Pedestrians in the cycle lane

Muckie · 25-11-2011 8:07pm

Jesus lads, this thread has got legs!

Heres the picture of where my "incident with my new female friend"

If any of you know it. Its opposite The Square in Tallaght.

My new female friend loomed large infront of me, scared the crap, and i

i didn't react quick enough, ah well live and learn(maybe attach a

cattle prod) for future cycling adventures!

CramCycle · 25-11-2011 11:21pm

Korvanica wrote: »

Clipped some chick myself this morning on the way to work...

Set of steps with a cycle ramp beside them, there's 3 sets of these steps in succession with about 30 Meters between them.

Im coming down them no bother, everyone who sees me coming down uses the steps or waits at the bottom of the ramp allowing its intended users to go first.

This chick looked up and definitely saw me, as i was just entering the ramp, and proceeds to walk up the middle of it with her head down. I shout, she doesn't move, so i have to try get around her, not enough room so I clip her elbow fairly hard ( i was moving with a bit of pace), didn't spill or anything but nearly did..

Yea I know it was the wrong thing to do.. but whatever, she saw me and refused to move...

These aren't the ramps in UCD are they? because if they are I have some bad news...

25-11-2011 11:41pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

What news of the Grand Canal route? I have some hope for that being something approximating to good practice and something that can be pointed to in future. I'm also prepared to be disappointed.

I noticed that they're working on a section near the Sam Beckett Bridge now (south side), they're in the process of digging it up right now.

My own personal hope when it opens is that the present canal cycle lanes will be empty once these guys open... but I'm sure I'll still be held up behind someone an RLJ and be unable to overtake due to space for a good bit as normal.

Kintarō Hattori · 26-11-2011 2:02am

Thankfully I haven't hit a ped yet but I was wondering. I'm sure statistically some of you are bound to have hit a ped, and probably in some cases while moving pretty quickly. Have you stopped to see if they were OK, did you take much abuse from them/a partner?

seeing_ie · 27-11-2011 3:56am

petethedrummer wrote: »

The gates are ridiculous. The canal path used to be on my route to work. I had to go through 11 gates to get to work and 11 on the way back. If I cycled it 5 days a week that meant 110 unnecessary dismounts and remounts.

carthoris wrote: »

I agree - the gates are a bit excessive ...

There's a reason that access is restricted by steel fencing parallel to the canal along the length of the paths.
There's a reason for the security cameras along the length of the path.

Without the gates, fencing and cameras, the relatively isolated canal paths would be a magnet for anti-social behaviour. Walkers and cyclists would find themselves sharing the paths with kids on scramblers, sulky races, canal-side drinkers (guilty, your honour) and the rest. You'd probably get drivers taking short cuts too.
The amenity would become less attractive and less safe to use, particularly for the likes of female cyclists in the evenings.

I suppose if the council were any good they'd organise to have the gates opened at peak times.

On the same subject, I was walking with family along a canal towpath recently in the midlands. The path was about the width of a car, sharp drop into the water on one side, ditch on the other. We met a woman taking her dog for a walk and were forced to get into the ditch to let her past. She was driving down the towpath, hanging out the window, with the dog on the lead :pac:

Iwannahurl · 27-11-2011 10:48am

Any chance at all that the canal path might be regularly patrolled by Gardai and/or Wardens on bikes?

Cookie_Monster · 27-11-2011 10:54am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Any chance at all that the canal path might be regularly patrolled by Gardai and/or Wardens on bikes?

:pac:

monument · 27-11-2011 11:15am

seeing_ie wrote: »

petethedrummer wrote: »

The gates are ridiculous. The canal path used to be on my route to work. I had to go through 11 gates to get to work and 11 on the way back. If I cycled it 5 days a week that meant 110 unnecessary dismounts and remounts.

carthoris wrote: »

I agree - the gates are a bit excessive ...

There's a reason that access is restricted by steel fencing parallel to the canal along the length of the paths.
There's a reason for the security cameras along the length of the path.

Without the gates, fencing and cameras, the relatively isolated canal paths would be a magnet for anti-social behaviour. Walkers and cyclists would find themselves sharing the paths with kids on scramblers, sulky races, canal-side drinkers (guilty, your honour) and the rest. You'd probably get drivers taking short cuts too.
The amenity would become less attractive and less safe to use, particularly for the likes of female cyclists in the evenings.

