Cycling across the Eastlink

Seaswimmer

Having witnessed a guard stopping a cyclist crossing the Eastlink and requesting them to dismount I recently received the below reply from DCC following a number of emails back and forth.

Personally I continue to cycle across both ways twice a day without incident.



Ref: SR 17814



Dear Mr xxxx


Following a site inspection, the area engineer reports the following:





It was observed that the North and South bound approaches to the bridge are furnished with Regulatory sign RUS 055 "The No Cycles Sign”, indicating that cycling is prohibited. These signs are also equipped with supplementary plates attached immediately below the sign to provide additional information, which reads: “SAFETY NOTICE CYCLIST ARE REQUESTED TO DISMOUNT AND WALK THE BICYCLES ACROOS EAST-LINK BRIDGE VIA THE FOOTPATH”



The signs provided are in accordance with the traffic sign Manual, published by the Department of Transport, which constitutes a Direction given by the Minister of Transport to Road Authorities under Section 95 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and all its additions and amendments, in relation to the provision of traffic signs.



In accordance with the act a “Traffic Sign” means any sign, device, notice or road marking, or any instrument for giving signals by mechanical means, in relation to a public road or public roads:

(a). Gives information.
(b). Warns persons of danger or advises persons of the precautions to be taken against such danger, or both.
(c). Indicates the existence of a road regulation or implements such a regulation, or both, or indicates the existence of a provision in an enactment relating to road traffic (such a sign being referred to in this section as ‘a regulatory sign’



Having thus established that the “Regulatory Signs” fitted to the East Link Bridge are in accordance with the road traffic act, it is difficult to understand how the legality of the signs are in question.





Regards,



Clerical Officer



Environment & Transportation Department | Block 2, Floor 6 | Civic Offices | Wood Quay| Dublin City Council| Dublin 8

Telephone 00353 222 2251 | Fax: 00353 222 2190 | E: traffic@dublincity.ie

68 lost souls

I never saw any signs there. Perhaps I missed them but I don't regularly go that way. Have done so several times over the past 12 months though and was not stopped

NiallBoo

Nice of them to avoid answering the question meaningfully.

Does anyone know why they decided to prohibit cycling on the bride?

Chips Lovell

If RUS 055 are up there, then you're out of luck.

punisher5112

Due to design as it's not wide and danger of been blown into traffic would be a good reason.

NiallBoo

punisher5112 wrote: »

Due to design as it's not wide and danger of been blown into traffic would be a good reason.

You mean getting blown all the way into another lane?

Orion

punisher5112 wrote: »

Due to design as it's not wide and danger of been blown into traffic would be a good reason.

But a road like this which is narrower and windier is perfectly fine to cycle on? The width of the East Link is not a valid reason. It's not a motorway so there is no reason why cycling should be prohibited.

Leroy42

I take it as advisory only. Unless the EL has been designated as a special type of Road (like a motorway) then I can see no reason why I should not be allowed cycle on it.

If it has been designated that DCC should be able to show it.

I hope the cyclist told to garda where to go when he requested it. They can request all they like of course but doesn't mean you need to follow it unless they can show a legitimate need for it.

daragh_

68 lost souls wrote: »

I never saw any signs there.

Not surprised.

07Lapierre

Leroy42 wrote: »

I take it as advisory only. Unless the EL has been designated as a special type of Road (like a motorway) then I can see no reason why I should not be allowed cycle on it.

If it has been designated that DCC should be able to show it.

I hope the cyclist told to garda where to go when he requested it. They can request all they like of course but doesn't mean you need to follow it unless they can show a legitimate need for it.

