Frascati Road and Temple Hill proposed alterations for cyclists and pedestrians

coylemj

Whether you'd consider these proposals as 'improvements' probably depends on whether you're a motorist or a cyclist but this was posted on Twitter this morning...

Frascati Road and Temple Hill Route Improvements

24/09/2013


Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is currently preparing plans to improve the pedestrian and cycle facilities on Frascati Road and Temple Hill from Mount Merrion Avenue to Newtownpark Avenue.

Copies of the proposals will be available for inspection during normal office hours from Monday 23rd September until Monday 21st October 2013 at the County Hall, Marine Road, Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock Library

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,9831,en.html

Chinasea

Great. The more cycle lanes the better. But proper ones, not the token ones. Coming a bit late for the recent fatality in Blackrock.

Frosty McSnowballs

I cycle home that way. I go straight up Temple Hill. The amount of drivers that come close to sideswiping me as they turn onto Monkstown Road is shocking.

I wouldn't mind but I put the arm out to let them know I'm going straight and not left. A cycle lane is badly needed.

patrickbrophy18

While I do agree with the provision of a cycle lane taken from the surplus road space, there are still a few design flaws present. Two of the bus stops seen in the map here are still accessed by passing on the inside of the cycle path. This may increase the likelihood of a bus sweeping a cyclist when making a halt. This still creates a dangerous x-shaped path between two vehicles (bus and bicycle) of radically different size and weight. Instead, I would have it the other way around i.e. the cycle lane would go smoothly around the bus stop making them parallel. Correct me if I'm wrong but, it's the crisscross of paths that causes collisions. George's Avenue will prove tricky to get back into given that they are proposing to block the north bound entrance. Apart from that, it's an overall improvement and I welcome the raised pedestrian zebra crossing (speed ramp) between the two shopping centers.

nomdeboardie

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

I cycle home that way. I go straight up Temple Hill. The amount of drivers that come close to sideswiping me as they turn onto Monkstown Road is shocking.

I wouldn't mind but I put the arm out to let them know I'm going straight and not left. A cycle lane is badly needed.

"Taking the lane" as I always do to go straight there, I heard a beep from a following car as it turned left the other day - WTF (Having said that, many motorists take care to stay behind on approach to the junction)

RainyDay

Some considerable dangers lurk in the current plans;

http://cyclingindublin.com/2013/09/29/blackrock-bypass-upgrade-retains-design-which-exposes-pedestrians-and-cyclists-to-greater-danger/

homer911

I was cycling on the new cycle lanes in Sandyford Industrial Estate yesterday and was absolutely apalled how bumby they were. I can now completely understand when I see other cyclists on the road when there is a "perfectly good"!!! cycle lane beside them

Larbre34

Motorists should not be subjected to the inconvenience a removal of all the left-slips would result in. Its an area of tight enough capacity as it is, with many signal junctions and with congestion, traffic speeds are generally low.

Aside from the recent and tragic incident, users of the tight corridor of road along there mostly exercise due caution and give way safely, which keeps everything moving along at a slow but steady and predictable pace. The proposed increase in cycle priority in the scheme is sufficient, any further increase in pressure on motor traffic by closing off left slips, will result in increased gridlock, frustration and likely flashpoint incidents.

The NTA have a policy to promote, the basis of which is of course to de-prioritise the car, and thats fine and understood, however the local Councils also have to address the practicalities of the transition of road space and priorities to a resistant public who like me pay fortunes in road tax. As can be seen from the recent dressing down of the NTA by Dublin City Council for jumping the gun on a few issues, they are by no means the oracle on this stuff.

schemingbohemia

Larbre34 wrote: »

Motorists should not be subjected to the inconvenience a removal of all the left-slips would result in. Its an area of tight enough capacity as it is, with many signal junctions and with congestion, traffic speeds are generally low.

Have you ever cycled up Temple Hill, trying to keep the road, the speeds behind whilst not excessive are certainly not low and would cause serious harm to vulnerable road users, like cyclists.

Aside from the recent and tragic incident, users of the tight corridor of road along there mostly exercise due caution and give way safely, which keeps everything moving along at a slow but steady and predictable pace. The proposed increase in cycle priority in the scheme is sufficient, any further increase in pressure on motor traffic by closing off left slips, will result in increased gridlock, frustration and likely flashpoint incidents.

So, are you saying thus far and no further?

