nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pedestrians in the cycle lane

Muckie

Just wonder how most of you cyclists out there handle them.

Cycle mosts(plus from the recession) quite enjoy it too.

But about 3 weeks ago i meet a very large woman in the cycle lane,

there was no footpath, this was 100% cycle lane.

I slowed down, almost stopped, but jesus she just waddled by. Brushed

off me and i moved- big mistake!.

Course i wobbled off the edge of the lane, 5 - 6 inch drop.

Came down hard.

Was like a bolt of lightning hit me in the back. Turns out i had torn my

lumbar muscle. Still hurting but getting better.

So if you ever meet someone walking, if you can't avoid safetly, get off

and walk. Becareful folks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

DirkVoodoo

Looks like this is the root of the problem. The solution is easy:

"You're really not that hot, get back on the footpath. Your friend can stay though".

seeing_ie

@monument with respect, I'm not going to answer your post in detail, the points you make have been addressed and the debate has moved on imo.

Just for the record, no gates would suit me much better, I've no "vulnerable" family or friends that use the route, nor any connection to it.

Looking at the way some other amenities in the city have been wrecked, I do think that the gates are the best solution currently.
If you look at my posts, I've agreed that if the route was managed and policed properly the gates would be unnecessary and bollards would suffice.
I can't see the resources for this being allocated in the current climate though.

psychward

pedestrians should be forced to wear numberplates and display tax and insurance discs on their foreheads.

Seriously though, College Green is the worst for me . Often when I have a green light and am trying to pass through to make that left turn onto Westmoreland Street from Dame Street, I find myself surrounded by a swarm of people on the road. Most of them usually look like tourists too. I thought they would behave differently and be more aware of jaywalking issues but seemingly not. I just slow down and stop if I have to. Stopping is usually safer as they often just seem completely oblivious to the risks... sort of like those hedgehogs which cross busy roads and get squished

petethedrummer

seeing_ie wrote: »

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.

There was always an easily accessiblle path along there. I used to use it when it was just a rough gravel path and in a 9 month period I saw 1 burnt out car and zero anti social behaviour, (actually I say a couple of homeless guys, but they were pleasant enough). Considering some of the neighbourhoods nearby, that was quite low.

The back roads around Grange Castle nearby are used very very regularly as a racing track for boy racers but noone would consider putting up barriers for car drivers. Imagine you had to get out of and back into your car 22 times a day to get to work and back?? These gates are a farce.

I'd like to see the thing opened up completely for a few months to see how bad the antisocial behaviour gets. Then if joyriding is a problem put some bollards up that don't hinder cyclists. Kids currently congregate along the path for knacker drinking, with the gates in place. Cars can easily be excluded without hindering cyclists. So that leaves the occasional yob on a scooter, which I don't think is a huge price to pay for ease of movement, we're already dealing with them on the open roads.

Were the pedestrian and cycle traffic to increase on the path due to ease of movement it might discourage antisocial behaviour. As of now it is unusable as a means of commuting. Its fine for a dander about with your kids or for a walk or a spot of knacker drinking. Its a pain in the hole to use it for its intended purpose particularly if more than 2 cyclists meet at a gate at the same time.

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

The back roads around Grange Castle nearby are used very very regularly as a racing track for boy racers but noone would consider putting up barriers for car drivers. Imagine you had to get out of and back into your car 22 times a day to get to work and back?? These gates are a farce.

Funnily enough, that precise analogy, though not that location, also occurred to me.

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'd like to see the thing opened up completely for a few months to see how bad the antisocial behaviour gets.

They've apparently done this, and cars started using it. I haven't heard any mention anywhere of any other misuse, and as said already cars are easy enough to obstruct. If you do that, it's then down to whether there are too many horses and motorbikes using it, and whether they can be stopped in some other way if so.

petethedrummer

monument wrote: »

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

Its more than that. I wasn't using the entire path.

monument

seeing_ie wrote: »

@monument with respect, I'm not going to answer your post in detail, the points you make have been addressed and the debate has moved on imo.

It seems we have not moved on very much...

seeing_ie wrote: »

Looking at the way some other amenities in the city have been wrecked, I do think that the gates are the best solution currently.

What other amenities in the city have been wrecked?

My point re Dublin Bikes in my last post is important here -- you can't stop everything because of some unknown, unproven fear.

seeing_ie wrote: »

If you look at my posts, I've agreed that if the route was managed and policed properly the gates would be unnecessary and bollards would suffice.
I can't see the resources for this being allocated in the current climate though.

