Cycle path one way?

chewed

Can anyone tell me if the cycle path from Talbot memorial bridge to the Samuel Beckett bridge is one way? I often see cyclists going to the other way (westward) and there's hardly room for one bike as it is on the lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/pNUlt

Also, are the cyclists supposed to stop at the area in front of the pedestrian bridge? There is a Yield triangle at the traffic lights on the path. This is a very busy area with lots of pedestrians waiting to cross and they inevitably end up standing on the cycle path with cyclists getting angry at times! It's a very bad layout for cyclists and pedestrians!

bigar

As most bicycle facilities in Dublin (Ireland?) it is very much unclear. As far as I can tell, this path used to be for both directions but is not any longer (just as on the other side of the Liffey). On certain points they divided the path and had road markings painted, a bicycle with an arrow in both directions. Some time ago they only refreshed the ones going with the flow of traffic but there are still faded road markings showing both.

So it is not really clear. To me it is safer to use it in both directions in most parts so I use it in both. I do find it wide enough for both directions.

The point at the pedestrian bridge is only one of the stop and go points on this cycle path so it is very much up to you. Do you want to get off your bike every 100m or do you just continue what would be a short stretch of footpath until you reach the next part of the cycle lane. Experience tells me, most just keep on going which would be the most logical thing to do.

Also, if you put cycle lanes on the same level as footpaths, you are asking for trouble. Unfortunately that is what DCC chooses to do all over the city against better judgement and RSA advice.

loyatemu

It used to be a contra-flow lane with the idea being that east-bound cyclists could use the road and west-bound cyclists use the path.

A couple of years ago they reversed the direction, so it is now one-way eastbound. If you want to go west you're supposed to be on the other side of the river (handy eh?). In practise cyclists use it in both directions.

As for the pedestrian crossing, in theory cyclists have the right of way (possibly... there are no signs saying they have to yield) but in practise they should slow down and yield if necessary as ploughing into groups of pedestrians is pretty obnoxious.

monument

chewed wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if the cycle path from Talbot memorial bridge to the Samuel Beckett bridge is one way? I often see cyclists going to the other way (westward) and there's hardly room for one bike as it is on the lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/pNUlt

Also, are the cyclists supposed to stop at the area in front of the pedestrian bridge? There is a Yield triangle at the traffic lights on the path. This is a very busy area with lots of pedestrians waiting to cross and they inevitably end up standing on the cycle path with cyclists getting angry at times! It's a very bad layout for cyclists and pedestrians!

The one on the south bank of the river?

chewed

Yes, this is the path on the south side of the river. There are yield signs on the actual path just before the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian path system on both sides of the river around this area are a mess in my view as they seem to weave all over the place so more often than not people end up walking directly on the cycle path to avoid walking on cobblestones!

Jem72

I work in that area and I agree that the campshire there is a mess for pedestrian and cyclists. The cobblestones are the main problem and it is even worse at lunchtime with people out running who also use the cycle-path.

Whether or not it is legally two-way, people use it as a two way cycle path, a buggy path, a walkway and a running track so I reckon the best thing to do is to just join the party and don't expect to go fast on the cycle-path. If cyclists take it easy on the path, there generally isn't a major conflict. If you want to go fast, just use the road.

trellheim

This particular path is hideously dangerous especially around the pedestrian bridge. Anyone cycling fast should be on the road here rather than the track.

Tarabuses

chewed wrote: »

Yes, this is the path on the south side of the river. There are yield signs on the actual path just before the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian path system on both sides of the river around this area are a mess in my view as they seem to weave all over the place so more often than not people end up walking directly on the cycle path to avoid walking on cobblestones!

If there are yield signs on the cycle path then the cyclists should yield?

monument

The cycle path was westbound and was changed for some unknown reason about two or three years ago.

