Donabate R132/R126/M1 Junction + cyclists?

dslamjack

Just out of interest ,I seen a motorist giving out reams to a cyclist today at the Donabate R132/R126/M1 Junction at Lissenhall.
I presume because the cyclist had not used the tunnel as the motorist was pointing towards it direction.
I have seen a few near accidents between cars and cyclists at this location,I thought all the routes where covered by bicycle lanes/tunnel's at this junction.
The tunnels are not very well sign posted or for that matter are the existence of bicycle lanes /routes for cyclists on the approaches to this busy junction.
I know there is one tunnel there ,is that it? or is there more ,I know cyclists don't come high up on the agenda on the NRA's priority list and that NCD cyclists are long over due proper bicycle lanes linking ,even Skerries/Rush/Lusk etc.
Actually according to the NRA there is no civilisation ,north of Swords or Malahide.
If ye ever want to have a real near death experience try walking or cycling , from Blake's Cross(R127) to Lusk , or the road of death (R128) Lusk to train station/ train station to Rush.
These routes are dangerous enough in the car , the poor auld cyclist must have nerves of steel to chance them.

Carawaystick

There are 3 tunnels
Under the Hearse road & onslip to the M1S
under the offslip of the M1N (heading to Swords)
under the Onslip of the M1N (northbound from Swords)

There are issues with all of them, but I usually use the one under the Hearse road, and sometimes the one northbound from Swords.

The one under the Hearse road has a blind junction with bikes coming down from the hearse road going to Swords. There's no yield /stop lines marked so it's unclear if cyclists coming down will yield to cyclists on the right coming from the r132
There is also a kerb at a very shallow angle as you leave the road on the r132 to the cycle lane, so if you weren't paying attention, you could take a tumble here.
The design should be that you join the cycle lane at close to a right angle, or at the very least there is a drop down onto the cycle lane.

The tunnel under the M1N offslip has a tight off-camber hairpin and is clearly signed as no entry.
I don't use this as the bike/pedestrian lights to cross the offslip change as soon as you press the button.

The tunnel under the M1N onslip is long and has an off camber bend where it joins the path over the motorway. There's also street furniture right at the bend, and gravel. It also leads you to a pedestrian/cycle light that is red until the next green phase for motor traffic on the roadway.
There is a right angle turn at the path here too, which is badly designed.
If traffic is very heavy or very light I use the road here.

There's no obligation on cyclists to use cycle lanes. and there are no cycle lanes on the bridges over the M1 mainline, as there is no traffic sign RRM023 or RRM022

Beasty

I personally never use the cycle lanes across that junction. I always stick to the road, as I actually feel safer. The cycle lanes will get clogged up with rubbish and occasionally can have glass on them. As we move into winter the incidence of ice increases. Getting back onto the hard shoulder at the other end is a bit of a pain also. A lot of guys I know cycle that junction regularly will use the lane southbound but still cut back off the kerb onto the road ahead of the final set of lights. I am aware of very few cyclists who use the cycle lanes northbound

If motorists use the lanes as they are set out there is absolutely no problem (having said that, before they changed the layout I did find drivers sometimes trying to get onto the motorway slip from lane 3 (pushing ahead of others who have queued) and on one occasion had to head slightly onto the slip road myself to avoid being hit by a car doing that manoeuver

As already highlighted cyclists are perfectly at liberty to stick to the road

Carawaystick

Now you mention it, there used to be a load of frost down in the hole under the hearse road.

It always feels more hectic and dangerous going South, maybe it isn't so bad if you take the middle lane, Beasty?

Beasty

Carawaystick wrote: »

Now you mention it, there used to be a load of frost down in the hole under the hearse road.

It always feels more hectic and dangerous going South, maybe it isn't so bad if you take the middle lane, Beasty?

