New Contra flow bike lane at Newtownpark Avenue(?)

Bluefoam

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cyclists-euro150k-lane-for-going-the-wrong-way-2953496.html

Cyclists who illegally went the wrong way up a suburban road have got their own way -- at a cost of €150,000 to the taxpayer.

The National Transport Authority (NTA) is spending the money on a cycle lane that will allow them to cycle against the flow of traffic from Blackrock village to Seapoint in Dublin.

While proposals for the lane were met with nearly as many objections as approvals from local residents and road users when they were first mooted last year, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council chiefs have defended their decision to press ahead with the lane's construction, citing the "high numbers of cyclists currently cycling illegally along Newtown Avenue against traffic" to access Seapoint Avenue.

I presume they are talking about Newtownpark Avenue...

I find this this article to be poor journalism for two reasons...

• The outward disdain and contempt for cyclists in both the title & body of the article
• The fact that they never once queried why so many cyclists are either choosing or are forced to make this inappropriate manouver

It is more gutter journalism from the Irish Independent & its not good enough. The question is simple; why are people travelling the wrong way on this peice of road? What is the solution to lessen the danger to them and other road users. The coucil have obviously studied the situation; asked that very question and have come up with a solution.

€150k sounds like a lot of money, but if the infrastructure is necessary, then maybe it is justified. Heaven knows how much money we spend every year to ensure cars retain their priority on our roads.

Yours, Concerned Motorist, Cyclist, Motorcyclist & Pedestrian

rp

€150,000? Sure, they could build 50 metres of exclusive motor-vehicle-only motorway for that, to accommodate speeding drivers.

markpb

I just asked this questions in the comment section of the site. What are the chances it will be published?

Cookie_Monster

here: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Newtown+Ave&daddr=Main+St&hl=en&sll=53.3003,-6.173544&sspn=0.006835,0.021136&geocode=FdBFLQMdzNih_w%3BFSZPLQMdtL6h_w&vpsrc=0&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=16&t=m&z=16 but from B to A

surely is the only possible place it can go?
If that is the case I see it as a total waste of money, why can cyclists not simply use the Temple and Frascati roads like motorists do... to me that would be the obvious and sensible route...

Doctor Bob

It's Newtown Avenue in Blackrock. Southbound cyclists coming from the DART (or Blackrock Park, through the narrow lane behind the platform) have long used Idrone Terrace and Newtown Avenue as a way of bypassing the circuitous one-way syatem in Blackrock village.

This is generally a very positive development. The only concern I'd have is that it seems to slightly formalise the route behind the platform, which is inherently unsuitable as a cycle route for anything other than the occasional kid on a bike.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=newtown+avenue,+blackrock,+dublin&hl=en&ll=53.300954,-6.16981&spn=0.006578,0.01929&sll=40.240894,-74.776486&sspn=2.150942,4.938354&vpsrc=6&hnear=Newtown+Ave,+Stillorgan,+Ireland&t=h&z=16

CatFromHue

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

here: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Newtown+Ave&daddr=Main+St&hl=en&sll=53.3003,-6.173544&sspn=0.006835,0.021136&geocode=FdBFLQMdzNih_w%3BFSZPLQMdtL6h_w&vpsrc=0&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=16&t=m&z=16 but from B to A

surely is the only possible place it can go?
If that is the case I see it as a total waste of money, why can cyclists not simply use the Temple and Frascati roads like motorists do... to me that would be the obvious and sensible route...

To the best of my knowledge it doesn't go from Main Street to Seapoint Ave but from the corner of Idrone Terrace to Seapoint Ave i.e. only half the distance it should be.

Doctor Bob

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

here: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Newtown+Ave&daddr=Main+St&hl=en&sll=53.3003,-6.173544&sspn=0.006835,0.021136&geocode=FdBFLQMdzNih_w%3BFSZPLQMdtL6h_w&vpsrc=0&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=16&t=m&z=16 but from B to A

Not exactly. Your B is on Main Street. It should be at the beginning of Newtown Avenue, I think.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surely is the only possible place it can go?
If that is the case I see it as a total waste of money, why can cyclists not simply use the Temple and Frascati roads like motorists do... to me that would be the obvious and sensible route...

