phoenix park cycle lanes????

ThisRegard

Well, which one of yis was it ?



from Broadsheet

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/02/psycho-path/

RobertFoster

I wonder how many they put up? I say they'll need to replace their yellow ink cartridge shortly :pac:

RainyDay

Why do people feel the need to use 'fancy words' when writing signs? Who uses 'refrain' in day to day speech?

Wouldn't a simple 'Please don't walk in the cycle lane' be more effective?

niceonetom

For maximum passive-aggression they could have gone for THANK YOU FOR NOT WALKING IN THE CYCLE LANES.

Brian?

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well, which one of yis was it ?



from Broadsheet

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/02/psycho-path/

They need to be bigger and flashing it seems.

I had my first ever experience of the Phoenix park cycle lanes on Saturday. How I didn't kill someone is a miracle.

You can't even blame the design. They are IMO quite nicely designed and well surfaced. There's 3-4 between the cycle lanes and the foot paths, at least on the ones I used.

The problem is simply pig ignorance. A refusal by pedestrians to actually obey the rules.

ThisRegard

Refrain is hardly a fancy word, now if the sign said "Saunterers, abnegate the velocipede thoroughfare" you'd have a point.

BofaDeezNuhtz

Brian? wrote: »

The problem is simply pig ignorance. A refusal by pedestrians to actually obey the rules.

Feckin' pedestrians dont even pay road tax sure :rolleyes:

Brian?

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

Feckin' pedestrians dont even pay road tax sure :rolleyes:

I'd be more critical of cyclists who cycle on footpaths.

iMADEtheBBC

There are two teams of workers painting very large 'no pedestrian' signs on the cycle paths today.

Not making a blind bit of difference.

couerdelion

A few of us were out cycling in the park this week and heading down Chesterfield Avenue just shy of 50kmph. A motorist overtook us and beeped his horn and pointed to the cycle path... where several people were running and a couple of roller skaters were exercising.

Really - if you want to drive in a park you have to expect that there might be the possibility of people using it for leisure...

beauf

If the runners are on the cycle path and the cyclists are on the road, perhaps the cars should use the footpath if no ones using it.

Its a park. Not a race track regardless if you are running, cycling or driving. Takes very little effort to share it.

Joe prim

That sign, whether effective or not, is pure poetry. As a corollary, perhaps the OPW would put up signs like; "Would those who ride velocipedes, think also ye of walkers needs" and "Roller bladers must relent, for those of a pedestrian bent" Ultimately all warning and regulatory signs could be written in rhyming couplets ; "Your dog may prance and run and bark,but must be leashed within this park" or " Beware of young girls down the Glen, quite a few of them are men".

Brian?

beauf wrote: »

Its a park. Not a race track regardless if you are running, cycling or driving. Takes very little effort to share it.

If the motorists use the roads, the cyclists use the cycle paths and the pedestrians use the foot paths then everyone is sharing the park. The difference is everyone is safer.

RobertFoster

The motorists could use the N3 :pac:

beauf

Considering all those groups share the road, and pedestrian spaces every where else I don't see why the park should be treated any different.

You have to have a bit of common sense and not use the path like a race track, same with the road.

Zyzz

beauf wrote: »

Considering all those groups share the road, and pedestrian spaces every where else I don't see why the park should be treated any different.

You have to have a bit of common sense and not use the path like a race track, same with the road.

You mustn't use strava.. :rolleyes:

Brian?

beauf wrote: »

Considering all those groups share the road, and pedestrian spaces every where else I don't see why the park should be treated any different.

Because whoever runs the park has seen fit to make it safer for everyone by seperating the routes for various modes of transport. I think it's a great idea to give everyone their own space in the park.

It's not just the park by the way, do you condone pedestrians using the cycle lanes everywhere else in the country?

You have to have a bit of common sense and not use the path like a race track, same with the road.

Who's using the cycle path as a race track exactly? Cycling at 30kph+ isn't racing. It's actually spinning along at a handy pace.

beauf

Brian? wrote: »

Because whoever runs the park has seen fit to make it safer for everyone by seperating the routes for various modes of transport. I think it's a great idea to give everyone their own space in the park.

A great idea? Consider then that there's a fence (with no gaps) between where the walkers park and their path. The walkers all park beside and exit their cars directly on to the cycle path. So with the currentl layout pedestrians have to cross the cycle path to get to the walking path.

Parking spot <> Cycle Path <> FENCE <><><<>TREES<> Pedestrian Path.

Keeping pedestrians off that path will never work. They actually channel them on to it, with the current layout. I'm not sure its possible to design a worse layout.

Its not even consistent around the park, most of the roads don't have cycle tracks in the park, one them has it on once side only. You get tourists going both directions on the same side of the road around the back of the zoo as a result. Then at Ashtown you have a cycle path on on side of the road and walking path on the other.

Its a very disjointed network in the park, and its not enforced, full of tourists and families.

Brian? wrote: »

It's not just the park by the way, do you condone pedestrians using the cycle lanes everywhere else in the country?

Do you?