Got to take the middle lane. Approaching the junction I move outside the hard shoulder before it turns into an inside lane and keep in that lane. Basically for those first 30m or so of the roundabout to the M1 turnoff I'm just about as fast as motor vehicles anyway and just hold my position in the line of traffic

Just thinking again about one of my prior comments. The old layout had 2 lanes on the roundabout and cyclists would stick on the inside which was either straight on or turning onto the motorway. The right lane was straight on only and that was where the car came from. Think the driver was more traumatised than me as when she stopped she sat there just saying sorry, so hopefully they lesson was learned

The current layout allows you to go straight on or down the slip road from the centre lane so that's the only logical option for cyclists. I would not use the road if I didn't feel confident using the centre lane

Wishbone Ash

dslamjack wrote: »

....I seen a motorist giving out reams to a cyclist today at the Donabate R132/R126/M1 Junction at Lissenhall.....

A motorist in a white van had a go at me last week for not using it asking if I realised how much it cost (as if I asked for it to be constructed :rolleyes:). I was in McNally Swords CC kit and he said he would be contacting the club to report me. I was hoping he would. He wasn't interested in knowing that (legally) it was at the cyclists' discretion whether or not to use the tunnel.

I use the first southbound one if traffic is already moving through the lights when I approach. I don't use the second part preferring to wait at the lights. I never use the northbound route (well not since the first time I tried it).

Beasty - the southbound first tunnel is much cleaner now than it used to be, No sign of rubbish, glass or excrement for a while now.

Beasty

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A I was in McNally Swords CC kit and he said he would be contacting the club to report me. I was hoping he would.

Not yet:(

Not sure how we would respond if he did. Never had to implement the disciplinary policy against a club member yet:pac:

dslamjack

Now that I've looked there are the 3 tunnels , I remember when the junction was being built, people assumed the whole junction was going to be free flow,like on the M50.
Actually I think some have even called these Sargents folly;re the TD from the party that can't be mentioned in polite society.
I am not a cyclist myself , but road safety is everybody's business in my book ,and it is fact and good business that where proper decent cycle lanes are provided they are used,and are a benefit to all concerned.
Recently on RTE's nationwide there was a piece on a disused railways track being turned over
by Iarnród Éireann for a cycle/track / walkway,I think in Donegal,150,000 used it in the first year alone , and created no end of local jobs for tourism etc as well as being brilliant for cyclists, walkers , joggers etc.
One thing that really annoyed me was ye might remember that the grass margin on the left
from Lusk to Blakes Cross was completely dug up by the Gas Company a couple of years back,it would have been ideal for a cycle lane and could have easily have been provided then,but instead was grassed over again when works were completed.
There are also a couple of ''Lost Cycle'' lanes in NCD -gwan guess? - below at the 5 roads/Jordanstown and above in St Margarets adj to the village , if the hedges were't cut ye would never know they there there.On another note see a lad reading an invoice and using a mobile phone and sipping a coffee ,all at the same time,while traversing this junction on Sunday afternoon, now that's multi tasking for ye - will people ever learn.

detones

Leaves are a big problem for cyclists on those underpasses this time of year. Can be lethal.

Carawaystick

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I use the first southbound one if traffic is already moving through the lights when I approach. I don't use the second part preferring to wait at the lights. I never use the northbound route (well not since the first time I tried it).

Beasty - the southbound first tunnel is much cleaner now than it used to be, No sign of rubbish, glass or excrement for a while now.

Took the mainline yesterday, it was a lot slower with lots of red light time.
Drove this morning (when I really shoulda hardned up and cycled to save 50 ins off my trip) and a cyclist I passed at the first tunnel was long gone before the lights went green.

The bike lights at the second tunnel (M1 offramp) switch immediately, if the offramp car lights are red.

LeoB

I often wondered about these tunnels.

I don't cycle much now only up and down to G.A.A club but used to cycle quite a bit when I was working in Sheriff street on Saturdays or Sundays back in 80s, (far less traffic) and regularly cycled to Swords or around north county to football games.

I think the tunnels, if properly maintained should be compulsory. They cost a lot of money to put there and "folly" or not were put there for good reason I believe, to make it easier and safer for everyone to traverse these busy junctions. And I also agree about the cycle lane from Blakes cross to Lusk.