Sure why do anything for the bike so? Don't we have perfectly good roads infrastructure already, where cyclists can do exactly as cars would to their hearts' content? :rolleyes:

Micilin Muc

Bluefoam wrote: »

I presume they are talking about Newtownpark Avenue...

I find this this article to be poor journalism for two reasons...

• The outward disdain and contempt for cyclists in both the title & body of the article
• The fact that they never once queried why so many cyclists are either choosing or are forced to make this inappropriate manouver

I cycle Newtown Avenue daily - it's a different road to Newtownpark Avenue. Instead of cycling on the dual carriageway from Booterstown to the start of Monkstown Road (just over a mile), I can now cycle on the bike lane in Blackrock Park, come out past the little laneway beside Blackrock DART station and continue on to Seapoint Avenue. This is a much safer route than the dual carriageway which is quite narrow at parts.

Before the bike lane was built, I cycled against the flow of traffic on Newtown Avenue which never amounted to meeting more than 10 cars at rush-hour. If I met a car, I would stop and pull in well in advance. It wad usually only 5 vehicles.

I made this choice simply for safety's sake. I wouldn't use Newtown Avenue if I thought going against the flow of traffic was more dangerous than the dual carriageway.

As for the cost, it took ages to be built, it's only tarmacadam separated from the road by a concrete kerb.

ced100

This is a poor story from the indpendent. I notice in Limerick that the council are building a footpath on the Dublin road. I can imagine the headline " Pedestrians on a suburban road get their own way -- at a cost of thousands to the taxpayer"

Bluefoam wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cyclists-euro150k-lane-for-going-the-wrong-way-2953496.html



I presume they are talking about Newtownpark Avenue...


I find this this article to be poor journalism for two reasons...

• The outward disdain and contempt for cyclists in both the title & body of the article
• The fact that they never once queried why so many cyclists are either choosing or are forced to make this inappropriate manouver

It is more gutter journalism from the Irish Independent & its not good enough. The question is simple; why are people travelling the wrong way on this peice of road? What is the solution to lessen the danger to them and other road users. The coucil have obviously studied the situation; asked that very question and have come up with a solution.

€150k sounds like a lot of money, but if the infrastructure is necessary, then maybe it is justified. Heaven knows how much money we spend every year to ensure cars retain their priority on our roads.

Yours, Concerned Motorist, Cyclist, Motorcyclist & Pedestrian

loyatemu

TheIndo wrote:

nearly as many objections as approvals from local residents and road users

so the majority were in favour then? Impressively negative article from the Indo there.

One way systems are invariably in place to facilitate smooth-flowing of motorised traffic, they do nothing for cyclists and I'm all for contra-flow cycle lanes wherever they can be accommodated.

Doctor Bob

On the alternative route, the Public Consultation Report has this to say:

Main Street/Temple Hill alternative route

A number of the submission have suggested that Main Street / Temple Hill be used as an alternative route for cyclists coming from Blackrock Park. There are a number of reasons this route is not as desirable as Newtown Avenue:

1. The volume and speed of traffic along this road is much higher than Newtown Avenue

2. There are a number of busy junctions that cyclists would have to negotiate

3. To provide a cycle track large amounts of parking on Main Street would have to be removed as there is not sufficient road width to provide a cycle track. This would have a negative impact on the businesses as these spaces have high turnover and are consistently busy

4. This route would require cyclists to cycle on a section of Frascati Road which is high speed / high volume dual carriageway, to access Seapoint Avenue. This road does not have any cycle facilities and this may discourage less confident cyclists

5. The desire line is along Newtown Avenue. If facilities were provided on Main Street/Temple Hill it is likely that cyclists would continue to use Newtown Avenue illegally

6. Vehicles stopping to load and unload are likely to block the cycle track forcing cyclists out into traffic

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,6910,en.pdf

The document also details all the public submissions, both for and against. The logic of some of the opponents is curious.