I suppose if the council were any good they'd organise to have the gates opened at peak times.

Do you work for SDCC, the ESB or Waterways Ireland? If not why on earth are you defending them?

Surely the gates have made the route far less attractive and thus less safe to use?

You don't need gates to stop cars, bollards can do that, and, as far as I could tell the last time I used it, the gates and CCTV as used now have not stopped the likes of horses on the path.

saa · 27-11-2011 11:26am

I shout on your right, must get a bell.
I'm sure it was an Irish radio station where I heard if there is a cycle lane it is a legal requirement to use it, every cycle land in Tallaght in glittered with broken glass, cycled up to Lucan through jobstown once was quite tricky.

I use all cycle lanes except one stretch where the cycle lane starts before I get near it so its all curb I would stop and go up it except its really busy with pedestrians everytime, then there is the cycle lane in the park where I get dirty looks for having to cycle on the grass because someone's toddle is just wandering about where they please on the cycle lane..

My most hated cycle lane though, coming from donnybrook to leeson street if a bus didn't smack into you at the bend in donnybrook then you're faced with switching lanes after that white hotel, its 4 lanes of traffic I've got off and walked with the bike at the lights because I just didn't get a chance to change lanes to go straight

seeing_ie · 27-11-2011 7:53pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Any chance at all that the canal path might be regularly patrolled by Gardai and/or Wardens on bikes?

That would be ideal. I'm guessing only a guard would be effective.

monument wrote: »

Do you work for SDCC, the ESB or Waterways Ireland? If not why on earth are you defending them?

No connection to any of the above or any cyclist/walking/waterway organisation. I'm defending them (the gates and other security) because I believe without them, the path would become less attractive to walkers and cyclists for the reasons I outlined.

monument wrote: »

Surely the gates have made the route far less attractive and thus less safe to use?

Far less attractive?
How many minutes to you think the gates add to your journey?
How much inconvenience is it really to navigate the gates?
How much less attractive would it be for elderly walkers/women with prams/women cyclists in the evenings, to encounter motorcyclekids/sulkys/groups of drinkers?
Certainly can't see how you think the gates make the route less safe to use.

monument wrote: »

You don't need gates to stop cars, bollards can do that, and, as far as I could tell the last time I used it, the gates and CCTV as used now have not stopped the likes of horses on the path.

Bollards won't stop motorcycles, but the gates should, in theory, only allow pedestrians and cyclists through.
Have you come across horses on the path? I haven't seen any, I don't use it daily though.
Can you imagine what you'd encounter without the gates?

Aren't there only gates generally where the path crosses a road?
You're going to have to stop and yield to traffic anyway.

nak · 27-11-2011 8:33pm

seeing_ie wrote: »

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Any chance at all that the canal path might be regularly patrolled by Gardai and/or Wardens on bikes?

That would be ideal. I'm guessing only a guard would be effective.

monument wrote: »

Do you work for SDCC, the ESB or Waterways Ireland? If not why on earth are you defending them?

No connection to any of the above or any cyclist/walking/waterway organisation. I'm defending them (the gates and other security) because I believe without them, the path would become less attractive to walkers and cyclists for the reasons I outlined.

monument wrote: »

Surely the gates have made the route far less attractive and thus less safe to use?

Far less attractive?
How many minutes to you think the gates add to your journey?
How much inconvenience is it really to navigate the gates?
How much less attractive would it be for elderly walkers/women with prams/women cyclists in the evenings, to encounter motorcyclekids/sulkys/groups of drinkers?
Certainly can't see how you think the gates make the route less safe to use.

monument wrote: »

You don't need gates to stop cars, bollards can do that, and, as far as I could tell the last time I used it, the gates and CCTV as used now have not stopped the likes of horses on the path.

Bollards won't stop motorcycles, but the gates should, in theory, only allow pedestrians and cyclists through.
Have you come across horses on the path? I haven't seen any, I don't use it daily though.
Can you imagine what you'd encounter without the gates?

Aren't there only gates generally where the path crosses a road?
You're going to have to stop and yield to traffic anyway.