I think also cycle clubs should have a word with some members who are a danger to themselves and other road users. It is great to see so many out cycling on weekends but some are downright careless and it is not unusual to see them 3 or 4 abreast and wavering across lanes. I dont know how we dont have more accidents.

Wishbone Ash

LeoB wrote: »

....I think the tunnels, if properly maintained should be compulsory. They cost a lot of money to put there and "folly" or not were put there for good reason I believe, to make it easier and safer for everyone to traverse these busy junctions....

Leo - The problem is that most of these so called 'safety features' for cyclists are designed by motorists who do not cycle and there is little or no consultation with cyclists or cycling groups.

I don't understand your point about them costing a lot of money - I don't know any cyclists who asked for this money to be wasted. Can you imagine the controversy there would be if cyclists wasted money designing and constructing a road network without any input from motorists, or if excessive sums of money were spent on a road that no motorist asked for yet were expected to use because someone who doesn't drive decided that it would be safer for them and, as it cost a lot to build, they should be made use it?

A bicycle is defined as a vehicle under road traffic legislation and cyclists are legally entitled to use (non-motorway) roads. Segregating cyclists from motorised traffic just perpetuates the myth that cyclists are second class road users who should not hinder other road users. Instead of dealing with the real issue - incompetent motorists, the RSA, local authorities et al have instead chosen to remove cyclists out of their way, further perpetuating the myth that we shouldn't be anywhere near them.


The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists and those of us who cycle to work are being kind to the environment and freeing up space for other road users. I could be cheeky and say that, as we have a taxed car parked in the driveway for 6 days a week, we are also subsidising other road users!

LeoB wrote:

I think also cycle clubs should have a word with some members who are a danger to themselves and other road users. It is great to see so many out cycling on weekends but some are downright careless and it is not unusual to see them 3 or 4 abreast and wavering across lanes. I don't know how we dont have more accidents.

You won't find any cyclist disagreeing with you there. But what about motorists who are a much greater danger to themselves and other road users? I can recall only one occasion where a cyclist caused a fatality to another road user. Whereas on the other hand..........

jwwb

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Leo - The problem is that most of these so called 'safety features' for cyclists are designed by motorists who do not cycle and there is little or no consultation with cyclists or cycling groups.

I don't understand your point about them costing a lot of money - I don't know any cyclists who asked for this money to be wasted. Can you imagine the controversy there would be if cyclists wasted money designing and constructing a road network without any input from motorists, or if excessive sums of money were spent on a road that no motorist asked for yet were expected to use because someone who doesn't drive decided that it would be safer for them and, as it cost a lot to build, they should be made use it?

A bicycle is defined as a vehicle under road traffic legislation and cyclists are legally entitled to use (non-motorway) roads. Segregating cyclists from motorised traffic just perpetuates the myth that cyclists are second class road users who should not hinder other road users. Instead of dealing with the real issue - incompetent motorists, the RSA, local authorities et al have instead chosen to remove cyclists out of their way, further perpetuating the myth that we shouldn't be anywhere near them.

Underpasses are a very common feature in NL as are segregated cycle paths (proper cycle paths that is where cyclists have the same rights as cars crossing minor roads)

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists and those of us who cycle to work are being kind to the environment and freeing up space for other road users. I could be cheeky and say that, as we have a taxed car parked in the driveway for 6 days a week, we are also subsidising other road users!

You won't find any cyclist disagreeing with you there. But what about motorists who are a much greater danger to themselves and other road users? I can recall only one occasion where a cyclist caused a fatality to another road user. Whereas on the other hand..........

One question that I'm asking out of curiosity without looking to blame anyone is why would you cycle on the overcrowded and dangerous main route rather than the quieter and safer backroads? - When I'm cycling I usually stick to the backroads as it's much more pleasant.