More like a polite request than a legal requirement:

https://goo.gl/maps/mL9HrW8KtFu

Chips Lovell

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012

Prohibition on pedal cycles

11. (1) Where traffic sign number RUS 055 (no pedal cycles) is provided, a person driving a pedal cycle shall not proceed beyond the sign.

tomasrojo

The No Cycling sign has legal force. I think that's right. It's strange combining it with a request to dismount. On a sign that's almost impossible to see. In a locked basement. With a sign saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

magicbastarder

is there a sign at the other side informing you that you can mount your bicycle again? if not, at what point is it OK to do so?

tomasrojo

Unlike algorithms, I think Law has a certain assumption of common-sense interpretation built in. So I think (but no law-talking dude I) that the strong implication is that the sign applies to the bridge alone, as an open-ended commitment to being dismounted until you meet a "re-mount" sign is, in effect, absurd.

magicbastarder

i was thinking of speed limits, which i was once told apply until you see a sign informing you of a change in the limit. i was wondering if (if that's true) does it apply to other road signs.

tomasrojo

In my limited experience, you're constantly reminded of the speed limit (even by little signs to remind you that it hasn't changed). So effectively it doesn't come up much that you are left in a limbo wondering whether the speed limit is what it was ten minutes ago.

Fair point alright.

(I don't think there is a sign for "End of prohibition on being up on a bike", is there? Like a motorway exit sign maybe. Which would still look like a No Cycling sign, actually.)

mr spuckler

daragh_ wrote: »

Not surprised.

confusingly placed on the wrong side of the road when coming at it from this side! i would never have known it was there till i saw this picture and i cycle this route every day. i do see the sign when crossing from the opposite side but had always assumed it was advisory.

Leroy42

So then is it illegal to now cycle across the EL. Seems as if I had it wrong and (although the sign is not in the right place) it is now illegal to cycle across.

tomasrojo

The No Cycling sign has been there for ages though, hasn't it? Wrong side of the road and all. And the "request" too.

mr spuckler

tomasrojo wrote: »

The No Cycling sign has been there for ages though, hasn't it? Wrong side of the road and all. And the "request" too.

it certainly has been on the other end of the bridge for ages so can assume it has been on both ends.

Heisenberg1

I cycle the Eastlink every day the please dismount sign was always on the southbound side as you entered the bridge. The northbound sign was on the entry to the bridge but on the southbound side, this was moved a number of months ago to the entry on the northbound side.

ThisRegard

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012

Driving a pedal cycle? Maybe you're all misunderstanding it so, they obviously mean you're not allowed take one over the bridge on a rack.

bazermc

Indeed

Even google maps only recommends you walk your bicycle across

https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/53.3467784,-6.227647/53.3448211,-6.2272175/@53.34678,-6.2300075,16z/am=t/data=!4m6!4m5!3e1!6m3!1i0!2i0!3i1?hl=en

Also its the "Tom Clarke Bridge" now!!

Seaswimmer

I think the confusion over the legality of the signage was caused by the bridge being a private road up to recently.

( Is it legal to put up and enforce government signage on a private road?)

Now that it is part of the R131 I suppose we have to take them as legal..

Carawaystick

The law is fairly clear in the sign only prevents you cycling past the sign, so you can walk past the sign and then cycle on legally.
Or obviously remove the saddle and just cycle away past the sign...

Atlantic Dawn

Signs are on the wrong side of the road both sides, how hard could it be to put them correct side matching flow of traffic?

mr spuckler

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Signs are on the wrong side of the road both sides, how hard could it be to put them correct side matching flow of traffic?

it's on the wrong side in the photo coming from ringsend side but if coming from the point it's on the correct side.

bazermc

I just walked across the bridge and the sign actually states cyclist are "required to dissmount" not "requested to"

Also does this mean my KOM across the bridge is now safe as no body will ever cycle across it again

GM228

bazermc wrote: »

I just walked across the bridge and the sign actually states cyclist are "required to dissmount" not "requested to"

Are you certain?

bazermc

GM228 wrote: »

Are you certain?

Positive.

GM228

bazermc wrote: »

Positive.

Either they have been changed (new name noted) or there's a mixture of old and new?