I use the canal path everyday to get work as had too many run ins with idiots on Nangor Road. Gates don't bother me, worth it for peace and quiet and goes straight to my work. People did try to drive in when they opened some gates a while back.

They have installed a different type of gate as a trial in some sections. The idea is that you can ride through. I can push through with one foot unclipped.

The security office is manned all day, wasn't keen on using it by myself until I saw it. They have a tanoy system and a guard is responsible for each area.

tomasrojo · 27-11-2011 8:58pm

seeing_ie wrote: »

Far less attractive?
How many minutes to you think the gates add to your journey?
How much inconvenience is it really to navigate the gates?

How much is the route used by cyclists? Is it less than originally projected?

Personally, I wouldn't use any route if it had kissing gates. It also means that I couldn't use that route with a trailer. I also have found them awkward when carrying two panniers. Perhaps this route has longer gates.

seeing_ie wrote: »

How much less attractive would it be for elderly walkers/women with prams/women cyclists in the evenings, to encounter motorcyclekids/sulkys/groups of drinkers?

Do the elderly/women with prams/etc. actually use the route much now?

Do kissing gates deter drinkers? I guess it's hard to get plastic bags stuffed with cider through kissing gates. Or does the deterioration in hand-eye co-ordination as a result of intoxication mean drinkers can't open them?

seeing_ie wrote: »

Certainly can't see how you think the gates make the route less safe to use.

Well, if someone tried to assault you when you were cycling there, and you had to pedal like crazy to get away from them, they'd catch you at the next gate, wouldn't they? But at least they wouldn't be racing motorbikes as they killed you, and that's the main thing.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Have you come across horses on the path?

monument has, I believe. They just go through the hedge.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Can you imagine what you'd encounter without the gates?

There's one way to find out. You can always close them again if it's worse.

All isolated routes have the same problem of risk of assault when it's dark. Perhaps they shouldn't even be open at all outside daylight hours. But that's a slightly different issue.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Aren't there only gates generally where the path crosses a road?
You're going to have to stop and yield to traffic anyway.

In that case do you have to stop three times, instead of twice? That is, get your bike through the gate; wait for a gap in the traffic; get your bike through the gate on the other side.

(I should say I haven't used this route, but I have used other routes with kissing gates, and they're a pain. I also have lived in neighbourhoods where pedestrian permeability has been reduced to zero by means of fencing between estates to discourage roaming bands of teenagers -- who may or may not exist in reality -- resulting in everyone driving everywhere. This strikes me as equivalent to the old military tactic of destroying the village to save the village.)

nak · 27-11-2011 9:40pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

seeing_ie wrote: »

How much is the route used by cyclists? Is it less than originally projected?

Lots of cyclists use it.

seeing_ie wrote: »

How much less attractive would it be for elderly walkers/women with prams/women cyclists in the evenings, to encounter motorcyclekids/sulkys/groups of drinkers?

Do the elderly/women with prams/etc. actually use the route much now?

Yes, again a lot in the afternoon. I'm female and use it everyday commuting.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Have you come across horses on the path?

monument has, I believe. They just go through the hedge.

Horses are mainly on the other side of the canal along the grass.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Can you imagine what you'd encounter without the gates?

There's one way to find out. You can always close them again if it's worse.

All isolated routes have the same problem of risk of assault when it's dark. Perhaps they shouldn't even be open at all outside daylight hours.

The place is deserted in the morning and only get groups of kids hanging around in summer. They opened the gates and got cars and motorbikes on it, so they were closed again. If people like the new gates they will be put in the length of the route. They're not suitable for trailers though.

tomasrojo · 27-11-2011 9:46pm

The suggestion was to use bollards rather than gates, not to leave the gates open.

Thanks for the clarification.

SoapArtAvenger · 27-11-2011 10:30pm

Going down O'Connell Street last Friday there was some guy walking in the cycle lane. I'm pretty sure he was drunk, but either way I couldn't move onto the road and I just braced to clip him. I had yelled at him, and I was slowing down as much as possible.

CramCycle · 27-11-2011 10:34pm

SoapArtAvenger wrote: »

Going down O'Connell Street last Friday there was some guy walking in the cycle lane. I'm pretty sure he was drunk, but either way I couldn't move onto the road and I just braced to clip him. I had yelled at him, and I was slowing down as much as possible.