Wishbone Ash

jwwb wrote: »

One question that I'm asking out of curiosity without looking to blame anyone is why would you cycle on the overcrowded and dangerous main route rather than the quieter and safer backroads? - When I'm cycling I usually stick to the backroads as it's much more pleasant.

I don't find main roads overcrowded and dangerous nor do I find 'backroads' to be safer. Many cycling accidents happen on secondary roads.

Beasty

Particular problem with some backroads is they are often quite narrow with blind bends, often resulting in some motorists making dangerous manoeuvres to overtake.

Roads like the Old N1 are much more spacious with plenty of room and some decent hard shoulder (although some bits along the edge of the road are badly worn or repaired to a poor standard and a lot of the road itself is long overdue a resurface) (Blakes Cross Southbound can be quite dangerous when having to move back across to the inside lane because of the traffic joining from the Lusk road)

LeoB

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Leo - The problem is that most of these so called 'safety features' for cyclists are designed by motorists who do not cycle and there is little or no consultation with cyclists or cycling groups.

I don't understand your point about them costing a lot of money - I don't know any cyclists who asked for this money to be wasted. Can you imagine the controversy there would be if cyclists wasted money designing and constructing a road network without any input from motorists, or if excessive sums of money were spent on a road that no motorist asked for yet were expected to use because someone who doesn't drive decided that it would be safer for them and, as it cost a lot to build, they should be made use it?

I don't think the money was wasted it is a good feature and I don't mind who they consult with once they get it right. These tunnels cost money and the idea is good. Turning into a them (motorists) and us (cyclists) thing is not good and who designs what is irrevelant. They were built to I would say to protect cyclists more and there should be more safety features like them on all major roads.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

A bicycle is defined as a vehicle under road traffic legislation and cyclists are legally entitled to use (non-motorway) roads. Segregating cyclists from motorised traffic just perpetuates the myth that cyclists are second class road users who should not hinder other road users. Instead of dealing with the real issue - incompetent motorists, the RSA, local authorities et al have instead chosen to remove cyclists out of their way, further perpetuating the myth that we shouldn't be anywhere near them.

A bicycle may be defined as a vehicle under R.T.L and noone is saying cyclists should not be allowed to use roads, nor are they second class road road users but my experience of SOME cyclists on local roads is not good.
I would say the issue of incompetent drivers is dealt with far more often than incompetent cyclists.
I would encourage people to cycle more be it to school or sports events. The amount of kids getting dropped off to school is crazy when 5 minutes on a bike would do them. But I drive from Balbriggan to Skerries to Rush every morning and it is frightening both the driving of some people in cars and young people going to community college or St. Josephs with not a sign of a light or high viz jacket. Schools should be involved here ensuring their students have reflective strips on their bags.

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists are also motorists and those of us who cycle to work are being kind to the environment and freeing up space for other road users. I could be cheeky and say that, as we have a taxed car parked in the driveway for 6 days a week, we are also subsidising other road users!

Could I borrow your car an odd evening as I am not allowed use van outside of working hours.;)

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You won't find any cyclist disagreeing with you there. But what about motorists who are a much greater danger to themselves and other road users? I can recall only one occasion where a cyclist caused a fatality to another road user. Whereas on the other hand..........

Motorist who are a danger should be dealt with but so should cyclists who go weaving in and out of car lanes. I have seen what can happen in a collision between cyclist and a car and I dont want to see it again.

But on the tunnels there should be more of them and along our motorways and canals, just like Holland we should have cycle lanes as part of the build. This would educate people and get them thinking about cyclists when they get back into their cars?

Carawaystick

LeoB wrote: »

I don't think the money was wasted it is a good feature and I don't mind who they consult with once they get it right. These tunnels cost money and the idea is good. Turning into a them (motorists) and us (cyclists) thing is not good and who designs what is irrevelant. They were built to I would say to protect cyclists more and there should be more safety features like them on all major roads.

I've only crashed and fallen off my bike, on a road, on my own, 2 times since I got a bike with gears.
One of those was at the tunnels under the M1, due to the bad engineering there.

