Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Macy0161 wrote: »

This is the problem - speeding is so ingrained it's not seen as the problem. The problem is when it's enforced - road safe to do the extra speed, fish in a barrel etc.

The reason the N4 from Kilmainham isn't "effectively motorway" is because it is open to other road users, such as cyclists, mopeds etc. The speed limits reflect that, motorists don't respect the speed limits or the reasons for them.

For the majority of the Con Colbert Road, the speed limit is 80, but there are no crossings, no junctions, no pedestrians, there is a barrier along the length of the route, and there is no possibility of cross-traffic. So the speed limit along that section has nothing to do with the appropriate speed limit for the safety of the road, and everything to do with the ease of ticketing. Turn off the N4 onto a side road and you can do 100, legally, no problem, despite being in a built up area with foot and cycle traffic.

Speeding isn't as much of a cultural issue as it is caused by improper enforcement; the only time speed limits are enforced are in areas where they are artificially kept low, sections like the one above. In the actual accident black spots and danger points where deaths happen, they are set randomly with no enforcement. Therefore it is not surprising that most motorists generate a feeling of "speed limits are nonsense anyway" because in this country they are.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I think that's reasonable, and I don't at all disagree that the "fake motorways" concept should be put aside either. If a cyclist looks at the n4/m50 interchange and thinks "that's for cyclists" then... I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the correct conclusion would be "I'm not even going to attempt that", first timer or not. Nobody who spends half an hour in this country expects that the road designations of n, b, a etc actually mean anything. Later on in its route the n4 is only barely a 2 lane road. But just there it's obviously a motorway interchange.

Funny you should mention the N4/M50 junction...

https://goo.gl/maps/yKydwBHmeyE2

I might be mixing up the N4 and N7!

It's the one at the end of the Naas Road/R110 heading west that I went over and found a bit uncomfortable.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

For the majority of the Con Colbert Road, the speed limit is 80, but there are no crossings, no junctions, no pedestrians, there is a barrier along the length of the route, and there is no possibility of cross-traffic. So the speed limit along that section has nothing to do with the appropriate speed limit for the safety of the road, and everything to do with the ease of ticketing. Turn off the N4 onto a side road and you can do 100, legally, no problem, despite being in a built up area with foot and cycle traffic.

Speeding isn't as much of a cultural issue as it is caused by improper enforcement; the only time speed limits are enforced are in areas where they are artificially kept low, sections like the one above. In the actual accident black spots and danger points where deaths happen, they are set randomly with no enforcement. Therefore it is not surprising that most motorists generate a feeling of "speed limits are nonsense anyway" because in this country they are.

May not have pedestrians or cross roads, but again it is open to cyclists and sub 50cc/ sub 50kph motorised vehicles. This provides reasoning for the lower speed limit. "Artificially low" is a judgement made from a motorist perspective, when it doesn't have the same use restrictions as a motorway, regardless of barriers, junctions etc.

The tone is interesting - no business being there, not navigable by cyclists. Legally cyclists are allowed on the N4, its the main road west from dublin and so even with the major shortcomings on cycling infrastructure on it, people will use it to some extent. Whether that is slightly foolish or not is up to individuals to make their own decisions. But saying that its effectively a motorway is inaccurate and seems to be throwing in the towel really.
I never really got to expand on my point, which is that if I use a route that avoids the n4, once I get onto a road with traffic, I'll still get the same abuse / beeping / near misses. The issue of being on a road with fast moving traffic will be swapped for cars overtaking me around blind corners.

The solution is to build proper cycling infrastructure on the main routes and not pretend that pushing cyclists onto side roads is going to solve the issue.
And I would agree with the earlier point - building this will take huge amounts of cars off that route.

Chuchote wrote: »

It's also a question of signage. As you drive along this road (especially when you're on the way into Dublin) you pass a couple of small speed signs - but you're continuing from a motorway, and it's really easy to miss these. When a road looks and feels like a motorway but isn't, and the speed limits are much lower, surely the speed limit signs should be much bigger, so you really see them. And there should be "Slow down, exiting motorway" signs.

iirc there's big motorway ends signs at, eh, the end of the motorway. The colour of the junction signage also changes from blue.

Gerry wrote: »

The tone is interesting - no business being there, not navigable by cyclists. Legally cyclists are allowed on the N4, its the main road west from dublin and so even with the major shortcomings on cycling infrastructure on it, people will use it to some extent. Whether that is slightly foolish or not is up to individuals to make their own decisions. But saying that its effectively a motorway is inaccurate and seems to be throwing in the towel really.
I never really got to expand on my point, which is that if I use a route that avoids the n4, once I get onto a road with traffic, I'll still get the same abuse / beeping / near misses. The issue of being on a road with fast moving traffic will be swapped for cars overtaking me around blind corners.

The solution is to build proper cycling infrastructure on the main routes and not pretend that pushing cyclists onto side roads is going to solve the issue.
And I would agree with the earlier point - building this will take huge amounts of cars off that route.

Well, I believe I was explicitly not making the argument that "cyclists have no right to be there", but making the point that it's not reasonable or logical for a cyclist to travel that route/interchange and think it was designed for safety or cyclists in mind. It's *barely* safe for cars, the way it's laid out. That's why I said it's effectively a motorway; the "N" designation is actually meaningless, it's a fig leaf, it's a lie. So if things should change there it really isn't logical to run that system as though "we've got to make sure this is cyclist friendly", it's as you say to admit the truth that it's not really fit for cycling and make a proper dedicated arrangement for car alternatives.