In any case what is written under it is irrelevant I suppose as RUS 055 says it all.

Eamonnator

mr spuckler wrote: »

it's on the wrong side in the photo coming from ringsend side but if coming from the point it's on the correct side.

In the unlikely event of a prosecution for cycling south to north, would it be a good defence to say, that sight of the sign was obstructed by an articulated truck?

mr spuckler

Eamonnator wrote: »

In the unlikely event of a prosecution for cycling south to north, would it be a good defence to say, that sight of the sign was obstructed by an articulated truck?

they certainly wouldn't be on solid ground if they had to point out the sign on the wrong side of the road and tell you you're meant to spot that while concentrating on traffic etc!

problem is though...i came that way this evening and they now have the sign on both sides of the road coming frmo south to north. never noticed it on left hand side before tonight so suspect that's a very recent development. thankfully i got away prosecution free

Mercian Pro

Last time I attempted to walk over the EL on the footpath, I met a man pushing a buggy coming the other way. The only way we could pass was for me to step down onto the roadway once there was a gap in the traffic. If all cyclists were to do as requested/required, I expect there will be plenty of complaints from pedestrians and not just those with buggies.

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

Walter2016

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

The prevailing winds are from a west southwest direction - or straight down the Liffey.

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river. In some circumstances you can also have a tunnelling effect. Also you do not have barriers to the winds such as solid walls, buildings etc.

So the signage and the byelaw is for the protection of cyclists, yet many seem not to like it?

If a cyclist does get blown into the path of a vehicle, no blame can be put with the council.

Orion

Walter2016 wrote: »

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river.

You've obviously never been up on Sally gap in a windy day

Wishbone Ash

Walter2016 wrote: »

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

The prevailing winds are from a west southwest direction - or straight down the Liffey.

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river. In some circumstances you can also have a tunnelling effect. Also you do not have barriers to the winds such as solid walls, buildings etc.

So the signage and the byelaw is for the protection of cyclists, yet many seem not to like it?

If a cyclist does get blown into the path of a vehicle, no blame can be put with the council.

What about the many other bridges in Dublin where cycling is not restricted but are subjected to winds of equal measure? Away from the city centre, the bridge bringing the R132 over the M1 can be very dodgy on a windy day but has an official bike route on it and crossing the very popular Featherbeds area can be frightening on a bike at certain times but there is no restriction up there either.

Edit: beaten to it by Orion!

buffalo

Walter2016 wrote: »

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

I would suspect this is for the convenience of those driving motor vehicles, particularly trucks, so they don't have to slow down to share the road on a very narrow busy bridge.

Atlantic Dawn

If you are heading south to north getting on to the footpath on the left side is fine but I don't know how you would then safely join the traffic on the other side of the bridge to continue to the direction main port entrance as the nearest lane to the path is for turning left only...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3464341,-6.2273383,3a,75y,23.11h,81.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ76Q5je18CeYuJjmfEPGAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

P_1

Honestly I find the Beckett Bridge worse for crosswinds. I've yet to have issue (aside from being stuck behind slow moving traffic) crossing the East Link on the bike. Ludicrous decision.

average_runner

What's worst is people cycling on the foot path on the east link bridge and expecting runners and pedestriansee to move outo of their way.

Encountered two people today when out for a lunchtime run.

Wishbone Ash

average_runner wrote: »

What's worst is people cycling on the foot path on the east link bridge and expecting runners and pedestriansee to move outo of their way.

Encountered two people today when out for a lunchtime run.

Nearly as bad as those runners who use dedicated cycle tracks and expect cyclists to move out of their way! :pac:

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Nearly as bad as those runners who use dedicated cycle tracks and expect cyclists to move out of their way! :pac:

I think you find the footpath on that bridge a lot more narrow and forcing people on to the road there is a lot of worst.

