cycle the grand/royal canal

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK are you arguing that the N59 - any section of the N59 - even Lenane Westport - provides an equivalent cycling experience to a paved route beside a canal?

Are you arguing that the N59 provides that environment in means accesible to family groups with small children in trailer? Accessible to groups of people who want a social, traffic-free, cycle with their friends?

If that is your argument then as Monument says you genuinely don't seem to have a clue what you are on about.

Speeding cars and HGVs overtaking you on bendy narrow roads? That sounds great! Doesn't it!

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

Speeding cars and HGVs overtaking you on bendy narrow roads? That sounds great! Doesn't it!

I've been skimmed a few times by close passes at 100kph + on the N59 - including on the back stretch behind Maamtrasna.

When I saw that post I just thought "operating in an alternative universe".

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

OK are you arguing that the N59 - any section of the N59 - even Lenane Westport - provides an equivalent cycling experience to a paved route beside a canal?

Only ever cycled the Westport - Achill section of it, but didn't get killed even once. That said, and as I've repeated throughout this thread, I use L roads and R roads where possible, and have cycled many such roads with my kids.

For so called cycling advocates, yourself and monument seem rather hell bent on scaring the living crap out of anyone that might be considering taking a bike out on the road. Why? Surely overstating the dangers of cycling on the open roads alongside other traffic does real damage to the prospect of families considering cycling together and kids using bikes as a utilitarian form of transport.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Only ever cycled the Westport - Achill section of it, but didn't get killed even once. That said, and as I've repeated throughout this thread, I use L roads and R roads where possible, and have cycled many such roads with my kids.

For so called cycling advocates, yourself and monument seem rather hell bent on scaring the living crap out of anyone that might be considering taking a bike out on the road. Why? Surely overstating the dangers of cycling on the open roads alongside other traffic does real damage to the prospect of families considering cycling together and kids using bikes as a utilitarian form of transport.

I would not call myself a "cycling advocate" and I'm even less so an "advocate" of cycling on the on narrow, bendy N roads with speeding traffic and HGVs.

It's not the kind of conditions you're going to get many families and children cycling on.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Only ever cycled the Westport - Achill section of it, but didn't get killed even once. That said, and as I've repeated throughout this thread, I use L roads and R roads where possible, and have cycled many such roads with my kids.

For so called cycling advocates, yourself and monument seem rather hell bent on scaring the living crap out of anyone that might be considering taking a bike out on the road. Why? Surely overstating the dangers of cycling on the open roads alongside other traffic does real damage to the prospect of families considering cycling together and kids using bikes as a utilitarian form of transport.

We havent overstated anything. If you get hit by a car or truck doing 100kmh you are likely to die - that is simple physics and biomechanics. The liklihood is irrelevant many people are unhappy exposing themselves or thier loved ones to that risk.

The issue here seems to be that you refuse to accept that the idea of routes with a zero risk of collisions with moving cars carry a particular premium. They are particularly attractive for a specific component of the potential cycling market. It is not just the risk, its the smell of exhaust, the engine noise, the wind blast off passing trucks, the spray they throw up on wet days.

All these things can be avoided by providing traffic free routes where feasible. Canals and abandoned railways are classic examples of corridors where such routes are feasible - especially where they are in state control.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

We havent overstated anything. If you get hit by a car or truck doing 100kmh you are likely to die - that is simple physics and biomechanics. The liklihood is irrelevant many people are unhappy exposing themselves or thier loved ones to that risk.

Are you sure? From my understanding the highest proportion of road deaths by distance travelled is pedestrians. Perhaps we should stop walking on pavements too, and keep our loved ones under armed guard in front of the TV all day. As a parent, I'd have far more concerns about childhood obesity than my kids getting squashed by a truck. Sure it could happen, but it would clearly be an exceptional event, whereas this generation of kids and young teens meeting an early grave due to some obesity related illness would seem to be a sadly common prospect going for many.