The gates don't seem to be needed now.

Besides cars which can be stopped easily with bollards, there's already loads of large gaps in the greenery and fencing which already allows horses and scramblers access onto the greenway. The gates also do not deal with other anti-social behaviour, and can make the route less attractive from a personal safety or security point of view.

Even if the gates stamped out the above (which it does not in the case of horses etc and cannot in the case of other anti-social behaviour), the price of restricting and stopping many primary users is too high.

The potential for the canals as cycle routes is so high. They could become our "cycling superhighways" (closer to the Netherlands or Denmark, rather than London). If you only had to stop at junctions -- ie only around 3-4 times between Adamstown and town -- there is a huge advantage even for slower cyclists to not have to stop all the time.

But there's too much fear of the unknown and nobody will bash heads of all those involved together.

nak

See picture for new gate design. Here's your chance to have a say in what gets put in along the canal. email greenroute@sdublincoco.ie

[Deleted User]

nak wrote: »

See picture for new gate design. Here's your chance to have a say in what gets put in along the canal. email greenroute@sdublincoco.ie

Won't be able to fit a bike with panniers through that would you? Where exactly is that trial?

monument

Dónal wrote: »

Won't be able to fit a bike with panniers through that would you? Where exactly is that trial?

Looks like it is east of Adamstown and just west of the R136 / "Dublin Outer Ring Road" (the overbridge for which is pictured).

This is one of the gates not even at a junction. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Lumen

nak wrote: »

See picture for new gate design. Here's your chance to have a say in what gets put in along the canal. email greenroute@sdublincoco.ie

Dónal wrote: »

Won't be able to fit a bike with panniers through that would you? Where exactly is that trial?

monument wrote: »

Looks like it is east of Adamstown and just west of the R136 / "Dublin Outer Ring Road" (the overbridge for which is pictured).

There's an interesting and vaguely similar gate design at the new Corkaigh Park track. I don't have a snap of it to hand, but I assume that construction involved the cahncil.

Maybe Cycling Ireland would know more about this.

nak

monument wrote: »

Looks like it is east of Adamstown and just west of the R136 / "Dublin Outer Ring Road" (the overbridge for which is pictured).

This is one of the gates not even at a junction. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Correct, there is another one on the bridge. I can ride through it slowly (don't use panniers). If you don't like it, mail them and let them know of other ideas. It is just a trial.

monument

nak wrote: »

Correct, there is another one on the bridge. I can ride through it slowly (don't use panniers). If you don't like it, mail them and let them know of other ideas. It is just a trial.

The engineers and planners of South Dublin County Council are very intelligent people.

I'm not being sarcastic -- They are more than intelligent enough to know the original design is not cycling friendly and more than able to figure out for them self if this design will or will not allow access for cyclists with panniers, cargo bikes, trailers and so on.

If they choice to ignore or convince them self that they are following guidance from the NTA and national cycle policy, that's up to them.

clod71

I only use cycle lanes if they are on the road, if that makes sense...

[Deleted User]

Any chance of a googlemaps link to the location?

tomasrojo

It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

seeing_ie

monument wrote: »

What other amenities in the city have been wrecked?

Fairview park, there's been some serious muggings and assaults there the last few years. Fatalities. No go area at times because of the relative isolation of the path there.
Liffey boardwalk to some extent I suppose. Can be unnattractive to tourists, visitors and others at times because of anti-social behaviour.

monument wrote: »

My point re Dublin Bikes in my last post is important here -- you can't stop everything because of some unknown, unproven fear.

Wasn't aware of opposition to Dublin Bikes for those reasons tbh.

monument wrote: »

there's already loads of large gaps in the greenery and fencing which already allows horses and scramblers access onto the greenway.

Maybe there'd be more horses and scramblers along the length of the route if you took away the gates.

monument wrote: »

Even if the gates stamped out the above (which it does not in the case of horses etc and cannot in the case of other anti-social behaviour), the price of restricting and stopping many primary users is too high.

I don't think inconvenience is too high a price to pay for a safe, attractive, route for all classes of users, walkers and cyclists. The few tandems & cargo bikes out there can't be accomodated currently imo.
Take the example of a female cyclist commuting in the evenings. A couple of muggings or whatever along the route and the percieved safety of the route takes a nosedive.
We want to make the route as attractive as possible for this class of cyclist. The inconvenience of the gates is the price we pay for this imo.
Same applies to, say, an old lady out for a walk, or a mother with a buggy.
Again, the paths aren't just high-speed cycle tracks.
They're a shared community space for walkers etc too.

monument wrote: »

The potential for the canals as cycle routes is so high. They could become our "cycling superhighways" (closer to the Netherlands or Denmark, rather than London). If you only had to stop at junctions -- ie only around 3-4 times between Adamstown and town -- there is a huge advantage even for slower cyclists to not have to stop all the time.

