phoenix park cycle lanes????

RainyDay

Dark sun wrote: »

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

Now that's a clear and direct sign.

tunney

beauf wrote: »

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.

And only an idiot with a death wish uses these "cycle lanes"

beauf

I guess we'll be waiting for some stats on deaths in these lanes... lol

mrcheez

Dark sun wrote: »

still being used by pedestrians might discourage some.

Seems to be working, the usual group of 3 lads in their 60s that walk side-by-side down the bike lane each morning were now relegated to the pedestrian path.

Some of the joggers still persist in the evenings though, plus the Zoo section will always be full of prams in the morning, that'll never change.

rollingscone

Joggers wouldn't be so bad if they would run Contra-flow. How many evenings have you found some idiot running ahead of you, ipod blaring, wearing black...which is mystifying in itself, I used to a run a lot back when I had knees, and it was impossible to find anything that didn't have reflective strips.

Just goes to show you don't need wheels to be a ninja.

ThisRegard

The bike lane at the zoo section is on road though isn't it.

mrcheez

ThisRegard wrote: »

The bike lane at the zoo section is on road though isn't it.

Not at the section where cars park (further up toward C'knock gate)

mrcheez

mrcheez wrote: »

Seems to be working, the usual group of 3 lads in their 60s that walk side-by-side down the bike lane each morning were now relegated to the pedestrian path.

...aaaaand they're back, seems the 5m trek to the pedestrian lane is too much to ask.

Pedestrian observance of road signs lasted for a day, that's got be some kind of Irish record?

beauf

the fence doesn't help

mrcheez

beauf wrote: »

the fence doesn't help

The fence doesn't run the full length of the park, and certainly not where most pedestrians I encounter are

Chips Lovell

Einstein's definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Just cycle on the road.

beauf

mrcheez wrote: »

The fence doesn't run the full length of the park, and certainly not where most pedestrians I encounter are

It's the majority of it. Anyway you can use the road if it bothers you that much. I use a mix of both depending on my route commuting.

mrcheez

beauf wrote: »

It's the majority of it. Anyway you can use the road if it bothers you that much. I use a mix of both depending on my route commuting.

Doesn't bother me, it's the pedestrians that get elbowed I'm taking into account.

UPDATE: Checked this morning again to be sure as I hardly notice the fence. Turns out the reason I don't notice it is that it only runs from the Polo grounds down to the zoo (less than 10% of the length of the park). So pedestrians have unhindered access to the pedestrian path for 90% of the length of the park and "the majority of it" isn't fenced.

beauf

LOL dont why I thought it did. Probably can't see it for the crowds of pedestrians.

ajones

I stumbled across this post because I was shocked at the attitude of one couple on the paths a few days ago. I too use the cycle/walking lanes, and it's never been a problem. People are courteous usually and move to one side, as do I. I also go on the grass if I know I won't fit safely with a group.
So as I was getting closer to the couple walking towards me, I could see they weren't moving. When I got a few meters away the woman directed "Eh... path!" at me, along with some arm movements. I turned and said, "cycle path..." at her, while going onto the grass to get around them. This caused her to squawk, "Walking path!!" back at me along with some mumbled retort from her partner. Would it not have made more sense to just move a step or two out of the way?

I understand that it's not a path for cyclists only, but it's not for pedestrians only either. What did that small argument achieve? It definitely could have been avoided if everyone was on the same page.

I can't understand why courtesy isn't shown by all parties

Everyone's there for the same reason so I agree courtesy should be shown by everyone.

mrcheez

ajones wrote: »

I understand that it's not a path for cyclists only

Weird, I thought the "no pedestrians" and bike lane signage made it pretty clear it *IS* for cyclists only?

hardCopy

ajones wrote: »

I stumbled across this post because I was shocked at the attitude of one couple on the paths a few days ago. I too use the cycle/walking lanes, and it's never been a problem. People are courteous usually and move to one side, as do I. I also go on the grass if I know I won't fit safely with a group.
So as I was getting closer to the couple walking towards me, I could see they weren't moving. When I got a few meters away the woman directed "Eh... path!" at me, along with some arm movements. I turned and said, "cycle path..." at her, while going onto the grass to get around them. This caused her to squawk, "Walking path!!" back at me along with some mumbled retort from her partner. Would it not have made more sense to just move a step or two out of the way?

I understand that it's not a path for cyclists only, but it's not for pedestrians only either. What did that small argument achieve? It definitely could have been avoided if everyone was on the same page.



Everyone's there for the same reason so I agree courtesy should be shown by everyone.

mrcheez wrote: »

Weird, I thought the "no pedestrians" and bike lane signage made it pretty clear it *IS* for cyclists only?

The law seems to be ambiguous in the park but the lanes are clearly intended for bikes only, as emphasised by the recent painted signs of a pedestrian with a line through it.

muckwarrior

hardCopy wrote: »

The law seems to be ambiguous in the park but the lanes are clearly intended for bikes only, as emphasised by the recent painted signs of a pedestrian with a line through it.

Clearly some people must interpret them as 'beware of people carrying strange big circular things'.

ajones

mrcheez wrote: »

Weird, I thought the "no pedestrians" and bike lane signage made it pretty clear it *IS* for cyclists only?

This particular path actually has no cyclist sign on it. But there is one across the road. I assumed that the path on the other side was for one direction of cycling traffic, and the side I was on was for the other direction, as with car lanes.

hardCopy

muckwarrior wrote: »

Clearly some people must interpret them as 'beware of people carrying strange big circular things'.

Beware of Zorbers?

ajones wrote: »

This particular path actually has no cyclist sign on it. But there is one across the road. I assumed that the path on the other side was for one direction of cycling traffic, and the side I was on was for the other direction, as with car lanes.

A few of the roads in the park only have cycle lanes on one side. I'm not sure what the logic is but I wouldn't assume the opposite path is intended for bikes. For example the North Road from the army barracks to Ashtown Gate has a cycle lane on one side only, I usually cycle in the lane when heading towards Ashtown but just cycle on the left hand side of the road going the other way, rather than use a lane on the "wrong" side of the road.

mrcheez

ajones wrote: »

This particular path actually has no cyclist sign on it. But there is one across the road. I assumed that the path on the other side was for one direction of cycling traffic, and the side I was on was for the other direction, as with car lanes.

Ah I thought you were referring to the main road through the center of the park with cycle lanes on either side.

Moving on...

muckwarrior

hardCopy wrote: »

Beware of Zorbers?

Or maybe this guy