The issue here seems to be that you refuse to accept that the idea that routes with a zero risk of collisions with moving cars carry a particular premium. They are particularly attractive for a specific component of the potential cycling market. It is not just the risk, its the smell of exhaust, the engine noise, the wind blast off passing trucks, the spray they throw up on wet days.

All these things can be avoided by providing traffic free routes where feasible. Canals and abandoned railways are classic examples of corridors where such routes are feasible - especially where they are in state control.

That's all very well, but having a network of such routes that would be suitable for a majority of bike journeys seems like a rather distant Utopian fantasy. Scaring people away from the cycling the roads in the mean time seems plain dumb, and actually makes you a car advocate. Much as I'd love to see it happen, some of us have kids now, and would rather see them get about under their own steam than depend on the Mom&Dad taxi company.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

That's all very well, but having a network of such routes that would be suitable for a majority of bike journeys seems like a rather distant Utopian fantasy. Scaring people away from the cycling the roads in the mean time seems plain dumb, and actually makes you a car advocate. Much as I'd love to see it happen, some of us have kids now, and would rather see them get about under their own steam than depend on the Mom&Dad taxi company.

I suspect that if you check the Western Greenway is now responsible for a significant proportion of the bike journeys in Mayo or are those the type of journeys you were talking about?

You have gone from talking about a specific route to a "network". Why don't we keep it to the route we are discussing?

As it happens I think the canal greenways will act as a central spine to which we can then connect other elements of a network of greenways and suitable L roads.

I have news for you. People have already been scared off the roads. Me or anybody else proposing traffic free routes is not going to change that. The issue of how we provide for utility cycling on the wider roads network is a distinct issue separate to the provision of greenways.

The construction of greenways stands alone as strategic objective outside the issue of utility cycling.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Are you sure? From my understanding the highest proportion of road deaths by distance travelled is pedestrians. Perhaps we should stop walking on pavements too, and keep our loved ones under armed guard in front of the TV all day. As a parent, I'd have far more concerns about childhood obesity than my kids getting squashed by a truck. Sure it could happen, but it would clearly be an exceptional event, whereas this generation of kids and young teens meeting an early grave due to some obesity related illness would seem to be a sadly common prospect going for many.



That's all very well, but having a network of such routes that would be suitable for a majority of bike journeys seems like a rather distant Utopian fantasy. Scaring people away from the cycling the roads in the mean time seems plain dumb, and actually makes you a car advocate. Much as I'd love to see it happen, some of us have kids now, and would rather see them get about under their own steam than depend on the Mom&Dad taxi company.

That's bonkers coming from somebody who's objecting to surfacing one of the only cross-country National Cycle Routes which is progressing.

The main blocker to having a network of such routes that would be suitable for a majority of bike journeys is only a "rather distant Utopian fantasy" because of people like you objecting to and downplaying the need to have high-quality routes, including high-quality surfaces.

galwaycyclist

Just in case anyone from Waterways Ireland is monitoring this discussion.

smacl wrote: »

I for one greatly appreciate the input of Waterways Ireland in this thread, at it they who are currently striving to improve the canal tow paths on what I would imagine are rather limited resources.

And in another thread the same contributor writes.

smacl wrote: »

Bum reading, I'd say I was touching 70kph coming off the gap, but only mid 50s when I got that reading. Possibly caused by passing another cyclist with same wireless.

In my view a cyclist who cycles at those kind of speeds should be seen as representing a completely different segment from the kind of people who would be the target market for canal greenways.

Many of the potential cyclists who would be the target market for a canal greenway would be horrified by the idea of travelling at 70kmh on a bike. It would be seen as indicative of a wreckless and cavalier attitude to risk and personal safety.

It might also serve as a useful indicator of the weight that should be given to the views expressed.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

You have gone from talking about a specific route to a "network". Why don't we keep it to the route we are discussing?

Purely in response to Monument talking about a wider network, which I agree is taking this thread off topic.

As it happens I think the canal greenways will act as a central spine to which we can then connect other elements of a network of greenways and suitable L roads.