The situation at the moment with cyclists
unlawfully cycling at speed on the footpath,
unlawfully cycling the wrong way up a one way
street is a highly dangerous one. However,
instead of preventing or seeking the assistance of
An Garda Siochana in prosecuting this illegal and
dangerous behavior, the Council is now
proposing that it should be facilitated and
encouraged.

Great Sunday morning reading altogether.

not even wrong

What's the bets that the Indo journalist responsible, Ronald Quinlan, lives in Maretimo Villas?

Maretimo Villas (numbers 5-19) do not have off-street parking. The
proposed scheme proposes to reduce the number of spaces outside
Maretimo Villas by 2, leaving 15 available for residents.

eoglyn

The indo is a piece of crap paper most of the week and it gets 10 times worse on a sunday - - this is a cynical and inflammatory lazy piece of crap journalism that seems to have been instigated by some of the objectors to the scheme. The article could just as easily have been written positively.

Most of the comments that are published there appear to me to be non-constructive.

I don't know the area but IMO DCC are showing in this instance that they are capable of observing the wants and requirements of road users and investing money to facilitate them not outlaw them.

nomdeboardie

Micilin Muc wrote: »

I cycle Newtown Avenue daily - it's a different road to Newtownpark Avenue. Instead of cycling on the dual carriageway from Booterstown to the start of Monkstown Road (just over a mile), I can now cycle on the bike lane in Blackrock Park, come out past the little laneway beside Blackrock DART station and continue on to Seapoint Avenue. This is a much safer route than the dual carriageway which is quite narrow at parts.

Before the bike lane was built, I cycled against the flow of traffic on Newtown Avenue which never amounted to meeting more than 10 cars at rush-hour. If I met a car, I would stop and pull in well in advance. It wad usually only 5 vehicles.

I made this choice simply for safety's sake. I wouldn't use Newtown Avenue if I thought going against the flow of traffic was more dangerous than the dual carriageway.

As for the cost, it took ages to be built, it's only tarmacadam separated from the road by a concrete kerb.

Ah, so the path is done now (I commented on this a little while ago when it was under construction http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75672569&postcount=12) Went down to have another look now and took some shockingly incompetent photos.

No directional signs painted on the surface itself yet, which might help explain the "same-way" cyclist in the 4th photo. He ended up hidden behind the parked cars at the junction with the side road, stopping for a car to turn in there (didn't realise the path was contra-flow).

Although I usually stuck to the main roads cycling south past Blackrock, I would agree that the contra-flow makes use of the Blackrock Park path a more attractive proposition, particularly if headed on to Seapoint Avenue. (Other reasons to avoid the park path, though - clueless walkers etc). My gut reaction is that it does make sense to provide it - that it will be a small but valuable amenity for cycling transport in the same way as any of the other contra-flows that have been argued for, e.g. on Stephen's Green, would be. I wouldn't have a strong opinion, though, on whether it's worth it in terms of the objections raised and money spent "in the current economic climate".

OssianSmyth

The council's road budget in 2011 was €26.6m. So 150K isn't going to break the bank.

The new cycle track received a mixed reception from locals during the consultation period but it's notable that a number of non-cyclists who would be inconvenienced by the route, selflessly supported it. Also one local residents' association supported it.

The narrow path between Blackrock station platform and Deepwell House gardens should be widened.

A Local Area Plan is being prepared for Blackrock now and you can make suggestions for improving cycling around Blackrock by emailing blackrocklap@dlrcoco.ie

Blackrock bypass is very unpleasant to cycle on - particularly for kids and older people. Clearly there was no idea at the time of even considering cyclists during road design.

nomdeboardie

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The narrow path between Blackrock station platform and Deepwell House gardens should be widened.

Yes, that would be good

A Local Area Plan is being prepared for Blackrock now and you can make suggestions for improving cycling around Blackrock by emailing blackrocklap@dlrcoco.ie

Thanks for this

galwaycyclist

Just to put this in an Irish historical context. To my knowledge the idea of permitting contraflow cycling was first raised in a An Foras Forbartha report in 1979. In 1998 the traffic signs and traffic regulations were amended in a manner that permitted the provision of contraflow arrangements. In 2004 the elected city council of Galway voted to explore the provision of two way cycling on one way streets whereever feasible. (Somewhat curiously the unelected officials ommitted this decision from the version of the city development plan that they published.