The NTA have a policy to promote, the basis of which is of course to de-prioritise the car, and thats fine and understood, however the local Councils also have to address the practicalities of the transition of road space and priorities to a resistant public who like me pay fortunes in road tax. As can be seen from the recent dressing down of the NTA by Dublin City Council for jumping the gun on a few issues, they are by no means the oracle on this stuff.

It's motor tax for the gazillionth time. If local authorities want to increase cycle paths they go to the NTA for funding, if they don't get it there they don't build them, he who pays the piper rodders!

Larbre34

I agree about Temple Hill where the traffic loosens up, the proposal will improve that.

Yes I'm saying the proposal is far enough, there is an existing dedicated safer route for cyclists through the village and Newtown Avenue.

Whats the NTA funding got to do with anything? Its all from the exchequer fund anyway, motor tax only goes into the pot with all other revenue, it could never fund local government, my objection is that its a disproportionate levy on my car. How about a bicycle tax? If the NTA dont fund the proposal because they dont like the specs, then they shouldnt build it, leave status quo, the route up Newtown Avenue cost enough in funds and hassle to implement.

Seaswimmer

Larbre34 wrote: »

I agree about Temple Hill where the traffic loosens up, the proposal will improve that.

Yes I'm saying the proposal is far enough, there is an existing dedicated safer route for cyclists through the village and Newtown Avenue.

Whats the NTA funding got to do with anything? Its all from the exchequer fund anyway, motor tax only goes into the pot with all other revenue, it could never fund local government, my objection is that its a disproportionate levy on my car. How about a bicycle tax? If the NTA dont fund the proposal because they dont like the specs, then they shouldnt build it, leave status quo, the route up Newtown Avenue cost enough in funds and hassle to implement.

Well as someone who cycles the bypass twice a day I certainly would not say your route is safer. Only a short stretch of it is dedicated and then only in 1 one direction. Add in all the parking (legal and illegal), pedestrians, misunderstood cycle lane, buses and generally tighter spaces through Blackrock and it becomes much more dangerous.
The main problem on the bypass is speed which is largely negated during rush hour but at times its hard to believe its a 50km/h zone.

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

Motorists should not be subjected to the inconvenience a removal of all the left-slips would result in.

Agreed. Also, the gradual/smooth change in direction going from one road to another via left-slips makes them friendly for buses and articulated trucks. Moreover, it makes it much easier to take a left turn without swinging into the path of oncoming traffic.

Having said that, I think a few relatively minor changes could be made without altering the slip geometry. After all, a lot of posters have pointed out that traditional left slip lanes make it all too easy for a motorist to swipe a cyclist going straight on. To begin with, the approach to a left slip could be altered in such a way that it enables cyclists to take a safer position if they intend going straight on. For example, 50 meters before the left slip, there could be a set of traffic lights which alternates between motorists and cyclists. When the signal is red for motorists, cyclists would carry through passed the left slip without the worry of being swiped. The actual left slip it's self could be equipped with a speed ramp/raised crossing to make it less intimidating for pedestrians.

Nevertheless, I do think the reduction in lane widths is a tad excessive particularly, for buses. While cars will still have ample space, the cross section diagram clearly shows that there is very little breathing space for a bus on either side. The average bus is 2.55 meters wide. Yet, the lane it occupies in the diagram is only 3 meters leaving less than a 1/4 meter either side. The diagram also points out the design flaw which I mentioned earlier on. The bus stop is situated left of a cycle lane which leaves cyclists vulnerable to being swiped be a bus. As such, it has failed to learn from the re-engineering of bus stops on the N11 where many cycle lanes pass on the left side of a bus stop/shelter.

I'm not at all bothered by the reduction of the u-turn lane to 2.8 meters given that it is mainly used by cars which are much narrower than buses. If the cross section diagram is anything to go by, cars will still have ample space despite the narrower lanes. Furthermore, the u-turn lane appears to cater for those traveling southbound from Frascati Shopping Center. According to the map, there are two points of entry and exit for the shopping center. Instead, one should be for entry (existing southern entry/exit) and the should be for exit (existing northern entry/exit). The northern entry/exit point is almost perpendicular to the junction for Rock Hill and Frascati Road. Making this an exit only point would allow cars to go southbound onto Frascati Road without having to make a u-turn. The consequent drop in demand for the u-turn facility could free up space for an even wider median.

markpb

Larbre34 wrote: »

Motorists should not be subjected to the inconvenience a removal of all the left-slips would result in.

