Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

If you're talking about the College Green plan, it wasn't shot down in court.

Dont confuse my response as a rebuttal. I was merely pointing out that your post was such an obvious false equivalence that its not worthy of deconstructing or rebutting

I'm obviously one of the slower members on this forum, because I can't really see the false equivalency, I'd appreciate if you'd lay it out for me, and any other posters/readers who may not be able to see it

We've already had mandatory use of cycle tracks (with no qualification other than they meet the requirement of having the right signage and road markings), and it was removed, because it was unfair, given there were no minimum standards in terms of design or quality, and largely unenforced anyway.

It doesn't but the Keegan plan meant 600 buses each way a day on Parliament Street.

The author of the report by Bord Pleanála dismissed modelling by making single timed journeys by himself or herself and saying the modelling was way wide of the mark. That's not remotely convincing. And the author seemed to think that "induced demand" was a good thing, while it's never used as a good outcome academically, since it means you've spent a lot of money, increased emissions, with ultimately congestion remaining the same.

But whatever faults it had, that was three years ago now. I don't know what plans there are for College Green currently.

It did look half-thought out and apparently only designed for cyclists and pedestrians. DB, in particular, raised a lot of objections to it. The plaza bit was about the simplest element, yet they looked like they ignored anything outside of that area and left it up to others to figure out.

For that particular example, I think the reality is the horse bolted when the junction was first built. It was only 15 years ago or so, and they didn't even consider that pedestrians/bikes might want to cross the M50 at that point. So now you're left with a situation where the segregated traffic (bikes and pedestrians) have to cross the roundabout twice to safely navigate their way across.

Completely agree with the poster above who says it will increase conflict. People in cars are now going to say either 1) why isn't that bike in that lovely shiney cycle lane? or 2) I can't believe I'm stopped at all these pedestrian crossings to let a single bike navigate the junction.

Sloppily retrofitted pedestrian crossings slow down cars too.

Going forward, you'd like to think junctions like that are a great lesson in the advantages of future proofing at the initial design stage. But alas I'm not hopeful.

Grand so Andrew, you'll not be needing Strand Road after all. Noted.

True. But there was only handful of crossing.

How about turning right here, do you stay in the cycle lane or...?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.375417,-6.3868607,3a,75y,261.51h,66.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJvdqzQLv7yDdsAc6krXArA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Think I'm done engaging with you now. It's mostly just ranting now.

Honestly, for someone comparing others to five year olds, this is like a temper tantrum from a stroppy kid going 'I don't want to, I don't want to'.

In fairness, if I was turning off 200m later, I'd probably stay on the road too. If you find that drivers are beeping you on the road, your problem is with those drivers, not with cyclists and not with the designers. Your problem there is idiots who've been emboldened by the extensive pro-car media (heavily supported by car company advertising) to kick up a strop anytime they find themselves behind a cyclist for 10 seconds. It's OK to be stuck behind other cars for 10 minutes, but not behind a cyclist for 10 seconds.

Your problem is with beeping drivers.