Maybe so, but which is the principal demographic you're targeting here? Does this demographic exist yet or are you basing it on a 'build it and they'll come' approach? From my understanding the Westport Achill route is touted mainly as a family friendly tourist amenity for example, rather than say a commuting route. From where I'm sitting, leisure seems to be a major part of the equation, yet you seem to be excluding a large number of current leisure users of the canal.

I have news for you. People have already been scared off the roads.

So you then have then have to ask is this fear rational, and justified in proportion to the actual risk, or is it grossly exaggerated? Given the upsurge in cycling at the same time as it being one of the safer modes of transport, I'd tend to think the latter. That being the case, surely those advocating cycling, and pushing the safety in numbers line of argument elsewhere are being disingenuous by using the same fear to leverage their position in this thread?

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Maybe so, but which is the principal demographic you're targeting here? Does this demographic exist yet or are you basing it on a 'build it and they'll come' approach? From my understanding the Westport Achill route is touted mainly as a family friendly tourist amenity for example, rather than say a commuting route. From where I'm sitting, leisure seems to be a major part of the equation, yet you seem to be excluding a large number of current leisure users of the canal.

The "demographic" has already been explained to you. eg.

family groups with small children in trailer? Accessible to groups of people who want a social, traffic-free, cycle with their friends?

The Western Greenway has proven that there is clear demand for a family friendly tourist cyclist amenities. Such that people are travelling from all over Ireland to use it - but you choose to assert that question if a longer route to a higher standard of design would have that demand? On what basis?

I am "excluding" what "large number" of "current leisure users" of the canal? Where are you getting your large number from?

I have walked the Grand Canal from Shannon Harbour to Kilbeggan - much of the time there were no other human beings to be seen. In places it was more like jungle than towpath. The canals are a grotesquely under used resource.

If we did this right there would be tens of thousands of users crossing the country in an attractive, peaceful environment.

In my view your objections on "behalf" of anglers in particular are spurious. If there was a proper cycleway then there would be more opportunities for angling. Bike trailers are not exclusivley used to transport children - they can also be used for angling equipment.

So you then have then have to ask is this fear rational, and justified in proportion to the actual risk, or is it grossly exaggerated? Given the upsurge in cycling at the same time as it being one of the safer modes of transport, I'd tend to think the latter. That being the case, surely those advocating cycling, and pushing the safety in numbers line of argument elsewhere are being disingenuous by using the same fear to leverage their position in this thread?

I don't have to ask anything. This has little or nothing to do with general policy on transport or utility cycling.

It stands on its own merits - your attempts to bring in other issues are a spurious attempt at distraction.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

As for the risks involved in cycling rural roads, I think you're failing to distinguish between major arterial routes passing through rural areas such as N roads, and the far quieter R and L roads that surround them. Given that 5 out of 190 road deaths last year were cyclists, I would hazard a guess that modally it is one of the safer forms of transport. You seem to be discouraging people from cycling these roads on the grounds that it is dangerous to do so, which I'd rather doubt is your intent.

For balance, you are entitled to a response on this point. This idea, of developing a national cycle network based on suitable L roads has been around for a while and seems eminently sensible. It is even a central component of the cycling strategy for tourism that was produced for Failte Ireland. The problem is that, in my direct experience, this proposal has run into direct opposition and dismissal from key officials at both local government and Department of Transport level.

So the necessary leadership for such a program is simply not available.

So by default the canals etc are the only game in town for providing cross country greenways.

They were always going to be a central component anyway. It is not an "either or" question.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In my view a cyclist who cycles at those kind of speeds should be seen as representing a completely different segment from the kind of people who would be the target market for canal greenways.

And yet I also have a family that I encourage to cycle, and we have cycled the Mayo greenway together as a short family holiday. We also cycled the backroads around Waterville in Kerry the year previous, which the kids particularly pointed out was much more fun. Hills to come down, bits of unpaved bohereen to go clattering about, and beaches and lakes to swim in to take a break from cycling. The greenway by comparison was remarked on as being boring by the kids, though myself and my wife rather enjoyed it.