Slowing down as much as possible, indicates that you stopped and therefore shouldn't have hit him?

Sorry to be an ass to your first post but it does seem like clipping him was avoidable, maybe not convenient but avoidable nonetheless.

seeing_ie · 27-11-2011 10:39pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

How much is the route used by cyclists? Is it less than originally projected?

Personally, I wouldn't use any route if it had kissing gates. It also means that I couldn't use that route with a trailer. I also have found them awkward when carrying two panniers. Perhaps this route has longer gates.

Quite a lot of cyclists use the route in my experience.
Valid point about the trailer though, that amount of gates would become a real pain if you had kids or shopping in a trailer.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Do the elderly/women with prams/etc. actually use the route much now?

In my (limited) experience I've encountered old couples/families out walking, couples with buggies/prams etc.
It's a a shared amenity, not just a fast, safe cycle track.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Do kissing gates deter drinkers? I guess it's hard to get plastic bags stuffed with cider through kissing gates. Or does the deterioration in hand-eye co-ordination as a result of intoxication mean drinkers can't open them?

lol, it's all about deterrence. If you have plenty of families/buggies/walkers etc I think it'll be less attractive to drinkers etc who prefer more isolated spots.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, if someone tried to assault you when you were cycling there, and you had to pedal like crazy to get away from them, they'd catch you at the next gate, wouldn't they? But at least they wouldn't be racing motorbikes as they killed you, and that's the main thing.

come on now.

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's one way to find out. You can always close them again if it's worse.

Agreed, if the route is managed properly, opening the gates on a trial basis would be a great solution. Particularly at peak times for cyclists.

e2a: another poster has posted that they opned the gates and people drove on the route.

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I should say I haven't used this route, but I have used other routes with kissing gates, and they're a pain. I also have lived in neighbourhoods where pedestrian permeability has been reduced to zero by means of fencing between estates to discourage roaming bands of teenagers -- who may or may not exist in reality -- resulting in everyone driving everywhere. This strikes me as equivalent to the old military tactic of destroying the village to save the village.)

"Roaming bands of teenagers" (if they exist)don't bother me in the slightest, but I do think the percieved safety of a route impacts on the attractiveness of a route to other groups ie old couples/women with prams/women commuting in the evening.
Pedestrian permeability is unaffected in this case, which we seem to agree is a good thing.
Motorcycle/sulky/car permeability is affected though, which I think is a good thing.

e2a:

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I should say I haven't used this route

you're aware the gates are only just above waist high?

SoapArtAvenger · 27-11-2011 10:40pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Slowing down as much as possible, indicates that you stopped and therefore shouldn't have hit him?

Sorry to be an ass to your first post but it does seem like clipping him was avoidable, maybe not convenient but avoidable nonetheless.

I probably could have stopped - it was one of those act first, think later situations. At least I didn't hit the guy hard.

tomasrojo · 27-11-2011 11:05pm

seeing_ie wrote: »

Pedestrian permeability is unaffected in this case, which we seem to agree is a good thing.

Yes, but my point was that in both cases one class of valid user is being inconvenienced so that another disapproved-of user can be excluded. I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians were being inconvenienced on the Grand Canal by these gates.

It's possible that failure to exclude some of the disapproved-of classes is a price worth paying for for the greater convenience of the valid user. Perhaps not in this case; as I said, I haven't used this route.

I can see that merely opening the gate would allow cars in, which is the one class of user that would invalidate the entire point of a cycle route. But it's possible to put a removable metal upright in the centre of the entry point. It wouldn't stop motorbikes, but I'm not sure how much of a problem motorbikes would be during the day.

As I said, in general kissing gates inconvenience all cyclists, and completely exclude a minority of cyclists: those who use trailers, those who use tandems, those who use cargo bikes, and sometimes even those who have two large panniers. In fact, part of the original purpose of kissing gates in the UK was to exclude cyclists, so it's not really a suitable design for a cycle route.

tomasrojo · 27-11-2011 11:18pm

seeing_ie wrote: »

come on now.

I was just joking about the gates blocking your get-away, but the Dublin Cycling Campaign actually did highlight this, I just found out.