But there's too much fear of the unknown and nobody will bash heads of all those involved together.

Fully agree, if more canal paths were developed on a large scale nationwide we could become a very attractive destination for cycle tourists.
But how would they get their panniers through the gates?:pac:

monument

seeing_ie wrote: »

monument wrote: »

What other amenities in the city have been wrecked?

Fairview park, there's been some serious muggings and assaults there the last few years. Fatalities. No go area at times because of the relative isolation of the path there.
Liffey boardwalk to some extent I suppose. Can be unnattractive to tourists, visitors and others at times because of anti-social behaviour.

Does at times re Fairview Park park mean after dark? Isn't this like most parks in cities, as in people avoid them after dark. The only death I can think of in recent years happened on the footpath on the main road and not in the park -- it was after an argument at a nearby nightclub.

The boardwalk has improved hugely due to good policing and wider actions recently.

None of these problems are comparable to the use of kissing gates, and with the park and boardwalk it was never suggested that some of the intended primary uses should suffer restricted access. This kind of thinking only happens with cyclists for some reason. More people useing these actually helps improves things, just as with the greenway.

seeing_ie wrote: »

monument wrote: »

My point re Dublin Bikes in my last post is important here -- you can't stop everything because of some unknown, unproven fear.

Wasn't aware of opposition to Dublin Bikes for those reasons tbh.

monument wrote: »

there's already loads of large gaps in the greenery and fencing which already allows horses and scramblers access onto the greenway.

Maybe there'd be more horses and scramblers along the length of the route if you took away the gates.

Maybe if they put rental bikes on the streets if Dublin City all the bikes would be smashed up, and thrown into the canals and river? Oh, wait...

seeing_ie wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Even if the gates stamped out the above (which it does not in the case of horses etc and cannot in the case of other anti-social behaviour), the price of restricting and stopping many primary users is too high.

I don't think inconvenience is too high a price to pay for a safe, attractive, route for all classes of users, walkers and cyclists. The few tandems & cargo bikes out there can't be accomodated currently imo.
Take the example of a female cyclist commuting in the evenings. A couple of muggings or whatever along the route and the percieved safety of the route takes a nosedive.
We want to make the route as attractive as possible for this class of cyclist. The inconvenience of the gates is the price we pay for this imo.
Same applies to, say, an old lady out for a walk, or a mother with a buggy.
Again, the paths aren't just high-speed cycle tracks.
They're a shared community space for walkers etc too.

How on earth do kissing gates stop "muggings or whatever"???

Surely the kissing gates slow down and block all users and thus increases the actual risk (from a mugger) and perceived risk (from bunch of teenagers / drunks etc at the gates).

A lot of big prams won't fit in the gates, and a large amount of people use panniers and growing amouts use trailers and cargo bikes, including women. The route should be ripe for tourism but the gates stop touring cyclists with their many large and heavy panniers.

Also by keeping the route less attractive and decreasing the amount of users on it safety is reduced for everybody. You do want cyclists like me who will intervene if trouble arises.

And I don't know why you keep getting caught up on the idea of "high-speed" cycling, the gates are a disadvantage to even the slowest of cyclist.

seeing_ie wrote: »

monument wrote: »

The potential for the canals as cycle routes is so high. They could become our "cycling superhighways" (closer to the Netherlands or Denmark, rather than London). If you only had to stop at junctions -- ie only around 3-4 times between Adamstown and town -- there is a huge advantage even for slower cyclists to not have to stop all the time.

But there's too much fear of the unknown and nobody will bash heads of all those involved together.

Fully agree, if more canal paths were developed on a large scale nationwide we could become a very attractive destination for cycle tourists.
But how would they get their panniers through the gates?:pac:

By removing the useless gates which clearly have no benefits and which likely increase danger for users. :pac:

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

I tried out that route when it opened and never used it again due to the crazy number of gates. The type of gate pictured above is an improvement since it would mean I could get through without getting off the bike. I think it would be a good idea to have two of them, one on each side (as in you choose which one to use, you don't have to go through both).

I assume the engineers are tasked with finding a solution that allows bicycles but stops motorbikes so they are probably going to end up with something that won't allow panniers or trailers. This sucks for them but it is an improvement. I also think it is great to have a trial and ask for feedback rather than simply deciding on a new solution and implementing it without asking anyone.