Now in 2011 we have a Sunday Independent journalist complaining about implementing simple ideas that have been around for over thirty years. Is this a criticism of our newspapers or of a system training journalists that appears to allow the evasion of any need to do any basic research into their stories.? (I acknowledge that there are journalists who do make every effort to research their stories)

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...Sunday Independent journalist...

There's your problem right there. That rag is, at best, poor quality toilet paper.

monument

I also went and had a look at it today. I was there this evening at the same time as nomdeboardie... I was thinking it might be a fellow boards poster, I should have said hello. Here's some thoughts and more pictures.

€150k sadly sounds cheap. Here's a quote from Dublin City Council not so long ago on the cost of a toucan crossing (a traffic light controlled crossing for bicycles and pedestrians): "A toucan crossing, depending on the road and the level of traffic on it can vary from 40,000 to 120,000 Euros."

I'm not saying that general costs of road works should not be lower, but it seems to be a general problem.

Bluefoam wrote: »

I find this this article to be poor journalism for two reasons...

• The outward disdain and contempt for cyclists in both the title & body of the article
• The fact that they never once queried why so many cyclists are either choosing or are forced to make this inappropriate manouver

I can't agree on the first point, and it overrides the second.

They show "disdain and contempt" for what is illegal, and frowned upon even my many cyclists. Start a thread with a poll and ask how many cyclists don't like salmon cyclists.

If you can't cycle without breaking fundamental parts of the rules of the road, walk, just dismount at the hard bits, or get the bus until you successfully lobby to change things. As a pedestrian I'm fed up of cyclists on footpaths and as a cyclist I'm fed up of salmon cyclists. Same thing with those blocking clear ways and parking on footpaths and cycle lanes -- they also think they have good reason. None of the reasons are good enough.

Sure the article could of had the other story, but did the council offer it?

markpb wrote: »

I just asked this questions in the comment section of the site. What are the chances it will be published?

It was and still is there.

...you may have to click the load more comments button.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surely is the only possible place it can go?
If that is the case I see it as a total waste of money, why can cyclists not simply use the Temple and Frascati roads like motorists do... to me that would be the obvious and sensible route...

Why is it a waste of money to give cyclists a more direct route (as is national cycling policies) and an alternative to what is essentially a dual carriageway?

CatFromHue wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge it doesn't go from Main Street to Seapoint Ave but from the corner of Idrone Terrace to Seapoint Ave i.e. only half the distance it should be.

Yes, exactly. Seems to be it's main and maybe only flaw.

eoglyn wrote: »

The indo is a piece of crap paper most of the week and it gets 10 times worse on a sunday - - this is a cynical and inflammatory lazy piece of crap journalism that seems to have been instigated by some of the objectors to the scheme. The article could just as easily have been written positively.

You don't know much about the Sunday Independent do you?

It has always been a different beast than the Indo. They are quite different papers.

....DCC are showing in this instance that they are capable of observing the wants and requirements of road users and investing money to facilitate them not outlaw them.

In fairness this is DLR Co Co. The project of contra-flow lanes in DCC which was reported on well over seems to be on ice. No word in nearly two years.

nomdeboardie wrote: »

No directional signs painted on the surface itself yet, which might help explain the "same-way" cyclist in the 4th photo. He ended up hidden behind the parked cars at the junction with the side road, stopping for a car to turn in there (didn't realise the path was contra-flow).

The directional arrows for the cycle lane are in the plans. Hopefully they'll also put the bike logos as in this image, otherwise some motorists can get aggressive because they think you should be in the cycle lane, and it's clearer for cyclists too:

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The council's road budget in 2011 was €26.6m. So 150K isn't going to break the bank.

It's not even from the council's budget, but from the part of the NTA's budget which just for this type of thing.

Bluefoam

I have attempted to leave 4 seperate messages on the Indo article, one a toned down, edited version of my OP, and others were civil replies to both the article and other posts. I appears to me that the Indo are doing their best to make sure that only one side of the arguement is fully covered.