On the other hand, why should cyclist have their lives put at risk by dangerous design like slip lanes?

AltAccount

Meh, it doesn't affect me. I'm sticking to the roads thanks...

zagmund

One problem with tighter left turns (instead of slips) is that while it slows vehicles down, it causes their turning action to be very, very much more pronounced.

The impact (forgive the pun) here is that *if* you are a cyclist and you are hit by a left turning vehicle you change from being swiped to being flattened.

For those cyclists who wouldn't ever dream of passing/being on the left of a vehicle at a left turn this isn't too much of an issue since there will be no accident, but for the many, many cyclists who seem to operate as if they are dawdling down a country road in full visibility it will be a lot worse if/when they end up in an accident.

I drive along the bypass regularly and never fail to get the heebie jeebies when passing a cyclist there. I wouldn't cycle there myself - it's just too narrow and lacks segregation.

Regarding routing through Blackrock - I think this is an excellent idea. I have to say it's almost impossible to get run over there. Take/occupy the lane on the way in from the park side and there's just no way a car can do anything thing stupid/funky that could result in hitting you. Given a choice (which I do have) I would route via Blackrock every single time.

z

Larbre34

Good point made above, the max width of the whole road corridor along there means you could not efficiently make a left turn in a long vehicle on a 90 degree junction. The left slips are the best of a poor lot for all concerned.

monument

The Manual for Urban Roads and Streets is not an NTA document -- so even without the NTA, you'd still have one set of guildlines saying to remove them from urban areas.

markpb wrote: »

On the other hand, why should cyclist have their lives put at risk by dangerous design like slip lanes?

It seems because the convenience of motorists comes before the safety and convenience of those who want to cycle or walk?

Larbre34 wrote: »

Good point made above, the max width of the whole road corridor along there means you could not efficiently make a left turn in a long vehicle on a 90 degree junction. The left slips are the best of a poor lot for all concerned.

I don't know about a "90 degree junction" but large HGVs manage to turn on narrower roads without slips.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

On the other hand, why should cyclist have their lives put at risk by dangerous design like slip lanes?

As nomdeboardie pointed out, tactical decisions such as taking position in the center of the lane in advance of left slips would avoid the possibility of being swiped from a vehicle that would otherwise be to their right. Having said that, it is also the responsibility of the driver intending on taking a left to check their blind spot before making such a turn. In this instance, co-operation and observation are key. To cut a long story short, I think Irish road users (in general) are incredibly indecisive which I suspect is a large part of the overall health and safety problem on our roads. Sadly, I think that the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) is spoon feeding on a massive scale when it comes to junction layouts and all.

monument wrote: »

I don't know about a "90 degree junction" but large HGVs manage to turn on narrower roads without slips.

More often than not, this requires them to swing to the other side of the road to avoid mounting the kerb with their rear axle. Ergo, they end up in the path of oncoming vehicles which is incredibly dangerous, not to mention, idiotic. To put it another way, infrastructure should be designed in such a way that keeps vehicles on their side of the road as much as possible. In the case of HGVs, they are not only long (upwards of 15 meters) but, they are also very wide (the same width as a bus at 2.55 meters). Unfortunately, the DMURS appears to be pushing for road design methods that will negatively impact buses and trucks as well as cars.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

More often than not, this requires them to swing to the other side of the road to avoid mounting the kerb with their rear axle.

That's unreal even from you.

On larger roads which we're talking about there's no need for slips to allow HGVs to turn at signaled controlled junctions -- just well spaced junctions.

What you're describing is mostly commonly seen in areas unsuited to HGVs. Large trucks like a lot of things have their time and place.

_Kaiser_

monument wrote: »

That's unreal even from you.

On larger roads which we're talking about there's no need for slips to allow HGVs to turn at signaled controlled junctions -- just well spaced junctions.

What you're describing is mostly commonly seen in areas unsuited to HGVs. Large trucks like a lot of things have their time and place.

Doesn't have to just be trucks.. it's a common thing with buses and coaches too.

Cycle lanes are all well and good but they should be completely separated from the rest of the traffic, plus I could probably count on one hand the amount of times I pass a cyclist on my way home every week (D18). More cycle lanes that will sit idle are not needed.

