Cycle Funding Protest 3 October 5:30pm

HivemindXX · 09-10-2016 12:58PM

O'Leary is very predictable.

Cyclists slow down his bogus chauffeured car / taxi and unlike all the other cars which he can almost empathise with he would never cycle so he bitches about cyclists. He doesn't bother to put 2 and 2 together and think that more cyclists mean less cars and they are the thing that is really slowing him down.

The EU (which he loved a few months ago by the way) is terrible because they apply a huge penalty to a company for possibly dodgy practices. That could be HIS company and their dodgy practices! Our government is limp wristed because they didn't come out with O'Leary style scorched earth and bull**** when they fought the ruling.

The only one I don't understand is the HSE. I assume he has platinum health insurance and the private health sector are either completely independent or depend on the public system. Perhaps this is based on the way some of his taxes are spent on a service that he would never use.

Chuchote · 09-10-2016 04:54PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

The only one I don't understand is the HSE. I assume he has platinum health insurance and the private health sector are either completely independent or depend on the public system. Perhaps this is based on the way some of his taxes are spent on a service that he would never use.

People who believe in privatisation have a sweet, charming faith that in all cases services will be better if someone is making a profit out of them. Doesn't stop them dodging over to France if they suddenly need superb health treatment, though.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2016 07:38PM

Did O'Leary mention whether anyone needed to be taken outside and shot? I mean apart from cyclists, ministers and government representatives, travel agents, environmentalists, consultants and European Commission regulators.

fat bloke · 09-12-2016 12:08AM

Some craic when they install the post Brexit customs checkpoints on all those cross border greenways

Chuchote · 09-12-2016 12:11AM

Deedsie wrote: »

Not really sure where to post as we don't really have a cycling infrastructure spending thread. We probably should have one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38251667

The EU has pledged more than €23m euros to create almost 80 kms of new greenway linking towns and cities on either side of the Irish border. Funding will go to new projects connecting Newry with Carlingford and Derry and Strabane with Donegal. The second phase of the Ulster Canal Greenway will also benefit.

It is hoped the projects will cut car journeys and create sustainable travel routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Gina McIntyre of the Special EU Programmes Body said teach of the projects would "substantially increase the quality and quantity of greenway offering on both sides of the border".

The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland and Ireland's Department of Transport will match fund the EU monies.

The Irish government is going to spend €23 million on cycling greenways in Louth and between Donegal & Derry but cant afford the dodder greenway or to upgrade permanent cycle tracks in Dublin for thousands of commuters.

Great that they are investing in cycling but surely investing in cycling infrastructure in Dublin to alleviate traffic congestion should be the priority of any cycling budget?

Should we make a case for greenways crossing the tense border between northside and southside Dublin?

Chuchote · 09-12-2016 07:55AM

Dublin badly needs to start building protected bike lanes - probably first as temporary lanes, in the method pioneered by Janette Sadik-Khan when she was Transport Commissioner in New York.

I'm trying to persuade neighbours to back a cycle dualway along a suburban road, where there are two schools, one of which has applied for permission to expand to take 400 children. A cycleway would virtually stop the problem that is making their lives hell - parents parking across their driveways and down their lane and abusing them if they're asked to move. But their answer is "That'll come - eventually, but for now we have to…"

If Dublin starts building cycleways and they become the norm, this 'eventually' will disappear. It's past time for our car-worshipping councillors to move on it.

schemingbohemia · 09-12-2016 12:00PM

Deedsie wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38251667

The EU has pledged more than €23m euros to create almost 80 kms of new greenway linking towns and cities on either side of the Irish border. Funding will go to new projects connecting Newry with Carlingford and Derry and Strabane with Donegal. The second phase of the Ulster Canal Greenway will also benefit.

It is hoped the projects will cut car journeys and create sustainable travel routes for cyclists and pedestrians. Gina McIntyre of the Special EU Programmes Body said teach of the projects would "substantially increase the quality and quantity of greenway offering on both sides of the border".

The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland and Ireland's Department of Transport will match fund the EU monies.

The Irish government is going to spend €23 million on cycling greenways in Louth and between Donegal & Derry but cant afford the dodder greenway or to upgrade permanent cycle tracks in Dublin for thousands of commuters.

Great that they are investing in cycling but surely investing in cycling infrastructure in Dublin to alleviate traffic congestion should be the priority of any cycling budget?

Sorry duplicate post

You're interpreting the Quote wrong but perhaps understandably so - providing match funding is not the same as providing matching funding. Ireland and NI providing some funding, these projects are 85% funded by EU. Projects also have to be cross-border so it's not a case of this being done instead of Dublin.