LeoB wrote: »

A bicycle may be defined as a vehicle under R.T.L and noone is saying cyclists should not be allowed to use roads, nor are they second class road road users but my experience of SOME cyclists on local roads is not good.
I would say the issue of incompetent drivers is dealt with far more often than incompetent cyclists.

There is no legal definition of competent cycling
A incompetent cyclist is one who can't ride a bike; there is a legal definition of a competent motor vehicle driver: somebody who passes their driving test.

LeoB wrote: »

I would encourage people to cycle more be it to school or sports events. The amount of kids getting dropped off to school is crazy when 5 minutes on a bike would do them. But I drive from Balbriggan to Skerries to Rush every morning and it is frightening both the driving of some people in cars and young people going to community college or St. Josephs with not a sign of a light or high viz jacket. Schools should be involved here ensuring their students have reflective strips on their bags.

Are these students travelling on the road during lighting up hours? i.e. half an hour before sunrise or after sunset?

LeoB wrote: »

But on the tunnels there should be more of them and along our motorways and canals, just like Holland we should have cycle lanes as part of the build. This would educate people and get them thinking about cyclists when they get back into their cars?

So you agree there should be a high quality grade separated cycling route from Jonesboro to Clough in Wexford?
And from Naas to Cork city?

Beasty

On the specifics of those tunnels I was at a meeting with FingalCoCo a while ago on a separate matter, but one of the engineers responsible was there. When I explained I did not use them he expressed surprise, particularly when I further explained why did not use them. I don't think there was much consultation at all and the money could certainly have been better spent if it had been dedicated to improving the lot of cyclists in other ways. Of course it was all done as part of the junction upgrade, but the impression I got was it was done more with an intention of being seen to introduce dedicated cycling facilities with little thought to what would be considered useful cycling facilities

One of the problems seems to me there are quite a few people who are motorists and do a bit of cycling who then think they are experts on the subject when they patently are not. Maybe if they volunteered to head down into those tunnels to clear the fallen leaves and other debris, perhaps bring some heaters down to dry them out particularly when it's icy, they may start to better understand some of the problems perhaps more experienced cyclists have a bit of a whinge about.

If anyone wishes to discuss the merits or otherwise of hi viz head over to the Cycling forum where we have a dedicated thread frequented by numerous cyclists who are fully bought into the idea of having proper lights, but highly sceptical over any pressure to get cyclists to wear hi viz.

LeoB

Carawaystick wrote: »

I've only crashed and fallen off my bike, on a road, on my own, 2 times since I got a bike with gears.
One of those was at the tunnels under the M1, due to the bad engineering there.

Were you cycling with due care and attention;) Seriously did you complain to them? Fingal or N.R.A.? I still think they were put there for the right reasons and if they got it wrong it should be pointed out and work carried out to improve them

Carawaystick wrote: »

There is no legal definition of competent cycling
A incompetent cyclist is one who can't ride a bike; there is a legal definition of a competent motor vehicle driver: somebody who passes their driving test.

Maybe it is time there was a legal definition of competent cycling. Why should I pay road tax to share a space with someone who doesn't pay road tax for their bike or pay attention and endangering me and maybe you out in your car? Maybe there should be a test for cyclists as SOME of the ones, a minority, should not be let out on the roads. I know its not practicable to do it but now you mention it............

Carawaystick wrote: »

Are these students travelling on the road during lighting up hours? i.e. half an hour before sunrise or after sunset?

Some of them are out before sunrise but lets not get hung up on sunrise or sunset times. We hear Mr Keegan and A.A road watch encouraging people to drive with their lights on so why not the same for cyclists, be safe be seen and all that. Some of the rainy morning we have had have been exceptionally dark as some of the evenings have been dark at 3.30

Carawaystick wrote: »

So you agree there should be a high quality grade separated cycling route from Jonesboro to Clough in Wexford?
And from Naas to Cork city?