Yes on the Quay up to the bridge cyclist and everyone else seem to share footpath and cycle Lane, but plenty of room for all there on both paths.

Wishbone Ash

average_runner wrote: »

I think you find the footpath on that bridge a lot more narrow and forcing people on to the road there is a lot of worst.

Yes on the Quay up to the bridge cyclist and everyone else seem to share footpath and cycle Lane, but plenty of room for all there on both paths.

I'm thinking more of the on-road cycle tracks where there is a separate footpath for those on foot. The R132 between the Airport and Santry has its fair share of runners using the on-road cycle track. It's not so bad when they are running towards the cyclists compared to those going in the same direction as the cyclist and with earphones in situ blissfully unaware of what's happening behind them and unresponsive to any shouts.

beauf

Orion wrote: »

You've obviously never been up on Sally gap in a windy day

You're generally not in heavy traffic with a lot of HGV's in both directions, on Sallys Gap. I dunno when there is discussion about any road, its get derailed into discussions about entirely disparate roads.

I don't think the East Link is a great route for inexperienced cyclists. Its narrow, windy and has heavy traffic with a lot of HGV's. Its not great for walking across. I'm surprised they haven't put a steel walkway for pedestrians on it. Perhaps it would put it over the weight limit.

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'm thinking more of the on-road cycle tracks where there is a separate footpath for those on foot. The R132 between the Airport and Santry has its fair share of runners using the on-road cycle track. It's not so bad when they are running towards the cyclists compared to those going in the same direction as the cyclist and with earphones in situ blissfully unaware of what's happening behind them and unresponsive to any shouts.

Totally agree with you there. Some very stupid people out there and they blame everyone else but themselves

Leroy42

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Last time I attempted to walk over the EL on the footpath, I met a man pushing a buggy coming the other way. The only way we could pass was for me to step down onto the roadway once there was a gap in the traffic. If all cyclists were to do as requested/required, I expect there will be plenty of complaints from pedestrians and not just those with buggies.

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

^^Nail on the head.

When did this come into effect?

How many accidents due to crosswinds have there been since the opening of the bridge that required this new rule to be brought in and what is the plan to reopen the road for cyclists?

They have effectively closed off a main bridge crossing for cyclists without any plan on how they will fix the inherently flawed design of the bridge (I am saying this based on the engineer saying that it is unsafe).

Simply sticking a sign up to cover themselves isn't (or at least shouldn't) be the answer.

Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as other road users. Save for motorways, where its not just cyclists that cannot use it, surely you can't simply go around banning in type of road user rather than others.

Deagol

Mercian Pro wrote: »

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

For the short distance involved, could you not just do as the sign says and walk across the bridge?

average_runner

Leroy42 wrote: »

^^Nail on the head.

When did this come into effect?

How many accidents due to crosswinds have there been since the opening of the bridge that required this new rule to be brought in and what is the plan to reopen the road for cyclists?

They have effectively closed off a main bridge crossing for cyclists without any plan on how they will fix the inherently flawed design of the bridge (I am saying this based on the engineer saying that it is unsafe).

Simply sticking a sign up to cover themselves isn't (or at least shouldn't) be the answer.

Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as other road users. Save for motorways, where its not just cyclists that cannot use it, surely you can't simply go around banning in type of road user rather than others.

Well if they build an alternative for cyclists it be pointless as it won't get used. Look at liffey valley, they built an alternative bridge over the m50, but yet cyclists go on the road park where its crazy. But an alternative bridge be great for walkers and runners

Reason for bans on motorways is because of the speed of other vechicles, a cyclist wouldn't survive if hit.

Chuchote

It seems odd that one of the pavements on either side of the bridge isn't made into a two-way cycle lane.

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

It seems odd that one of the pavements on either side of the bridge isn't made into a two-way cycle lane.

Those pavements are too narrow to support a bike system and how do they handle the roundabout?

The wind is bad there too! Someone will get kill there, either a walker or cyclist or runner