This isn't Holland. We don't have a cycling culture and that's not likely to change regardless of how many practically empty lanes you build.

markpb

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

This isn't Holland. We don't have a cycling culture and that's not likely to change regardless of how many practically empty lanes you build.

Based on what? Holland didn't have the same cycling culture it does not, they built good cycle facilities and cycling increased. Dangerous roads won't encourage anyone to cycle and likewise, a stretch of cycle lane here or there with gaps of ill-thought out roads won't help either.

_Kaiser_

markpb wrote: »

Based on what? Holland didn't have the same cycling culture it does not, they built good cycle facilities and cycling increased. Dangerous roads won't encourage anyone to cycle and likewise, a stretch of cycle lane here or there with gaps of ill-thought out roads won't help either.

For the same reason as public transport in Ireland is the shambles that it is - there's no demand for it from those who have the option of a car, plus outside Dublin it is worse again!

Car ownership is something people aspire to (why else do you think people bought new ones every year?) Public transport and cycling is the "poor man's alternative" and treated as such by policy makers.

Besides, there's far too much money to be made on fuel and motor tax for them to seriously force an alternative. Let's face it.. they could ban cars from the city centre in the morning if they wanted to and hike motor tax by 200% - but it's not going to happen

Seaswimmer

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

For the same reason as public transport in Ireland is the shambles that it is - there's no demand for it from those who have the option of a car, plus outside Dublin it is worse again!

Car ownership is something people aspire to (why else do you think people bought new ones every year?) Public transport and cycling is the "poor man's alternative" and treated as such by policy makers.

Besides, there's far too much money to be made on fuel and motor tax for them to seriously force an alternative. Let's face it.. they could ban cars from the city centre in the morning if they wanted to and hike motor tax by 200% - but it's not going to happen

Well people in Holland aspire to have a car as well. They have a higher level of car ownership than Ireland.
One of the problems in Ireland is the level of "standing charge" for your car. Your tax, insurance, NCT, service costs, licence,depreciation are all higher so the attitude is...I am paying a lot for my car so I am going to use it..
We have fuel costs increasing, access to urban centres becoming more restricted, ever longer trip times, and stated goverment policy is to increase cycling so the days of driving into and out of cities hassle free are becoming rarer..

Tragedy

I wish DLR would liaise with DCC and fix the ****ing cycle lanes on the N11 as a priority, before adding even more badly maintained and unsuitable cycle lanes to the mix.

Been cycling Newtownpark Avenue > College Green the last few weeks and it's absolutely shocking that the main arterial route into the city for cyclists is in such a shoddy state.

Seaswimmer

Tragedy wrote: »

I wish DLR would liaise with DCC and fix the ****ing cycle lanes on the N11 as a priority, before adding even more badly maintained and unsuitable cycle lanes to the mix.

Been cycling Newtownpark Avenue > College Green the last few weeks and it's absolutely shocking that the main arterial route into the city for cyclists is in such a shoddy state.

Agree totally about the N11 but would you not be far better off going along the Rock road from Newtownpark Avenue. Its a much more pleasent cycle and you have a bus lane a lot of the way. Go across Merrion gates and you get a long section with no lights and the sea air..

Tragedy

Seaswimmer wrote: »

Agree totally about the N11 but would you not be far better off going along the Rock road from Newtownpark Avenue. Its a much more pleasent cycle and you have a bus lane a lot of the way. Go across Merrion gates and you get a long section with no lights and the sea air..

Used to do Dun L to Ringsend along the coast/Rock Road/Sandymount and it was indeed a lovely cycle, unfortunately I'm on the N11 at the top of New'park Avenue!

Really am starting to dread the daily cycle, and every unavoidable rut/pothole makes me wince in sympathy with my bike. Which probably won't last that long. On the main road into Dublin. While DLR spend millions on completely redoing minor roads around the County to make them more cyclist friendly.

Ya.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

Used to do Dun L to Ringsend along the coast/Rock Road/Sandymount and it was indeed a lovely cycle, unfortunately I'm on the N11 at the top of New'park Avenue!

Really am starting to dread the daily cycle, and every unavoidable rut/pothole makes me wince in sympathy with my bike. Which probably won't last that long. On the main road into Dublin. While DLR spend millions on completely redoing minor roads around the County to make them more cyclist friendly.

Ya.

This project is mainly covers a national route.

More importantly: Funding for this project and other is separate from funding for maintaince.

Isn't the worst parts of surfacing on the N11 outside of DLR's area?