Much has been spoken about the social problems in the area and a number of people have reported being attacked along the route. In the incidence of social problems or a person threatening violence, the presence of a gate which forces a cyclist to dismount will prevent escape from trouble. It's very easy to imagine how one could potentially get cornered that way.

http://dublincycling.ie/node/639

But, once again, I really can't comment except in the most general way.

I should head out one weekend and see what the route is actually like.

nak · 27-11-2011 11:31pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

seeing_ie wrote: »

Pedestrian permeability is unaffected in this case, which we seem to agree is a good thing.

Yes, but my point was that in both cases one class of valid user is being inconvenienced so that another disapproved-of user can be excluded. I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians were being inconvenienced on the Grand Canal by these gates.

It's possible that failure to exclude some of the disapproved-of classes is a price worth paying for for the greater convenience of the valid user. Perhaps not in this case; as I said, I haven't used this route.

I can see that merely opening the gate would allow cars in, which is the one class of user that would invalidate the entire point of a cycle route. But it's possible to put a removable metal upright in the centre of the entry point. It wouldn't stop motorbikes, but I'm not sure how much of a problem motorbikes would be during the day.

Scramblers on the path were a big problem before the canal was renovated. As I pointed out before, they are currently trialling a new type of gate on the route like the ones they have in some Dutch cycle routes (and not all the existing access points have kissing gates). I see a lot of people with panniers.

There aren't many cargo bikes in Dublin (we have one), so doubt the council thought about that when planning the canal route. They can only try and suit the majority. Wheelchair users can maneuver the gates ok.

seeing_ie · 27-11-2011 11:48pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, but my point was that in both cases one class of valid user is being inconvenienced so that another disapproved-of user can be excluded. I wasn't suggesting that pedestrians were being inconvenienced on the Grand Canal by these gates.

e2a:Exactly. You and I are being inconvenienced (slightly imo) for the greater convenience of less able users ie mothers with prams/old folks walking/women cycling at night.

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's possible that failure to exclude some of the disapproved-of classes is a price worth paying for for the greater convenience of the valid user. Perhaps not in this case; as I said, I haven't used this route.

I can see that merely opening the gate would allow cars in, which is the one class of user that would invalidate the entire point of a cycle route. But it's possible to put a removable metal upright in the centre of the entry point. It wouldn't stop motorbikes, but I'm not sure how much of a problem motorbikes would be during the day.

e2a: Metal uprights in the centre of the path wouldn't stop people on horses, or sulkys, and kids racing mini scramblers is a problem in parts of Dublin, and according to other posters has been a problem in the past on this route.

tomasrojo wrote: »

As I said, in general kissing gates inconvenience all cyclists, and completely exclude a minority of cyclists: those who use trailers, those who use tandems, those who use cargo bikes, and sometimes even those who have two large panniers. In fact, part of the original purpose of kissing gates in the UK was to exclude cyclists, so it's not really a suitable design for a cycle route.

What percentage of the overall cyclists thaty use the route use tandems(!), cargobikes(!), trailers or 2 large panniers? No offence, but I think thats a bit thin.
I'd love to see all these types of bikes around, but don't see many.
If we focus on the achievable aim of making the route attractive for "standard" cyclists of all ages and sexes, at all times of the day, then opening it to tandems etc will naturally follow, once a critical mass of cyclists occurs.

(a flock of seagulls, a critical mass of cyclists :pac:)

seeing_ie · 28-11-2011 12:00am

tomasrojo wrote: »

I was just joking about the gates blocking your get-away, but the Dublin Cycling Campaign actually did highlight this, I just found out.

Quote:
Much has been spoken about the social problems in the area and a number of people have reported being attacked along the route. In the incidence of social problems or a person threatening violence, the presence of a gate which forces a cyclist to dismount will prevent escape from trouble. It's very easy to imagine how one could potentially get cornered that way.

http://dublincycling.ie/node/639

But, once again, I really can't comment except in the most general way.

I should head out one weekend and see what the route is actually like.

In a hypothetical situation where you're running from an attacker the gates on this route won't stop you.
If you're cycling from a hypothetical attacker you can leave the bloody bike at the gate

- practically all the gates are at busy roads.