The tone of the resposes towards cyclists on that article are extreme and OTT in my opinion. I am shocked at the venomous reaction towards cyclists & I can't understand why people are so vehemontly agressive towards the cycling community.

The issue of Road Tax comes up repeatedly and even though it is illogical, it seems that people are extremely wound up about what they percieve to be lawless cyclists who do not deserve any rights on the road.

I wonder if it is due to the fact that motorists are witnessing extreme amounts of illegal activity, unacceptable behaviour and behaviour that endangers them, or is it the case that car drivers are threatened by the growing cyciling culture & fear that it will effect their position as the dominant road user...

I often hear that cyclists are a danger, go on footpaths, always break red lights etc. but I've never heard of a case of a car driver or pedestrian being hurt or killed by a cyclist... (in fact, the accident rate for the Dublin Bikes is a good record of the safety of cycling) However, theres plenty of heresay about something that nearly happened, or someone who knew someone that was almost killed by a cyclist, or a granny who was frightened at the sight of a fast moving bike once...

I do however see lots of statistics on the danger of motor vehicles - there are real stats on deaths caused by cars, injuries caused by cars.

Anyway, to recap & simplify my point. I am concerned that the motoring community are hysterical about the advent of cycling - hysterical in a way that is excessive and does not reclect the real impact of cyclists... again, I am a car driver, I am a cyclist, I am a pedestrian, I have driven motorcycles, mopeds and scooters & I believe that there is room on Irelands roads for all users. Everyone should be respectful and aware of everyone else.

Bluefoam

My responses are being ignored, but they seem to think it is important to post this comment:

Cookie_Monster

motorist are reacting hysterically cos they think cyclists are getting to use the roads for free and screwing them somehow...


" I pay my road tax blah blah blah..." :rolleyes:

nomdeboardie

monument wrote: »

I also went and had a look at it today. I was there this evening at the same time as nomdeboardie... I was thinking it might be a fellow boards poster, I should have said hello.

Ha! Just what I was wondering. Strange Twilight Zone mirror-universe situation. Is that guy diagonally across really taking photos of the new lights too? Mustn't stare, though. Might it be a fellow boardsie? But they don't exist in real-life, do they?

Here's some thoughts and more pictures.

Nice report. I actually didn't notice the "with-flow" signposts myself! + The lack of a Main Street extension is indeed a pity.

..."A toucan crossing, depending on the road and the level of traffic on it can vary from 40,000 to 120,000 Euros."

:eek:

The directional arrows for the cycle lane are in the plans.

Yes, I was guessing they were coming.

Hopefully they'll also put the bike logos as in this image, otherwise some motorists can get aggressive because they think you should be in the cycle lane, and it's clearer for cyclists too ...

Aah...that would be good. (I wonder if some motorists would then think the with-flow was a huge cycle lane :pac:, though, unless they put in a car logo also?)

monument

Bluefoam wrote: »

I have attempted to leave 4 seperate messages on the Indo article, one a toned down, edited version of my OP, and others were civil replies to both the article and other posts. I appears to me that the Indo are doing their best to make sure that only one side of the arguement is fully covered.

I can't answer for how they moderate comments, how long they take and why they include some and not others.

But to be fair there is quite a mix of comments.

Bluefoam wrote: »

I wonder if it is due to the fact that motorists are witnessing extreme amounts of illegal activity, unacceptable behaviour and behaviour that endangers them, or is it the case that car drivers are threatened by the growing cyciling culture & fear that it will effect their position as the dominant road user...

There was one or two good threads on the many reasons behind it a while ago. The best reasons I can remember is that cyclists are different so non-cyclists will notice our actions or lawbreaking more and people see it as them vs us because they feel we are different or they feel a sense of ownership of the roads (this is a wider "I pay for it, others are spongers" mentality -- it can be seen with everything from people using the online discounts rather than paying the full amount).