Tragedy

monument wrote: »

This project is mainly covers a national route.

And? Are you disagreeing that the N11 is the main arterial route into the city centre for Dublin South? If not, what's the point of this comment? I don't recall arguing that Frascati Road/Temple Hill weren't a national route - ironically, they're part of a national route funneling traffic to the N11.

More importantly: Funding for this project and other is separate from funding for maintaince.

Funding for design development only is being provided by the NTA, the rest is coming from the County Council coffers. I'm afraid you're quite wrong on this one.

Isn't the worst parts of surfacing on the N11 outside of DLR's area?

No, aside from recent pipeworks on Leeson Street Lower being 'repaired' to a laughably bad standard, the worst of it is over by the Nutley Lane junction.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

And? Are you disagreeing that the N11 is the main arterial route into the city centre for Dublin South? If not, what's the point of this comment? I don't recall arguing that Frascati Road/Temple Hill weren't a national route - ironically, they're part of a national route funneling traffic to the N11.

You were talking about DLR doing minor routes, so I was just saying that does not apply here.

Tragedy wrote: »

Funding for design development only is being provided by the NTA, the rest is coming from the County Council coffers. I'm afraid you're quite wrong on this one.

The report says:

"Funding to complete design and options development has been provided by the National Transport Authority. Funding is also available in 2013 to commence construction of the section of the scheme from Newtown Avenue to Temple Hill."

What's implied here is that NTA funding is available.

Tragedy wrote: »

No, aside from recent pipeworks on Leeson Street Lower being 'repaired' to a laughably bad standard, the worst of it is over by the Nutley Lane junction.

That's DCC's area.

The border is just north of the UCD junction.

Tragedy

monument wrote: »

You were talking about DLR doing minor routes, so I was just saying that does not apply here.

Minor road isn't a definitive or official term, so why are you quibbling that Frascati Road is a 'national route' by designation? I never said it was not.

You seem to just be being argumentative for the sake of it.

The report says:

"Funding to complete design and options development has been provided by the National Transport Authority. Funding is also available in 2013 to commence construction of the section of the scheme from Newtown Avenue to Temple Hill."

What's implied here is that NTA funding is available.

No such thing is implied or stated.

NTA funding for 2013 is publicly available here: http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=720

Regardless, even if the funding was coming from the NTA - your core point is still invalid, the NTA gives grants for maintenance and redevelopment of cycle tracks. I'm not sure how you're unaware of that, given that you seem to be extremely interested in cycling infrastructure in Dublin - and it's mentioned many times in any of the NTAs framework reports on cycling in Dublin.

That's DCC's area.

The border is just north of the UCD junction.

"the worst of it is over by the Nutley Lane junction"

The worst of it is over by 500m past the DLR/DCC border somehow translates into it being DCC's area?

Have you ever actually cycled in DLR? The N11? The N31? Or are you just being argumentative from afar with no real knowledge of the topic at hand?

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

Minor road isn't a definitive or official term, so why are you quibbling that Frascati Road is a 'national route' by designation? I never said it was not.

You seem to just be being argumentative for the sake of it.

I know very few people generally or in transport circles who would ever call a national road (or even a road like the Rock Road) a "minor road". But I suppose you can call it whatever you want.

And, you're right, forget about labels: The important thing is that the Blackrock bypass is in a very poor state for cycling -- possablly one of the least cycling friendly sections of roads in an area with a fairly high cycling modal share.

Tragedy wrote: »

No such thing is implied or stated.

NTA funding for 2013 is publicly available here: http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=720

Regardless, even if the funding was coming from the NTA - your core point is still invalid, the NTA gives grants for maintenance and redevelopment of cycle tracks. I'm not sure how you're unaware of that, given that you seem to be extremely interested in cycling infrastructure in Dublin - and it's mentioned many times in any of the NTAs framework reports on cycling in Dublin.

NTA funding for the year is not limited to that listed in the link you posted.

You can read the council report whatever way you want and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe I'm wrong and when the council don't look for NTA funding I'll look silly, won't I?

Tragedy wrote: »

"the worst of it is over by the Nutley Lane junction"

The worst of it is over by 500m past the DLR/DCC border somehow translates into it being DCC's area?

Have you ever actually cycled in DLR? The N11? The N31? Or are you just being argumentative from afar with no real knowledge of the topic at hand?