You should take a trip out there, it's a nice cycle

tomasrojo · 28-11-2011 12:30am

I'd agree that most of those minority categories are indeed very minority. However, trailers of one sort are not that minority. They are quite popular with parents going on recreational cycles with young children. I see them often. I have one myself, as well as a goods trailer, which admittedly I seldom see anyone else with.

The comment about panniers was about two large panniers such as a touring cyclist might have. Or someone doing a week's shopping might use. The DCC article suggested that getting them through would be a bit of a squeeze. Again, I often use two large panniers myself.

I'll take your advice and head up that way sometime soon. I'll be interested to see it. I understand the surface is very nice.

Iwannahurl · 28-11-2011 12:38am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't use any route if it had kissing gates. It also means that I couldn't use that route with a trailer. I also have found them awkward when carrying two panniers. Perhaps this route has longer gates.

(I should say I haven't used this route, but I have used other routes with kissing gates, and they're a pain. I also have lived in neighbourhoods where pedestrian permeability has been reduced to zero by means of fencing between estates to discourage roaming bands of teenagers -- who may or may not exist in reality -- resulting in everyone driving everywhere. This strikes me as equivalent to the old military tactic of destroying the village to save the village.)

I hate bloody kissing gates.

Creating a cycle path and then deliberately downgrading its usefulness and attractiveness is the height of folly, IMO.

I was prevented from accessing an off-road cycle path by a kissing gate on my very first outing with a trailer. Farcically, the cycle path in question has been touted as a potential core part of a cross-town cycle route. God help us if the same design is extended further.

I complained to the local authority, who, after ignoring my email for a while, eventually told me that kissing gates "are not designed to accommodate cyclists to cycle through nor can they accommodate a cycle with trailer without compromising the purpose for which they are designed". They also claimed that their use of kissing gates has been approved by "disability advisors" but I have been told that disabled people are not fond of them either as they can be awkward to negotiate.

Is there a single stretch of road anywhere in the country where motorists have to squeeze through an equivalent barrier?

seeing_ie · 28-11-2011 1:18am

Very frustrating for trailer users, who should be incentivised in every way imo.

What's a solution though to keep cycle/walking tracks safe and attractive for cyclists & walkers?

A zero-tolerance policy? Any car/motorbike/horse found or photographed on a cycle path siezed and sold no questions asked?

tomasrojo · 28-11-2011 3:46pm

seeing_ie wrote: »

What's a solution though to keep cycle/walking tracks safe and attractive for cyclists & walkers?

I can't comment any further till I've seen the route!

(Except to say that the impression I've got from the foregoing discussion is that the gates adjacent to the kissing gates were temporarily opened, but then closed again because of cars using the route. Does that mean that motorbikes and horses weren't a particular problem during this period, and that a metal upright in the centre of the main gate might be sufficient, so long as the main gate is locked fully at night?)

turbodiesel · 28-11-2011 3:58pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I hate bloody kissing gates.

Creating a cycle path and then deliberately downgrading its usefulness and attractiveness is the height of folly, IMO.

I was prevented from accessing an off-road cycle path by a kissing gate on my very first outing with a trailer. Farcically, the cycle path in question has been touted as a potential core part of a cross-town cycle route. God help us if the same design is extended further.

I complained to the local authority, who, after ignoring my email for a while, eventually told me that kissing gates "are not designed to accommodate cyclists to cycle through nor can they accommodate a cycle with trailer without compromising the purpose for which they are designed". They also claimed that their use of kissing gates has been approved by "disability advisors" but I have been told that disabled people are not fond of them either as they can be awkward to negotiate.

Is there a single stretch of road anywhere in the country where motorists have to squeeze through an equivalent barrier?

I have the same problem with a route from my housing estate on the school run as i regularly see a queue of 10 or more people tryign to get prams/bicycles/childrens scooters, and themselves through at peak times......

And I agree with a zero tolerance confiscation policy on motorcycles/horses who use the exit/entrance.

Lumen · 28-11-2011 4:33pm

I don't understand how it is possible to engineer an obstacle for a motorcycle that poses no inconvenience to a pedalcycle.

It would have to involve some sort of lifting challenge, but that would block access to grannies on Pashleys (or any other combination of feeble cyclist and heavy pedalcycle).

The same goes for trailers/cargobikes and quads. It's almost as hard as enforcing a diesel-only driving lane.