Why not? But seriously no I'm not suggesting that but dont see why a few extra feet cant be made available. If you look at towns like Drogheda, Navan, Naas, Newbridge, Ashbourne which are all close to motorways and main routes cycle lanes should have been put in linking them to Dublin when the roads were being constructed. Each of the above towns should have a network of cycle lanes as they are all centres of employment and each would have a lot of commuter traffic, ie Drogheda from Donore, Platin, Julianstown ect. Navan would be similar with people from a lot of villages around there easily able to cycle to work if there were adequate dedicated lanes. Same should apply to the satelitte town of Cork and other large urban or high density areas.

Im in favour by the way of people cycling.

LeoB

Beasty wrote: »

On the specifics of those tunnels I was at a meeting with FingalCoCo a while ago on a separate matter, but one of the engineers responsible was there. When I explained I did not use them he expressed surprise, particularly when I further explained why did not use them. I don't think there was much consultation at all and the money could certainly have been better spent if it had been dedicated to improving the lot of cyclists in other ways. Of course it was all done as part of the junction upgrade, but the impression I got was it was done more with an intention of being seen to introduce dedicated cycling facilities with little thought to what would be considered useful cycling facilities

Is there not a cycling forum in Fingal C.C?

Beasty wrote: »

One of the problems seems to me there are quite a few people who are motorists and do a bit of cycling who then think they are experts on the subject when they patently are not. Maybe if they volunteered to head down into those tunnels to clear the fallen leaves and other debris, perhaps bring some heaters down to dry them out particularly when it's icy, they may start to better understand some of the problems perhaps more experienced cyclists have a bit of a whinge about.

Agree with you on this Beasty. Same with most things be it sport or any hobby. Obviously Fingal need to look at how they maintain the tunnels and if it needed they should be cleaned every day by the sweeper machine they use on footpaths

Beasty wrote: »

If anyone wishes to discuss the merits or otherwise of hi viz head over to the Cycling forum where we have a dedicated thread frequented by numerous cyclists who are fully bought into the idea of having proper lights, but highly sceptical over any pressure to get cyclists to wear hi viz.

Decent lights would be fine I mentioned the high viz as some dont bother with lights at all.

Most mornings around Rush I pass a lad about 5.30 dressed in black but his lights are like a motorbike. I used to pass a lad cycling between Rush and Skerries, he would be fairly belting along but you could him on Cairn hill as you came to St. Catherines and once or twice I passed him out past Mourne view but his lights were excellent but he was obviously a serious cyclist.

Wishbone Ash

LeoB wrote: »

..Maybe there should be a test for cyclists as SOME of the ones, a minority, should not be let out on the roads....

We have had a driving test since 1963 yet 23,000 people have died on our roads since then, the vast vast majority involving a motorised vehicle.

Going back to my previous point - how many of those fatalities were caused by cyclists?

LeoB

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

We have had a driving test since 1963 yet 23,000 people have died on our roads since then, the vast vast majority involving a motorised vehicle.

Going back to my previous point - how many of those fatalities were caused by cyclists?

We dont really know how many have been caused by cyclists. Maybe swerving to avoid a cyclist has caused a few but we will never really know. Speed and drink driving have been a major cause.

But also look at the cyclists who have been knocked of their bicycles and sustained serious injuries, you can probably come up with a figure but perhaps if there were proper cycling lanes like Holland we would have less.

Last year cycling between Wassanar, The Hauge and Amsterdam I hardly had to mix with traffic at all. It was fantastic as our kids were in no danger. This is my point.

Beasty

The Netherlands had to largely re-build after the war and could accommodate dedicated cycling facilities relatively easily (as indeed could Denmark)

I would have no problem if more was invested over here, but the costs nowadays are pretty astronomical and not something this country could afford for some time (given it cannot repair the roads it has and seems to prefer to spend limited resources on adding extra motorways that are relatively underused (other than the likes of the M50 and M1))

The money spent on that intersection would, in my view, have been much better spent at Blakes Cross and the road to Turvey (which was the scene of a fatality last year)

You mention a cycling forum at FingalCoCo. I've never heard of it and if there is one I would have thought it would be speaking to the largest cycling club in the area, McNally Swords CC (which it has not)

The council is generally supportive of cycling and allowed the national Cyclocross championships to be held at River Valley in January. As an aside there is another event being held there in a couple of weeks, the Leinster Cyclocross championships. I'll put more details in the event thread nearer the time, but again FingalCoCo have been very helpful in allowing the club to promote that event on its land.