Yes, I have cycled in DLR and I have cycled the N11 recently and the N31 a bit before that, and both a number of times in the last few years.

The worst section of the N11 last time I was on it was inside the Dublin City Council area -- as you have said, around the Nutley Lane junction. Unless you know something you're not sharing, the city council is responsible for its area, not DLRCC.

It's not just being argumentative, it matters if people want the cycle lane fixed.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

That's unreal even from you.

What's that supposed to mean?

If you look at the crossroads joining Cumberland Street, Clarence Street, York Road and George's Street Lower in Dun Laoghaire, you will frequently see tri-axle buses and articulated trucks alike crossing the center line while turning left. In my opinion, this is a dangerous practice as no vehicle should have to be placed into the path of oncoming traffic.

monument wrote: »

On larger roads which we're talking about there's no need for slips to allow HGVs to turn at signaled controlled junctions -- just well spaced junctions.

Larger roads like the one in question are there to serve the two shopping centers in Blackrock as well as other amenities which do indeed require HGV access. What do you mean by "well spaced" anyway?

For me slip lanes and traffic medians break the crossing into more smaller manageable sections. Now, I still maintain that speed ramps are needed to stop speeding motorists from taking them too quickly.

monument wrote: »

What you're describing is mostly commonly seen in areas unsuited to HGVs. Large trucks like a lot of things have their time and place.

Given the important function large trucks have in stock transportation among other things, I think it is quite narrow minded to say that they "have their time and place". If anything, I think there is a huge shortage of roads along the coast that are suitable for large trucks (well...due south east of Dun Laoghaire Town Center anyway).

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean?

If you look at the crossroads joining Cumberland Street, Clarence Street, York Road and George's Street Lower in Dun Laoghaire, you will frequently see tri-axle buses and articulated trucks alike crossing the center line while turning left. In my opinion, this is a dangerous practice as no vehicle should have to be placed into the path of oncoming traffic.

In my last reply to you I said:

On larger roads which we're talking about there's no need for slips to allow HGVs to turn at signaled controlled junctions -- just well spaced junctions.

What you're describing is mostly commonly seen in areas unsuited to HGVs. Large trucks like a lot of things have their time and place.

Now you're already back taking about narrow roads in confined spaces -- which are not relevant to a discussion about a large load with large junctions.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Larger roads like the one in question are there to serve the two shopping centers in Blackrock as well as other amenities which do indeed require HGV access.

Nobody has said that there's no requirement for HGV access on the Blackrock bypass.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

For me slip lanes and traffic medians break the crossing into more smaller manageable sections. Now, I still maintain that speed ramps are needed to stop speeding motorists from taking them too quickly.

As discussed before, your thinking on this is counter to most who work in the are of pedestrian priority and accessibly for users of all ages and abilities.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Given the important function large trucks have in stock transportation among other things, I think it is quite narrow minded to say that they "have their time and place". If anything, I think there is a huge shortage of roads along the coast that are suitable for large trucks (well...due south east of Dun Laoghaire Town Center anyway).

Your last suggestion of a mass one-way system for the area south east of Dun Laoghaire was shot down by a good few posters, now what exactly are you suggesting? Large-scale demolition and road building in places like Dalkey just to suit HGVs?

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

you will frequently see tri-axle buses and articulated trucks alike crossing the center line while turning left. In my opinion, this is a dangerous practice as no vehicle should have to be placed into the path of oncoming traffic.

Spot Quiz. Which is more dangerous -

* a HGV crossing the centre line into oncoming traffic - traffic which should be slowing down because they're approaching a junction
* any vehicle crossing a cycle lane / passing a pedestrian crossing to get to a slip lane. Bear in mind that that vehicle is encouraged *not* to slow down by the design of the road and their focus will be on traffic coming from the right, not the pedestrian or cyclist to their left

As an aside, if there is no room for a HGV to make a left turn at a junction, 99% of the time you'll find it's because motorists haven't stopped at the stop line or the stop line is incorrectly placed.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

* a HGV crossing the centre line into oncoming traffic - traffic which should be slowing down because they're approaching a junction

Of course, traffic should slow down on approaching a junction. I'm not disputing the dangers of this for a second as junctions particularly crossroads, T-junctions and roundabouts are critical points where caution needs to be exorcised. I've always thought that cameras could be fitted to traffic lights to catch someone who has either broken a red light or has occupied the cyclist bay at the front of a lane.

markpb wrote: »

