agree with you here. While I amn't an expert in the dimensions of bicycles, it does appear as though they are the best part of a meter in width. As such, at least half a meter of clearance should be provided on both sides of the bicycle to allow for "wiggle or wobble room".:D

Nevertheless, I think that the same thing also applies to buses because their hind axle needs to be somewhat parallel to the curb without getting too close. The junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout (KTR) has reduced this clearance to the extent that the extremities of the buses frame are almost touching the central median and the cycle barriers. The only thing I can see in this case is a more dangerous situation for cyclists.

For these very reasons, I think that extensive road widening will eventually need to be carried out on many of the roads in the south eastern portion of the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area. Essentially, I believe in a solution for all AND an upgrade for all. I took the time to read "The National Cycle Manual" myself. There are some parts of it that I do agree with and other parts where I strongly object. The part which mentioned HGVs recommended very wide entry/exit radii, something that the KTR has omitted.

Irish and Proud

Here's a link to a thread showing some good pictures of the new roundabout design - to me, it seems like a deathtrap for cyclists - I have some reservations about cyclists, but seriously my feeling is: What did cyclists do to deserve a cyclist killing contraption (I certainly didn't wish that on cyclists) - indeed what did motorists do to deserve being used as the killing weapon? Well to me, that is exactly what this design is - a cyclist killing machine! Not only are cyclists crossing left turning traffic on the blind side, but cyclists are being forced to do so from behind such vehicles given the curvature of the roundabout. By the time a motorist has check the rear mirror, left mirror and blind spot before turning off, and having to adjust to such a tight turn, things could change very quickly given the difference in velocity between cyclists and motorists (the cyclists would be the faster IMO). I feel that the risk of collision between cyclists and left turning vehicles is very great. However, barring accident collateral damage, the layout should be safer for pedestrians - that's the only good point I can see in relation to the new design.

An alternative could be a turbo roundabout through which cyclists could be synchronized (through a signalized cycle gate) on approach to the junction - from a quick sketch, a turbo roundabout could easily be rendered acceptable for pedestrians too given the rigidly enforced lane discipline through the roundabout - the problem with conventional roundabouts for pedestrians is the unpredictable nature of the circulating traffic while crossing the exit lane - turbo roundabouts would solve this IMO - also turbo roundabouts could be more favourable towards the installation of pedestrian signalization given the enforced lane discipline and resulting clearer focus that motorists can afford upon entering the exit lane - this IMO would be acceptable to all modes!

Regards!

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

As you know very well, cyclists need more wiggle or wobble room than 1m and as I said: "if you read the whole manual it's not saying 3m is what is always needed" for buses. For example, nobody is suggesting just 3m bus lanes on the N11 where buses should be going at speed.

...which is why I'm recommending 1.75m for cyclists - of course 1.0m would never be enough - I'm just asking you to exercise the same consideration for other road users!

I've read your reply (including links) and there's some good points and bad points IMO - still considering...

patrickbrophy18

It was brought to my attention from another thread about the KTR that there was an article in today's Irish Independent which highlights the disgust at the dog's breakfast that was made out of it.

Irish and Proud

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

It was brought to my attention from another thread about the KTR that there was an article in today's Irish Independent which highlights the disgust at the dog's breakfast that was made out of it.

The article is so good I'll quote it directly:

Bruce Arnold: How household charge is likely to go down drain
Monday April 02 2012

The following story concerns a roundabout at Albert Road in Glenageary. In the past six months more than €250,000 has been wastefully spent on a foolish local authority project to 'improve' safety by restricting the movement of traffic, contrary to the essential theory and practice of roundabout use.<snip>

Irish Independent

Link to article...

This is actually so good, I'll also link to it in my own thread relating to the cycle manual.

Regards!

RosieJoe

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the household tax had nothing to do with roadworks and more to do with Services for the community?

Is the title just the usual sensationalist rubbish to bemoan the new charge?

Irish and Proud

RosieJoe wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the household tax had nothing to do with roadworks and more to do with Services for the community?

Is the title just the usual sensationalist rubbish to bemoan the new charge?

You can divide up money as much as you want, but public money is public money and has to come from the public by whatever means - the work on Killiney Towers Roundabout is from what I can see, a complete waste of public money - even if you were to ignore the household charge, surely the €250k spent (or misspent?) on the roundabout might have been better spent on road and footpath repairs thereby benefiting every road user including cyclists - when I cycled, road impairment was one of the biggest put-offs regarding cycling - in fact, my only cycle crash was partly down to road impairment.

If stage agencies and local authorities are squandering money on useless projects like nonsensical traffic calming (or is it traffic stopping?) schemes and egotistical monuments etc, then who is to say that the household charge won't be squandered? As the country is in a difficult financial situation, it is important that a precedent is set regarding the use of any public money and most of all, that the general public interest is put first - that does mean public consultation which I believe did not happen in the case of the Killiney Towers Roundabout - IMO, the NTA needs to be looked at in terms of value for money!

Regards!

RosieJoe

Completely agree with you on the misspending of money, just do not like the way the article is titled TBH.

Irish and Proud

This is slightly off topic, but I posted the following on the Roads Forum and it might be of some relevance here:

A new development in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown:

Braemor Road Enhancement Scheme - this road is part of the R112 ring.

Included is a provsion for new 2.0m cycle tracks in accordance with the National Cycle Manual - again it's seemingly sponsored by the NTA but this time, there is public consultation. Mind you, I understand that most trees along the road are to be felled and replaced - the reasons are enclosed in the report. As a motorist, I wouldn't have a real objection to the overall scheme, but I do have reservations regarding certain aspects such as the non-inclusion of a left pocket at one of the signalized junctions. Some right turn lanes are also too narrow.

In any case, I intend to make a detailed submission regarding the scheme.

Regards!