Wishbone Ash

I don't expect any specialist cycling facilities as I'm quite happy to cycle on the road. If they were to be created, I'd be quite happy with an on-road cycle track (where there is room) when new roads are being build.

Take the section from the airport roundabout to Dardistown cemetery and vice versa. What a waste of money! Plenty of room for an on-road track but instead they waste money on that stupid segregated track where the cyclist is expected to yield at every entrance they pass. They are also expected to share the footpath with pedestrians (many of whom think the cyclist is illegally cycling on a footpath). As there is no legal obligation to use it, it is rarely used. The northbound section is even worse as one is brought into the airport even if intending to go straight on.

Why couldn't they have done it like the section on Pinnock Hill/Fosterstown North. A simple, inexpensive, no-nonsense on-road track which is used by every cyclist I see on that stretch.

LeoB

Beasty wrote: »

The Netherlands had to largely re-build after the war and could accommodate dedicated cycling facilities relatively easily (as indeed could Denmark)

You mention a cycling forum at FingalCoCo. I've never heard of it and if there is one I would have thought it would be speaking to the largest cycling club in the area, McNally Swords CC (which it has not)

The council is generally supportive of cycling and allowed the national Cyclocross championships to be held at River Valley in January. As an aside there is another event being held there in a couple of weeks, the Leinster Cyclocross championships. I'll put more details in the event thread nearer the time, but again FingalCoCo have been very helpful in allowing the club to promote that event on its land.

I was unclear earlier. Maybe there should be a cycling forum to cater for everyone's needs.
Fingal are fairly supportive of most outdoor activities and a forum like this I think would be helpful and could push cycling way up the agenda through various initiatives promoting it.

endacl

Beasty wrote: »

Not yet:(

Not sure how we would respond if he did. Never had to implement the disciplinary policy against a club member yet:pac:

Some kind of traffic warden armband would be warranted. Perhaps a lollipop stick decal for the frame?

Carawaystick

Beasty wrote: »

The money spent on that intersection would, in my view, have been much better spent at Blakes Cross and the road to Turvey (which was the scene of a fatality last year)

This section of road could be made greatly safer with literally a lick of paint, moving the "centre" of the road west, and putting a cycle lane/hard shoulder on the East side of the road from Blakes X to Turvey Avenue. But civil engineers are more interested in rebar and concrete, and they got the gig at the Hearse road.

One point about the attitude of FCC is that they want to build a cycle/walkway from Malahide to Donabate, but not to Donabate village, only to Newbridge. Which is shut at night, so you'ld be dumped onto the Hearse road, instead of getting into Donabate

GlennaMaddy

Beasty wrote: »

You mention a cycling forum at FingalCoCo. I've never heard of it and if there is one I would have thought it would be speaking to the largest cycling club in the area, McNally Swords CC (which it has not)

LeoB might be referring to the Transport SPC*
Ray Ryan from Skerries Cycling Initiative is on that committee.

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/your-council/spc-committees/transportationspc

I use the tunnels but my route is north-south and south-north, I wouldn't use any of the tunnels if I were heading from Swords to Donabate.

I remember the NRA's proposal had a cycle path that would have put cyclists through 13 pedestrian traffic lights heading north-south.

Carawaystick

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

I remember the NRA's proposal had a cycle path that would have put cyclists through 13 pedestrian traffic lights heading north-south.