The best way to fix this issue is to have gates only at the entry and exit points from the route. This is the main thing that annoyed me about the current system, I had to go through gates between two sections which were already supposedly secure. To allow end to end protection the route would need to be modified so that every entry/exit was on a spur like on a motorway, if you want to get off you cycle down the slip lane and use your gate, if you want to stay on the route you just go right past. This would require the path to go under or over the roads with under being easier and already done in at least one point. The problem with that is the expense and a different set of security issues (people tend not to like going in to pedestrian tunnels after dark).

enas

Has this route any street light at all? I don't know, but I would believe that good street lighting is significantly more effective in increasing the feeling of safety than any kind of gates, which, as it has been very well argued by others here, will always bring an inconvenience to legitimate users, no matter how you design them.

A classic piece of reading from Hembrow on the subject - there's more than street lighting: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

And a few more posts (look for those on street lighting) on social safety: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/social%20safety

galwaycyclist

enas wrote: »

Has this route any street light at all? I don't know, but I would believe that good street lighting is significantly more effective in increasing the feeling of safety than any kind of gates, which, as it has been very well argued by others here, will always bring an inconvenience to legitimate users, no matter how you design them.

A classic piece of reading from Hembrow on the subject - there's more than street lighting: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

And a few more posts (look for those on street lighting) on social safety: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/social%20safety

And of course in the Netherlands these routes would likely be open to mopeds anyway - as express design users.

carthoris

enas wrote: »

Has this route any street light at all?

Yes it has a reasonable amount of street lighting and also on many of the lamp posts they have security cameras.

carthoris

tomasrojo wrote: »

It does look as if even one pannier will mean you can't get through. Though you probably can get through by lifting the back of the bike. But, of course, if you're carrying much weight or aren't very strong it's not much use.

I traveled on this canal path this evening to try out those new gates. They are an improvement - I could now get by the gate without dismounting. I had one pannier with only a few small items in it so it was almost empty. I did have to come to a stop and balanced myself by putting a hand on the gate and the pannier did drag against the gate despite being nearly empty. So although it is an improvement it is still frustrating. I probably won't increase my usage of the canal path as to me the inconvenience of it outweighs the benefit.

psychward

How are you supposed to push a buggy or a pram down these paths ?
And what about old ladies who usually carry their shopping home from Dunnes etc in bags on wheels ? Those gates seem designed to drive everyone out of there apart from mobile teens and kids on smaller bikes who would fit through much more easily. If the whole purpose is to eliminate speeding from there instead of just eliminating the local population from there then why not just stagger some barriers instead ?

carthoris

psychward wrote: »

How are you supposed to push a buggy or a pram down these paths ?
And what about old ladies who usually carry their shopping home from Dunnes etc in bags on wheels ? Those gates seem designed to drive everyone out of there apart from mobile teens and kids on smaller bikes who would fit through much more easily. If the whole purpose is to eliminate speeding then why not just stagger some barriers instead ?

There is a 'kissing-gate' to the right of the gate pictured above. That would allow most prams, buggies and shopping trollies through, although some of the larger ones would be a struggle.

The purpose is not to eliminate speeding but to stop people who should not be using it - cars, motorcycles etc. Unfortunately in doing so it is also inconveniencing the users it is meant to be for.

psychward

carthoris wrote: »

The purpose is not to eliminate speeding but to stop people who should not be using it - cars, motorcycles etc. Unfortunately in doing so it is also inconveniencing the users it is meant to be for.

Ah I see. Makes more sense to me to hit car and motorbike users with hefty fines instead especially since the state needs all the money it can get. Don't the Garda spend huge amounts of their time as tax collectors anyway ?

seeing_ie

monument wrote: »

By removing the useless gates which clearly have no benefits and which likely increase danger for users. :pac:

Agree to disgree on this one I think.
You see inconvenience, me, less so.
I see security value, you less so.

enas

seeing_ie wrote: »

Agree to disgree on this one I think.
You see inconvenience, me, less so.
I see security value, you less so.

You guys do disagree, that's a fact. I would agree however with the idea that the only way to tell who's right would be to test, for a meaningful amount of time, both alternatives (well, only one in fact, the other being the present situation). Only then speculations from either of you will be proved correct or unfounded.

Icepick

Public Service solution:

FFS

monument

Icepick wrote: »

Public Service solution:

FFS

Where exactly is that?

Do you mind if I use your image for the weekly cycle lane feature on IrishCycle.com?