See here for more details
www.seupb.eu

P_1 · 12-12-2016 10:04PM

Certainly a case of it being too late but the other day I noticed they've put up some bollards (similar to the ones on O'Connell Street a few years back) to segregate the cycle lane from the general traffic at the junction where Donna Fox was killed. If they could add these to left junctions on a more widespread basis it will be a great start.

buffalo · 12-12-2016 10:16PM

P_1 wrote: »

Certainly a case of it being too late but the other day I noticed they've put up some bollards (similar to the ones on O'Connell Street a few years back) to segregate the cycle lane from the general traffic at the junction where Donna Fox was killed. If they could add these to left junctions on a more widespread basis it will be a great start.

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

P_1 · 12-12-2016 10:23PM

buffalo wrote: »

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

Annie get your Run · 12-12-2016 10:36PM

P_1 wrote: »

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately they left up the barriers on the left/footpath. A truck can cross the bollards as they're not rigid and a cyclist still has nowhere to go, yes it's a 'start' but it's still not good enough.

buffalo · 12-12-2016 10:41PM

P_1 wrote: »

The bollard row (for lack of a better term) seems to carry on over a meter or so beyond the apex of the turn on the motorist's side which I guess forces the driver to take a wider turning circle leaving plenty of room for the cyclist. Not ideal but a step in the right direction.

It's not a start. That's it. They've done *something* so now the problem has been solved!

brocbrocach · 13-12-2016 11:51AM

buffalo wrote: »

Is it? Now there's no choice but to proceed up the inside of left-turning traffic, the cyclist with a false sense of safety and the motorist not thinking of the cyclist as being part of the flow of traffic.

It should either be segregated or not - this half-baked magic flexi-wand nonsense doesn't help much at all. Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

These things won't happen in the next 5/10/20/50 years. In the meantime the flexi-wands are a lot better than nothing on that particular corner.

Harrybelafonte · 13-12-2016 12:19PM

brocbrocach wrote: »

These things won't happen in the next 5/10/20/50 years. In the meantime the flexi-wands are a lot better than nothing on that particular corner.

No they're not. As explained above.

brocbrocach · 13-12-2016 12:52PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

No they're not. As explained above.

I don't think it's explained at all. I can't see how they worsen the corner from a cyclists pov and they certainly improve it in some ways.

buffalo · 13-12-2016 01:31PM

brocbrocach wrote: »

I don't think it's explained at all. I can't see how they worsen the corner from a cyclists pov and they certainly improve it in some ways.

It's worse because it does not prevent vehicles (including HGVs) from turning left on top of a cyclist, and it increases the likelihood of this happening because:
* cyclists are given a false sense of security by the poles and therefore more likely to indulge in risky behaviour/less likely to be cautious (i.e. ride assertively / take the lane)
* the motorist is less likely to be cautious of the cyclist as the cyclist is behind a barrier and therefore not part of the traffic on the road.

The basic conflict of cyclists proceeding straight being directed up the inside of left-turning traffic still exists, and the metal barriers which prevent the last-resort escape to the footpath are still in place. How is this an improved situation?

magicbastarder · 13-12-2016 02:14PM

generally, at a junction like this, if there's heavy vehicles, i'll tend to - if possible - move out into the lane and sit between the vehicle in front and the cehicle behind. the bollards like this could potentially prevent this option.

P_1 · 13-12-2016 02:40PM

I'll try to grab a pic on the way home but the way they are set up seem to give you the option of taking the lane of you're going straight

buffalo · 13-12-2016 03:13PM

Deedsie wrote: »

This is an awkward situation for the council. Who does and doesnt have right of way at a junction with a left turn. Who's responsibility is more important in different scenarios. If (and I am not suggesting anyone who died because they didnt) I see a left turning truck or bus I am going nowehere near the inside of it. Ill slow down, stop and wait.

Is that right, no, but we all share the roads and the truck or bus needs to be able tune left sometimes.

Its easy say the bollards wont help. Tell us a reasonable way to fix this situation?

It is not an easy fix.

Already done:

buffalo wrote: »

Either teach cyclists to take the lane and motorists to respect their position, or provide off-road facilities with equal priority at junctions (i.e. same amount of traffic light time and no yielding to side roads).

Grassey · 13-12-2016 03:18PM

Deedsie wrote: »

This is an awkward situation for the council. Who does and doesnt have right of way at a junction with a left turn.