The liffey valley turnoff is a prime example; yes it is technically legal to cycle along there. However that turnoff combines;

• All the traffic turning off the M50
• All the traffic heading east/westbound out of the city to Lucan/Leixlip and commuter towns beyond
• All the traffic heading to one of the largest retail locations in the country

where they all have to merge and cross over each other in a very very short distance to get to their destination. That is a massive, massive volume of traffic. Having cyclists along that section is stupid, and it's not the fault of cyclists that it's stupid, it's the fault of planners who wouldn't bite the bullet and admit that section is a motorway junction that needed to be planned out as such.

However if a cyclist takes the approach "I've as much right to be here as anyone" then I think that's about as clever as me driving a saloon car into a bog road designed for 4x4's and complaining I got stuck. Yes technically I'm legally allowed to do it, but if I had any sense I wouldn't and it's my own fault if I do. NO I am not saying "cyclists deserve what they get if they cycle there" before you jump to that conclusion, I am saying that a person who commutes by car, bike or anything else needs to be pragmatic and sensible about what they're doing.

That's another good point, lack of signposting. Unless you stick to the motorways or N roads, your chances of finding a useful signpost with directions on it are zilch. You're lucky to get street names. This forces commuters to either stick to the routes they know or do a lot of planning out in advance.

A lot of people would cut off into Palmerstown over the kings hospital bridge and then either straight into Lucan or over the bridge that brings you to Texaco garage .

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

That's another good point, lack of signposting. Unless you stick to the motorways or N roads, your chances of finding a useful signpost with directions on it are zilch. You're lucky to get street names. This forces commuters to either stick to the routes they know or do a lot of planning out in advance.

Yeah, I spend a while looking at maps trying to figure out routes that don't involved quasi-motorway roads. Works for me, but, as I said in a recent thread already, I should really just be able to use the main road and trust the engineers to have created something low-stress and navigable.

greenspurs wrote: »

And meanwhile outside Dublin .........

Member of local club knocked off in Waterford town , car kept on driving .....
He wasnt too badly injured, and the car driver was unijured

Back in Dublin saw a young lad falling off his bike as it swung up behind him at Baker's Corner (Deansgrange) this morning - from what I could tell he was about to be creamed by a car turning left in front of him so he ended up turning/swerving into the curb and half hopping/half falling off.

He seemed okay but understandably shook, woman who nearly hit him then nearly creamed another cyclist coming from a different direction as she opened her door to get out. :eek:

Speaking off "Is it worth it" I was in the park this morning fake mountain biking on the trails and gullies and then spun down the keys to be in work for 08:15.

On the way I was passed by about a dozen cyclists, always while I was stopped waiting in traffic and they were willing to squeeze around buses or filter through lanes of traffic.

It occurred to me that it's a lot of risk to take just to get to work, and the most egregious example and IMHO the thing that best displays the utter failure of the RSA in their Helmets and Hivis fixation was a guy wearing a €200 mountain biking helmet on a Dublin Bike weaving through the rapidly narrowing gap between a right turning Dublin bus and the line of slow moving cars to our right.

He literally had to do a two point turn to get around the bus without hitting the cars to our right, I can spin along at 30kph on the flat on Wolfgang, so I may or may not have caught and passed him after the traffic opened up a bit, as I often do with RLJs, footpath mounters and kerb squeezers, but either way, it was decidedly not worth it.

So where's the race at all costs mentality coming from? As much as I bitterly jibe at "Elite commuter athletes" I don't actually want to see them getting mangled.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

However if a cyclist takes the approach "I've as much right to be here as anyone" then I think that's about as clever as me driving a saloon car into a bog road designed for 4x4's and complaining I got stuck. Yes technically I'm legally allowed to do it, but if I had any sense I wouldn't and it's my own fault if I do.

But how are cyclists supposed to know that these roads are actually no go areas for them? A lot of the time you are cycling along a perfectly reasonable road when suddenly up ahead you see a junction with slip roads going every which way, no idea what lane you are supposed to be in and the cars around you are speeding up to 120kph. Do you keep going on the assumption that it should be safe, and it's "your own fault" if anything happens with motorists passing you with the attitude that you are an obstruction that shouldn't be there. Do you stop and try to find another route there and then with no idea what that might be or even if one exists? Even if you do decide to stop by the time you have realised the planners have designed a motorway junction that is not safe for cyclists it is too late to turn back, doing so would be more dangerous that just keeping going in the same direction as the high speed traffic even if you are much slower. Do we just accept the fact that the most direct route is effectively barred to cyclists and go the long way around after the initial shocking experience?

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I spend a while looking at maps trying to figure out routes that don't involved quasi-motorway roads. Works for me, but, as I said in a recent thread already, I should really just be able to use the main road and trust the engineers to have created something low-stress and navigable.

I could not agree with this more. All roads which cyclists are allowed use (which is everything but motorways) should be safe for cyclists, and pedestrians for that matter. I remember working for a few weeks in Little Island in Cork and I talked to my friend from Cork about my plans. I told him I was thinking of staying in the city centre and cycling out to Little Island along whatever N road only to be told that road was unsuitable and there was basically no safe way to cycle to Little Island really.