It's nice how they can change the flow of a contra-flow cycle path without any consultation whatsoever! Isn't it?

loyatemu

I queried it at the time and was told:

Dublin City Council wrote:

This is a temporary measure. As part of Dublin City Council’s proposed Flood defence works along the south Campshire the cycle route along the south quays from the Talbot Bridge to Macken Street will be moved onto the roadway with a dedicated two cycle lane.

Markcheese

Jem72 wrote: »

I work in that area and I agree that the campshire there is a mess for pedestrian and cyclists. The cobblestones are the main problem and it is even worse at lunchtime with people out running who also use the cycle-path.

Whether or not it is legally two-way, people use it as a two way cycle path, a buggy path, a walkway and a running track so I reckon the best thing to do is to just join the party and don't expect to go fast on the cycle-path. If cyclists take it easy on the path, there generally isn't a major conflict. If you want to go fast, just use the road.

What Are the legalities of cycling on the road when a cycle path (crap or otherwise) is provided - ?

loyatemu

Markcheese wrote: »

What Are the legalities of cycling on the road when a cycle path (crap or otherwise) is provided - ?

It's legal.

monument

Here it is just after the arrow markings were painted over the old contra-flow bike logos....

loyatemu wrote: »

I queried it at the time and was told:

I don't even know what that (their quote) means!

SeanW

I have to use this junction a lot as a pedestrian, it's really quite poor from both a pedestrian and cyclist perspective.

From the POV of a pedestrian it's got the following problems IMO.

1. The pedestrain call button on the City Quay side is in the middle of the cycle lane! A state of affairs which is good for neither pedestrians nor cyclists.
2. That whole section has cobblestone paving provided for pedestrians ... why? It could hardly be more pedestrian hostile!
3. The traffic island ... why is that there and pedestrians directed to use it? There's no need for it because the pedestrain lights halt all traffic at the junction so pedestrians should be able to cross at the arms. The island also causes two problems:
   1) It takes the act of crossing a two lane road and widens the route so that it is like crossing a five lane road.
   2) Because the green man time is so short, it is not possible, at least, even running, I have never done it, to cross the first leg, cross the island, then get started on the second leg before the man goes yellow. This means that it is technically not legal to cross the entire junction in a single traffic light sequence, unless MAYBE if you happen to be Usain Bolt.
4. It's also connected to Sean O'Casey bridge which (in theory) bans cycling ... in theory. Though if I'm being honest, I can kinda see why they ignore the ban. Ideally, SOC bridge should have been built to accommodate both (pedestrians and cyclists).
5. Cyclists often also disregard the directional controls on the City Quay cycle lane - I am a little less understanding about THAT since it's an extra hazard for pedestrians who have the right to expect that traffic against them is coming from one direction only.

Aard

SeanW wrote: »

[*]It's also connected to Sean O'Casey bridge which (in theory) bans cycling ... in theory. Though if I'm being honest, I can kinda see why they ignore the ban. Ideally, SOC bridge should have been built to accommodate both (pedestrians and cyclists).

I too can't understand why it wasn't designed as ped+bike. Especially considering that Matt Talbot is southbound-only (and honestly quite terrifying on a bike) and Sam Beckett southbound doesn't allow a right-turn towards town.

monument

Aard wrote: »

I too can't understand why it wasn't designed as ped+bike. Especially considering that Matt Talbot is southbound-only (and honestly quite terrifying on a bike) and Sam Beckett southbound doesn't allow a right-turn towards town.

Matt Talbot has a contra-flow cycle path on its west side.

beauf

chewed wrote: »

... It's a very bad layout for cyclists and pedestrians!

The cycle lanes along the quays between O'Connell Street and the East Link are a disgrace. Its some of the worse layouts I've ever seen. In many places its just gibberish. Its mainly successful at putting everyone in conflict with each other, and confusing everyone who uses them. A monumental waste of money and resources. In many places they manage to be cycle lanes which are anti-cycling, anti-pedestrian, and anti-drivers.