But motorists stuck in traffic in a lot of cases would see a lot of cyclists breaking light or cycling on the path. For example if you're one of the first few cars at the lights you will see all the cyclists who pass and break the light, while only one or two would see motorists breaking the lights outright (which happens quite a bit) and almost nobody seems to care about technical breaks of the lights (ie breaking the advance stop box or blocking the ped crossing, which happens all the time).

Bluefoam wrote: »

I often hear that cyclists are a danger, go on footpaths, always break red lights etc. but I've never heard of a case of a car driver or pedestrian being hurt or killed by a cyclist... (in fact, the accident rate for the Dublin Bikes is a good record of the safety of cycling) However, theres plenty of heresay about something that nearly happened, or someone who knew someone that was almost killed by a cyclist, or a granny who was frightened at the sight of a fast moving bike once...

I do however see lots of statistics on the danger of motor vehicles - there are real stats on deaths caused by cars, injuries caused by cars.

I've never heard of somebody getting hurt when a motorist parks or drives in a cycle lane, yet cyclists are always banging on about it.

It's true that cars are a greater danger, but nobody keeps stats on how many cyclists have knocked down or just knocked into people. There is also no stats kept on how many cyclists nearly get hit or do get hit by cars without injury, yet these are still problems.

HivemindXX

monument wrote: »

I've never heard of somebody getting hurt when a motorist parks or drives in a cycle lane, yet cyclists are always banging on about it.

Cyclist in front of me had to pull out to go around a car parked in the cycle lane. I pulled out behind him. As we were passing the parked car another car overtook both of us and then pulled back in after he had passed the parked car but before he had passed the cyclist in front of me. Cyclist had his handlebars clipped and went down. (no serious injuries, certainly not to the driver)

So...now you have heard.

Anyway, people are entitled to complain about things even if those things aren't likely to kill you. I'd be a bit peeved if some restaurant staffer told me "nobody ever died of it" when I complained that my breakfast was cold.

Note that I agree with your main point, motorists are also entitled to complain about things that won't kill them such as cyclists who jump red lights and speed along the footpath. Complaining that something which used to be illegal is now fine due to a change in the law is frankly pathetic though, akin to whining that increasing the speed limit on certain roads is rewarding speeders.

monument

I may have went a bit overboard while trying to compare things, but anyway...

HivemindXX wrote: »

...Complaining that something which used to be illegal is now fine due to a change in the law is frankly pathetic though, akin to whining that increasing the speed limit on certain roads is rewarding speeders.

Well, it depends on the reasoning.

If you were increasing a speed limit only because some motorists keep breaking it, then it would be just because they break the law and that's wrong.

Same with the cycle lane in question, if it was done just for those who previously broke the law, then it would be wrong. But it was not just done just for them, it was done for many people including those who currently don't cycle, those who used to use the legal way, and those who do cycle but just avoided the area.

eoglyn

monument wrote: »

You don't know much about the Sunday Independent do you?

It has always been a different beast than the Indo. They are quite different papers.

I know enough not to buy either of them - it bothers me that there are people who will read this article and take it at face value and get really angry at both cyclists and the council, when really this should be a positive development.

Anyway i don't want to drag this thread off topic which i think is about the design of contra-flow cycle lanes or about illegal use of cycle-lanes or maybe it was local government funding or maybe it actually was about journalism standards... I'm not sure now.

The only thing i am sure of is that cyclists do have lovely bottoms...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnYoFmBagmk

You all had a smug smile to yourselves when you read that... admit it.

reallyunique

Before giving fines to road users it might be useful to see if there are areas where certain offenses are more common and if some structural change could be made to help. Once the research is done then crucify them all, it's the only way to make them obey.

If the offenders were all to use public transport or walk it would be harder to find problems in the system. Thankfully that's not what people do, at least not until the executions start.

Seaswimmer

I am sure it was mentioned in this thread somewhere but...........

Is this cycle lane officially open yet or can it be used as is anyway???

Micilin Muc

I've been using it for 3 weeks now. The traffic lights for cyclists haven't been switched on yet.

Doctor Bob

Micilin Muc wrote: »

I've been using it for 3 weeks now. The traffic lights for cyclists haven't been switched on yet.