If the lane (cycle) is straight through and sits to the left of a traffic lane which turns left across it, it's pretty obvious that any traffic that is crossing another lane has to yield. There was a sign to this effect previously at Fosters Ave.

Any other interpretation is nonsensical as it'd suggest that cars can enter minor roads/driveways etc across a cycle lane without yielding.

Annie get your Run · 13-12-2016 04:52PM

Deedsie wrote: »

I know that sign, it has disappeared. Why are there not more of them all over the city? Surely that would help more in the efforts of educating drivers?

Because the councils won't stand up for cyclists, god forbid anyone in a car should feel inferior to someone on a bike. The message needs to come from the top down and that's not happening. There are drivers out there who absolutely believe they would have the right of way turning left at that junction.

brocbrocach · 13-12-2016 05:09PM

buffalo wrote: »

It's worse because it does not prevent vehicles (including HGVs) from turning left on top of a cyclist, and it increases the likelihood of this happening because:
* cyclists are given a false sense of security by the poles and therefore more likely to indulge in risky behaviour/less likely to be cautious (i.e. ride assertively / take the lane)
* the motorist is less likely to be cautious of the cyclist as the cyclist is behind a barrier and therefore not part of the traffic on the road.

The basic conflict of cyclists proceeding straight being directed up the inside of left-turning traffic still exists, and the metal barriers which prevent the last-resort escape to the footpath are still in place. How is this an improved situation?

The wands mean that traffic won't turn in on the curb (unless they squash the wands in which case they will do what they want anyway) therefore the metal barriers aren't in play at all anymore. The turning circle of the motor vehicles means the danger point has moved a few metres into the junction now.
Every other left hand junction that exists in the world has the same problem of cyclists being on the inside going straight and motorists on the outside turning left. The wands at least ensure that space is left to the cyclist to avoid a collision and that the motorist must slow to take the angle of the corner.

Your magic solution of (1) making road users better (2) taking every left turn out of the equation, just simply will not happen. I'd love it to happen but it will not.
In the absence of that what are your solutions?

brocbrocach · 13-12-2016 05:13PM

P_1 wrote: »

I'll try to grab a pic on the way home but the way they are set up seem to give you the option of taking the lane of you're going straight

Loads of pics here:
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-new-dublin-junction-comes-too-late-for-cyclist-killed-by-truck/

buffalo · 13-12-2016 05:30PM

brocbrocach wrote: »

Your magic solution of (1) making road users better (2) taking every left turn out of the equation, just simply will not happen. I'd love it to happen but it will not.
In the absence of that what are your solutions?

In the absence of my solutions what are my solutions? Surprisingly I'm all out.

Annie get your Run · 13-12-2016 05:48PM

brocbrocach wrote: »

Loads of pics here:
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-new-dublin-junction-comes-too-late-for-cyclist-killed-by-truck/

Question, shouldn't cyclists be in a cycle box at the front of that junction in front of the stopped car? There is no cycle box of course but ordinarily that's where I'd position myself if the lights were red (box or not).

average_runner · 13-12-2016 05:55PM

buffalo wrote: »

Already done:

There is a habit of cyclists going straight on in a lane that clear has an arrow for turning left only. Cyclist need to obey this.

tampopo · 13-12-2016 06:00PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

generally, at a junction like this, if there's heavy vehicles, i'll tend to - if possible - move out into the lane and sit between the vehicle in front and the cehicle behind. the bollards like this could potentially prevent this option.

I disagree. They're bollards, not a railing. Continue to move out. Take the lane.

brocbrocach · 13-12-2016 06:24PM

buffalo wrote: »

In the absence of my solutions what are my solutions? Surprisingly I'm all out.

Well you may as well wish for world peace while you're at it.

HivemindXX · 13-12-2016 07:58PM

average_runner wrote: »

There is a habit of cyclists going straight on in a lane that clear has an arrow for turning left only. Cyclist need to obey this.

I'm sure you are aware that this isn't the case in the junction we are discussing here. Your comment is irrelevant at best.

Wishbone Ash · 13-12-2016 08:06PM

average_runner wrote: »

There is a habit of cyclists going straight on in a lane that clear has an arrow for turning left only. Cyclist need to obey this.

2 points:

1. On many of those lanes, the left only rule doesn't apply to buses (and other vehicles which are permitted to use bus lanes).

2. Cyclists are often in a no-win situation where there are no exemptions. I generally use the correct lane but I have occasionally had drivers indicating that I should not be in their way and to move over.

Cycle Funding Protest 3 October 5:30pm

Comments