* any vehicle crossing a cycle lane to get to a slip lane where that vehicle is encouraged *not* to slow down by the design of the road and where their focus will be on traffic coming from the right, not the pedestrian or cyclist to their left

If the driver of the vehicle has failed the routine (or supposed to be) mirrors and more importantly, blind spot check, it could be catastrophic. In any case, observation from the motorist is paramount in ensuring the safety of other road users. Otherwise, they shouldn't be driving in the first place. No motorist should be looking right when doing a left turn or at least not when it's unsafe to do so.

markpb wrote: »

As an aside, if there is no room for a HGV to make a left turn at a junction, 99% of the time you'll find it's because motorists haven't stopped at the stop line or the stop line is incorrectly placed.

Indeed, I do acknowledge the fact that many motorists do cross the stop line which is incompetent to say the least. On that note, a stop line that is set back from a crossroads reduces the visibility of all road users on the perpendicular road which introduces an element of uncertainty to what's around the corner.

Then again, that's my opinion. Each to their own.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Of course, traffic should slow down on approaching a junction.

No motorist should be looking right when doing a left turn or at least not when it's unsafe to do so.

I do acknowledge the fact that many motorists do cross the stop line

You can't trust motorists to drive safely all the time because they're human and make mistakes. If you design roads which only work if everyone drives perfectly, you'll end up with unsafe roads and roads where more vulnerable users and marginalised.

Then again, that's my opinion. Each to their own.[/QUOTE]

patrickbrophy18

1. monument wrote: »

   As discussed before, your thinking on this is counter to most who work in the are of pedestrian priority and accessibly for users of all ages and abilities.

2. markpb wrote: »

   If you design roads which only work if everyone drives perfectly, you'll end up with unsafe roads and roads where more vulnerable users and marginalised.

Points 1 and 2 above could easily be addressed with tweaks to traffic light sequences such as an extra 10-20 seconds allocated to the green man at pedestrian crossings. I've never seen it take more than 20 seconds for anyone to get from one side of the road to the other by foot. While I understand that there are a lot of vulnerable road users, I do think the use of the word "marginalised" is overly dramatic.

markpb wrote: »

You can't trust motorists to drive safely all the time because they're human and make mistakes.

This perspective ("they're human and make mistakes") may be okay for the more mundane tasks. However, when people are behind the wheel of a car or are operating other heavy machinery, it is a position of huge responsibility. As such, said perspective does not apply. In other words, human error is inexcusable in this case.



Generally, all road users (Drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and skateboarders) are expected to be observant and to anticipate the actions of each other. For example, when a motorist is taking a left into a slip lane, they should check their mirrors and blind spots to ensure they don't swipe a cyclist going straight on. Similarly, if a pedestrian insists on crossing the road when the light is red or crosses well in advance of designated crossing facilities, it isn't a big deal to take a moment to look both ways. Finally, if a cyclist uses the same tarmac as motorists, they should travel in the same direction. For skateboarders, I would strongly advise not to perform any stunts within close range of moving traffic. Most importantly, all road users should be forced to obey the traffic lights that apply to them. Failure to do so should result in:

• A €1000 fine and complete ban on driving for bus and truck drivers. This would mean an end to their career.
• A €100 fine and 6 penalty points for motorists and impounding their car. Each subsequent occurrence would increment the fine by €100.
• A €15 fine for cyclists with possible impounding of their bike. A more lenient cautioning system would be used for those below the age of 16.
• A €5 fine for pedestrians who cross at a junction when the man is red without looking both ways. A more lenient cautioning system would be used for those below the age of 16.

Back on topic, I notice that the number of lanes on Temple Hill will be reduced to one per direction towards the turn for Newtownpark Avenue. Given that this stretch currently has medium gridlock, I can see very long lines of traffic when this is implemented and possibly an increase in rat runs through estates.

nomdeboardie

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

...

• A €5 fine for pedestrians who cross at a junction when the man is red without looking both ways. ...

:pac:
Gaze patrol?
But Ossifer, I did move my eyes!

themont85

There is no set of pedestrian lights at the junction where that poor cyclist was killed at Carysfort/Blackrock. There is if you are walking down to or from the village from both sides of the junction. If you are walking from Permament TSB over to the SCs there are no lights. In order to cross properly you would have to walk down to the village, cross at Tonic and walk back up again. How come I wonder, incredibly dangerous.