There's an issue with the small traffic signal heads which, as I understand it, centres on the fact that they were included in earlier versions of the new Traffic Signs Manual, but not in the Final version.

It has implications not only for this track, but also for the DCC track along the Grand Canal, where all the lights I see on my daily route (Baggot Street bridge, Leeson Street bridge, Ranelagh bridge) have hoods over them.

(I wonder does Michael Noonan have anything to say on the matter of the hoods? :pac:)

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

There's an issue with the small traffic signal heads which, as I understand it, centres on the fact that they were included in earlier versions of the new Traffic Signs Manual, but not in the Final version.

It has implications not only for this track, but also for the DCC track along the Grand Canal, where all the lights I see on my daily route (Baggot Street bridge, Leeson Street bridge, Ranelagh bridge) have hoods over them.

To my knowledge there is no provision in the Traffic Signs regulations for this type of mini traffic light. Indeed as I recall - the 1998 regulations that introduced the concept of cyclist only traffic signals - specified that the lowest signal had to be at least 2m off the ground. These regulations were either drafted or requested by the Dublin Transporation Office in support of their 1998 Cycle Facilities manual.

Best not to get me started on the issue of design users/cyclists in DTO guidance.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To my knowledge there is no provision in the Traffic Signs regulations for this type of mini traffic light. Indeed as I recall - the 1998 regulations that introduced the concept of cyclist only traffic signals - specified that the lowest signal had to be at least 2m off the ground. These regulations were either drafted or requested by the Dublin Transporation Office in support of their 1998 Cycle Facilities manual.

Best not to get me started on the issue of design users/cyclists in DTO guidance.

Found it

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0273.html

In Irish Traffic Law the lowest edge of a bicycle traffic signal must be at least 2.1 metres off the ground.

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Best not to get me started on the issue of design users/cyclists in DTO guidance.

Your time is, doubtless, as precious as everyone else's, but if you want to spend it parsing a superseded design manual produced by a now-defunct organisation, I wouldn't dream of standing in your way.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Your time is, doubtless, as precious as everyone else's, but if you want to spend it parsing a superseded design manual produced by a now-defunct organisation, I wouldn't dream of standing in your way.

Ooooh a gauntlet! I like gauntlets! So tell us, when you're on your bike at a stop line or say perhaps one of the NTA's arguably negligent ASL designs from the new cycle manual, what kind of angle would your neck have to be at to see one of the DTO's traffic signals beside you?

le petit braquet

monument wrote: »

The directional arrows for the cycle lane are in the plans. Hopefully they'll also put the bike logos as in this image, otherwise some motorists can get aggressive because they think you should be in the cycle lane, and it's clearer for cyclists too:



.

There don't seem to be any markings yet. I got "beeped" at by a taxi driver this afternoon as I turned right from Seapoint on to Newtown Ave and he gestured that I should be in the contra-flow cycle lane. I stopped and gave him a detailed explanation of the situation and probably added a euro or two to his unfortunate passenger's fare.

monument

le petit braquet wrote: »

monument wrote: »

The directional arrows for the cycle lane are in the plans. Hopefully they'll also put the bike logos as in this image, otherwise some motorists can get aggressive because they think you should be in the cycle lane, and it's clearer for cyclists too:



.

There don't seem to be any markings yet. I got "beeped" at by a taxi driver this afternoon as I turned right from Seapoint on to Newtown Ave and he gestured that I should be in the contra-flow cycle lane. I stopped and gave him a detailed explanation of the situation and probably added a euro or two to his unfortunate passenger's fare.

Try asking DLR Co Co to put them in?

What was the taxi driver's reaction after you explained? It's an easy mistake make to make to think it's two-way.

deadlyspot.com

Micilin Muc wrote: »

I've been using it for 3 weeks now. The traffic lights for cyclists haven't been switched on yet.