I think you're making a mistake by placing people into single distinct categories of cyclist, where they typically fall into many categories. The fact that I like tearing down hills on a bike after slogging up them doesn't preclude me from taking the bike down to the shops, going cycling with the kids, or using it as a form of transport to get from A to B. As for going down hills at speed, I think you'll find this is the primary reason many kids are drawn to bikes.

It might also serve as a useful indicator of the weight that should be given to the views expressed.

Indeed. How many kids, and of what ages, are going to be queuing up to cycle on a pan flat unvaried surface with a speed limit of 20kph to be among buggy pushers and dog walkers?

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I have walked the Grand Canal from Shannon Harbour to Kilbeggan - much of the time there were no other human beings to be seen. In places it was more like jungle than towpath.

Sounds truly amazing. Must try to get down to that section before the bulldozers roll in.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For balance, you are entitled to a response on this point. This idea, of developing a national cycle network based on suitable L roads has been around for a while and seems eminently sensible. It is even a central component of the cycling strategy for tourism that was produced for Failte Ireland. The problem is that, in my direct experience, this proposal has run into direct opposition and dismissal from key officials at both local government and Department of Transport level.

So the necessary leadership for such a program is simply not available.

So by default the canals etc are the only game in town for providing cross country greenways.

They were always going to be a central component anyway. It is not an "either or" question.

Like these little blue signs you see around the place? Recklessly encouraging cavalier cyclists such as myself to risk life and limb on our killer L and R roads.

Given the limited coverage of green ways, outside of light leisure cycling on limited routes, we'll be cycling significant distances on normal roads for the foreseeable future. I feel quite strongly that cycling advocates harping on about the potential for gruesome death while cycling these roads seriously damages the prospect of people with families using this as a mode of transport. In my opinion, the amount of fear surrounding this issue already greatly exceeds the actual risk, and feeding that fear to leverage a preferred solution for our canals is shameful.

beauf

It's like an anti cycling campaign.

I see they've barked the trail between the gates around farmleigh in the phoenix park. Used to be a roots and dirt grass trail. Has anyone tried it on a bike? Curious what people think of that as a surface.

galwaycyclist

beauf wrote: »

It's like an anti cycling campaign.

Yes its perplexing isnt it? Its almost like there is some kind of resentment at the idea of Irish people having the same cycling opportunities that would be considered normal elsewhere in Northern Europe.

When its someone who calls themselves a cyclist that is objecting it gets really hard to fathom.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Like these little blue signs you see around the place? Recklessly encouraging cavalier cyclists such as myself to risk life and limb on our killer L and R roads.

Given the limited coverage of green ways, outside of light leisure cycling on limited routes, we'll be cycling significant distances on normal roads for the foreseeable future. I feel quite strongly that cycling advocates harping on about the potential for gruesome death while cycling these roads seriously damages the prospect of people with families using this as a mode of transport. In my opinion, the amount of fear surrounding this issue already greatly exceeds the actual risk, and feeding that fear to leverage a preferred solution for our canals is shameful.

Here is a screen shot of the location of your blue sign



It is an R road with presumably a 100kmh limit leading off the N11. The idea that sticking up a blue sign on a road like that "creates" a family friendly greenway is frankly ridiculous. To propose that kind of thing as an acceptable alternative to a canal greenway is to simply lose any credibility.

How many of the people who cycle the Western Greenway would see that road as offering the same cycling experience? How many people would drive their families accross the country to park up on the N11 and bring their children cycling on a road like that?

Why are you talking about transport? This is not about transport it is about leisure activities. It is about people sharing quality time with each other in an attractive environment.

I have news for you there is enormous demand for traffic-free routes for leisure cycling. In survey after survey, potential cyclists express a preference for traffic-free routes. You may not like that, you may resent it, but creating greenways does not in any way inhibit your ability to use other roads. You are free not to use any greenways and, as we have established, your cycling style makes you a poor candidate.

Chips Lovell

Thread closed pending review.

Thank you for your patience.