The NTA's busway was going to have 7 lights for cyclists to get around the Airport roundabout, instead of the 2 synchronised lights there now....

dslamjack

That's NTA planners for ye, build the M1 on the in land route instead of the coastal route, and totally bypass one of the state's largest urban population centres,miniature roundabouts on the side of hills,tis a wonder they never managed a rounabout on its side,I digress , I believe there is a new Lusk cycling club formed and based in the Lusk United club house on the Skerries rd.
There may be a facebook page or check at the club house.

Wishbone Ash

dslamjack wrote: »

... and totally bypass one of the state's largest urban population centres

Isn't that the purpose of motorways?

dslamjack wrote:

I believe there is a new Lusk cycling club formed and based in the Lusk United club house on the Skerries rd.
There may be a facebook page or check at the club house.

Indeed but I don't think it's an actual 'club' as in affiliated to CI. Fair play to them. (Their group spins are quite unorthodox from what I hear).

dslamjack

I would have thought ,that motorways are built to provide a quicker,more efficient transport link between major centre's of population than the old legacy national route's,main road's etc.
The M50 would be brilliant if it had no entrances or exits for the likes of Ballymun Blanch , Tallaght etc.
Remember Kinegad ,Santry to Swords before the M1 ,the daily crash's at Blakes Cross, some times 3/4 hours from City Centre to Lusk.
Look at the M1 , 1 slip road north bound and 1 south bound at Swords added as an after thought.
There should have at 2 more full inter changes at Swords at Montgorry/Waterside and Seatown south.The Lisenhall interchange is in no mans land all green fields . as is the next junction at Courtlough ,mmm more green field's ,the next junction at Delahasey,guess more lovely green field's, make ye think now wou't it,all that lovely development land.
NCD's lost major road link the old Naul road,because Ray's crowd,I mean Aer Rianta(now DAA) refused to put a tunnel under the then new runway 10/28.
The R108 Ballymun/Naul should have been the M2 serving the City and County,this would have provided Swords with the badly needed western access/bypass it needs.
As it is, the medieval donkey track that is the R125 still links Swords and Ashbourne and many a life has been claimed by that road.
Ye could go on all day , the M1 was put in place to serve the interest's of the K Club Click during the Septic Tiger day's,you only have to look at the Port tunnel , half the rail track's in the country at one end and an Airport at the other end-- do we need to link these lad's , God No , that's common sense ,any way people might use it.
In any case it took over 20 years and over a Billion euros to bring the M50 to the standard that Dubliner's say it should have been built too in the first place.
30 years on and there still messing around with linking the Dublin/Belfast rail line via Swords ,Airport,Ballymun and the Broadstone/Sligo rail line at Finglas.
If it had been built when first proposed , 10 million punt's I think was the proposed cost, now it's probably 2 Billion and will probably go via the Isle of Man route.
When you look at the billions spent on the country's road's(and they may be the most expensively built in the world), great strives have been made , and countless lives saved,all I'm saying is, that in comparison the amount spent on cycle ways ,pedestrian's etc , it's a pittance compared to what the vested interest's concerned with the roads got.

Carawaystick

dslamjack wrote: »

I would have thought ,that motorways are built to provide a quicker,more efficient transport link between major centre's of population than the old legacy national route's,main road's etc.
The M50 would be brilliant if it had no entrances or exits for the likes of Ballymun Blanch , Tallaght etc.
Look at the M1 , 1 slip road north bound and 1 south bound at Swords added as an after thought.

I can't see how you are serious about the above i.e no motorway junction to the N81 or N3 let alone connections to Tallaght D15 Ballymun
and looking for 2 more (on top of the 2.5 existing junctions off the M1) to Swords

dslamjack wrote: »

There should have at 2 more full inter changes at Swords at Montgorry/Waterside and Seatown south.

dslamjack wrote: »

The Lisenhall interchange is in no mans land all green fields . as is the next junction at Courtlough ,mmm more green field's ,the next junction at Delahasey,guess more lovely green field's, make ye think now wou't it,all that lovely development land.

Lissenhall serves Applewood, Donabate, Portrane, Lusk, Rush Skerries
Where would you fit a road to Belfast?