They appear to be switched on now, but they are red all the time. Unless you have to press that button???? Serisously, are we still in the button presing stage. For cycle lights..... Hugely annoyed at this setup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pYzqDAml7w

nomdeboardie

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

They appear to be switched on now, but they are red all the time. Unless you have to press that button???? Serisously, are we still in the button presing stage. For cycle lights..... Hugely annoyed at this setup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pYzqDAml7w

Yeah, you have to press the button
In my couple of passes so far, I think I got a green quickly enough. Since we're getting an advantage over motors with the contraflow, I suppose it's fair enough, although a sensor might not be a bad idea

le petit braquet

Passed that way recently for the first time in a while and noticed that someone had painted on a second point to the directional arrows to try and indicate that the cycle lane was two-way. This is presumably someone who objects to Blackrock bound cyclists continuing to use the road.

Micilin Muc

Did anyone notice that somebody spraypainted an extra arrow on to the ground markings? Bi-directional cycle lane or not? Bad form if the Council used spraypaint as it doesn't look very official and the sign-posts are one-directional.

le petit braquet

Snap! From their appearance I doubt very much they are official as even in these troubled financial time, I'm sure that DLR CoCo could still afford a stencil.

monument

le petit braquet wrote: »

Passed that way recently for the first time in a while and noticed that someone had painted on a second point to the directional arrows to try and indicate that the cycle lane was two-way. This is presumably someone who objects to Blackrock bound cyclists continuing to use the road.

I'm guessing clearly a DIY job?

Highway_To_Hell

Last week I was out for a run and my son came along on his bicycle at Newtown ave, heading towards Blackrock I told him that he had to stay on the road and not use the cycle lane as it was only one way. As we came to the end of the section and turning down Idrone Terrace Eoghan Harris entered the cycle path and said to me "The young fellow doesn't like using using the cycle path", I didn't bother trying to explain that the lane is one way but from what I could see more people than not would seem to think it is a 2-way system.

HTH

le petit braquet

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

Last week I was out for a run and my son came along on his bicycle at Newtown ave, heading towards Blackrock I told him that he had to stay on the road and not use the cycle lane as it was only one way. As we came to the end of the section and turning down Idrone Terrace Eoghan Harris entered the cycle path and said to me "The young fellow doesn't like using using the cycle path", I didn't bother trying to explain that the lane is one way but from what I could see more people than not would seem to think it is a 2-way system.

HTH

You should have explained that you were raising him with left leaning tendencies and that on principle he couldn't move over to the right:D

droidus

I think the concept of a contra flow cycle lane would be far to complex for Mr. Harris to understand. Im surprised the man can even feed himself.

le petit braquet

droidus wrote: »

I think the concept of a contra flow cycle lane would be far to complex for Mr. Harris to understand. Im surprised the man can even feed himself.

He is probably busy writing a rant blaming the aberration on the Sticky producers in RTE

nomdeboardie

That's hilarious about the arrowhead!

As for the alleged Mr Harris and anyone else who might try out that misinformation on me, I would certainly not fail to explain their error...at length, with "eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one", in "five-part harmony" (Tuvan-style).

I did get sworn at by another "gentleman" who was riding the wrong way on the contraflow, when I politely informed him of intended direction

le petit braquet

Passed that way on my commute home this evening and the added arrows have been scrubbed off, presumably by DLR CoCo.

deadlyspot.com

le petit braquet wrote: »

Passed that way on my commute home this evening and the added arrows have been scrubbed off, presumably by DLR CoCo.

I thought the improvised arrows was a must see to, so I reviewed my footage and there was none there sadly :-(

I went past that twice this evening and I saw cyclists (new enough ones) heading into that cycle lane from Seapoint side.

smackyB

I've used this new lane once or twice and think it's great except for the fact that road leading to this cycle lane (Idrone Terrace) is in a terrible condition.

Here's an email I sent to the council in March

"Hi, are there any plans to fix the road surface at Idrone Terrace, Blackrock? The road surface is in terrible shape with loose stones and lots of potholes. Given that this road is the source of traffic for the new contra-flow cycle lane on Newtown Avenue, it would be of great benefit to cyclists if the road was resurfaced."

And here was the response

"There will be Temporary repairs made to the potholes inside the next week.
Unfortunately, resurfacing the road is not in this years programme but will be done in the future."

The mind boggles....