As for horses, I've seen what Black Beauty can do, with or without a rider.

That being the case, we may to accept that enforcement-by-obstacle is not an appropriate approach, and that some other approach (e.g. surveillance and policing) may be more appropriate.

monument · 29-11-2011 3:17am

seeing_ie wrote: »

Quite a lot of cyclists use the route in my experience.

How many is a lot?

The cycle counter on Grove Road along the Grand Canal between Harold's Cross and Rathmines (admittedly around some of the highest cycling commuting areas in the country) is reaching over 2,000 cyclists per day each weekday (around 1,000 in each direction).

seeing_ie wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, if someone tried to assault you when you were cycling there, and you had to pedal like crazy to get away from them, they'd catch you at the next gate, wouldn't they? But at least they wouldn't be racing motorbikes as they killed you, and that's the main thing.

come on now...

...Certainly can't see how you think the gates make the route less safe to use.

You come on now, you are defending 11 or more gates on a 8km route!

Gates like these ones are not attractive from a personal security perspective given that you get stopped and get boxed in. But on a much lower threat level it can just be very unattractive from a personal security perspective to have to pass such a narrow gap if there simply one or two or a group of people hanging around the gates.

At least one location the gates seem to be already a magnet for graffiti which is very unattractive from a safety or attractiveness perspective .

seeing_ie wrote: »

...another poster has posted that they opned the gates and people drove on the route.

Opening the gates without doing anything else was self serving to prove them selves right.

Inexpensive bollards will do an excellent job at stopping cars.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Far less attractive?
How many minutes to you think the gates add to your journey?
How much inconvenience is it really to navigate the gates?
How much less attractive would it be for elderly walkers/women with prams/women cyclists in the evenings, to encounter motorcyclekids/sulkys/groups of drinkers?

Yes, far less attractive. It's 11 kissing gates in 8km!

More than just one or two people have said on threads here that they've just given up on the route because of the gates.

A dismount is a massive inconvenience alone, never mind having to lift or navigate a bicycle by the gate and not being able to fit panniers etc. The gates makes it a no-go for cyclists with...

panniers, including shoppers / commuters / a very valuable tourists
any type of bike who are physical unable to lift their bike or otherwise navigate the gates
larger Dutch-style bikes which are becoming common around Dublin City
child seats in use
tandems
trailers
cargo bikes

And for leisure cyclists who want to go for a cycle and not for a triathlon-like experience.

Kissing gates don't stop groups of drinkers or other nasty people. Motorcycle should be dealt with by the gardai regardless if they are using the greenway or a field or the green in an estate.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Can you imagine what you'd encounter without the gates?

If we believed all the hype we would never have had Dublin Bikes. A huge amount of people on here and in the media claimed in the strongest terms that the bikes would all simultaneously ended up in the river and the canals, be vandalised, and

I'm not say there would be no problems, but the potential for problems is being hyped to the extrema.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Aren't there only gates generally where the path crosses a road?
You're going to have to stop and yield to traffic anyway.

Actually, there's not, not unless they've changed it recently. There's two or three gates where there is no road crossing or other road access. There is after all only three at-grade crossing along the whole route.

In any case, in terms of time / energy use / annoyance slowing, stopping for traffic and starting again without dismounting is very, very different than slowing, stopping, dismounting, navigating the gate, stopping for traffic, navigating the gate, and starting up again. You're arguing against physics if you want to claim otherwise.

At one junction (with Killeen Road, where there are three gates!) there is a distance of around 130m between the first kissing gate and the last.

You can also add in queuing time with cyclists, walkers, prams etc at busy times. The last time I used it the delays at some gates were considerable.

seeing_ie wrote: »

What's a solution though to keep cycle/walking tracks safe and attractive for cyclists & walkers?

A zero-tolerance policy? Any car/motorbike/horse found or photographed on a cycle path siezed and sold no questions asked?

Lots of the same straw man arguments here again. Cars can be stopped by bollards, horses were on the route last time I used it and motorbikes need to be policed.

Furthermore, you're trying again to maintain that the current set up is attractive to cyclists in general (not just the few people who use it), when it is clearly not attractive to a large amount of cyclists and not at all accessible to many others.

Pedestrians in the cycle lane

Comments