Brian? wrote: »

Who's using the cycle path as a race track exactly? Cycling at 30kph+ isn't racing. It's actually spinning along at a handy pace.

Personally I don't think its a reasonable, reasonable speed where you know there will be pedestrians, often kids, crossing. Which is expected in the park and most of the city center.

beauf

Zyzz wrote: »

You mustn't use strava.. :rolleyes:

its all about performance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn29DvMITu4

Squidgy Black

They'd be better off re-paving the inner path where pedestrians are supposed to walk and making that a cycle lane and leaving the prams and rollerbladers on the outside.

Or an even better idea is to close the park off to motor traffic altogether, feck the president :pac:

beauf

Exactly. Make it a cycle highway for commuters. People training are better off on the road.

magicbastarder

do i remember right that the paths were originally the other way around, but that they changed them because the pedestrians seemed to favour the inner path?

beauf

I don't remember. The inner path used to have a much worse surface rippled with roots etc. Haven't been on it in ages though. I think at some point they resurface the outside path, they may have switched it then.

ThisRegard

It makes more sense from a safety point of view to have the footpath on the inside. If they reversed them and I was there walking with the kid and dogs I know which one I'd be walking on.

Squidgy Black

ThisRegard wrote: »

It makes more sense from a safety point of view to have the footpath on the inside. If they reversed them and I was there walking with the kid and dogs I know which one I'd be walking on.

Problem is the majority of people don't seem to share this logic, and won't make the 5 yard trek to the further footpath once they've left their car parked on the outer one. I think once there's cars parked on the side of the outer path, you're always going to have people walking along it.

Brian?

beauf wrote: »

A great idea? Consider then that there's a fence (with no gaps) between where the walkers park and their path. The walkers all park beside and exit their cars directly on to the cycle path. So with the currentl layout pedestrians have to cross the cycle path to get to the walking path.

Parking spot <> Cycle Path <> FENCE <><><<>TREES<> Pedestrian Path.

Keeping pedestrians off that path will never work. They actually channel them on to it, with the current layout. I'm not sure its possible to design a worse layout.

The layout isn't perfect, it's a great idea though. You don't seem to feel it's worth doing at all which baffles me tbh.

In fact the I've yet to encounter a weel layed out cycle path in Dublin, they're generally a nightmare. This doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Its not even consistent around the park, most of the roads don't have cycle tracks in the park, one them has it on once side only. You get tourists going both directions on the same side of the road around the back of the zoo as a result. Then at Ashtown you have a cycle path on on side of the road and walking path on the other.

Its a very disjointed network in the park, and its not enforced, full of tourists and families.

So what do you propose, just give up on the entire idea? How about sign posting the lanes better and using and combination or redesign and education on making the system better. The park authorities seem to have the motivation, I say fair play to them. It's up to the users of the park to get on board.

Do you?

No, why the confusion????

Personally I don't think its a reasonable, reasonable speed where you know there will be pedestrians, often kids, crossing. Which is expected in the park and most of the city center.

What do you think is a reasonable speed then?

RasTa

I remember seeing those signs being put up as I live beside the park, I think they lasted two days. I always use the road when cycling the park, no need to use the lanes. They close half of that main road at the weekend now anyways

beauf

Brian? wrote: »

The layout isn't perfect, it's a great idea though. You don't seem to feel it's worth doing at all which baffles me tbh.

My point is its quite possible to share facilities. There lots of places around town with high pedestrian traffic beside cycle lanes. All along the canal is one route. In many places cyclists and pedestrians are on the same path with a painted line separating them.

The layout in the park is brutal if you want exclusive use of it, or want to do 30kph. There's a perfectly good road if you want to do those speeds. Why you want to do 30kph on a path which has kids and families on it I have no idea.

The fence is I assume for deer (though they can jump it). Its should be on the other side of the walking path. Then at least people could get to it.

Brian? wrote: »

In fact the I've yet to encounter a weel layed out cycle path in Dublin, they're generally a nightmare. This doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Who is saying they shouldn't exist? The issue is they shouldn't be so badly designed.

Brian? wrote: »

So what do you propose, just give up on the entire idea? How about sign posting the lanes better and using and combination or redesign and education on making the system better. The park authorities seem to have the motivation, I say fair play to them. It's up to the users of the park to get on board.

The park authorities have a history of doing things at random. Like closing roads for no reason. The cycle paths are likewise random with no plan to it. There one constant though, they don't people using it as main transport route, so I assume they'd resist a cycle super highway/ greenway through it also.

Dark sun

These signs have been put in the cycle lanes, which are very clear, but still being used by pedestrians might discourage some.

Bunnyhopper

magicbastarder wrote: »

do i remember right that the paths were originally the other way around, but that they changed them because the pedestrians seemed to favour the inner path?

Yeah, they were the other way around when the cycle path was first installed. The path further from the road is actually much better for cycling. The points where it crosses the side roads are much nicer. That path is a bit further from the main road and the turning traffic, and the surface is much better - none of the slopes and kerbs you get on the other one.