Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Dutch bicycle roundabout above road junction
-
23-08-2012 11:28pm#1Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 90688
Comments
-
-
-
I used to live very close to there
There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.
http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90688
I remember the underpass on the roundabout in Ballymun. And how scary it seemed with the short lines of sight.I used to live very close to there There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.
http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90688
-
-
What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:
I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.
In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.
Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).
Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this!
) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that??? 0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish and Proud wrote: »What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:
I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.
In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.
Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).
Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this!) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that???
Err...
If anybody from the NTA are reading this, could you please tell me are you also asking what's going on?
Wicklow Town Relief Road and Dutch, you put those in the same line?!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Irish and Proud wrote: »Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists - now I realize it's the Dutch model they seem to be getting their inspiration from.
The ball is now in your court...
Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.
Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.
As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:
Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:
Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:
No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:
The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:
0 -
Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:
It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.
EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.0 -
Firstly, great pictures I must say. On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.
Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.
As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:
Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:
Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:
There should be a crossing point just before the bridge (probably not enough room on the bridge) and therefore, the right filter lane IMO. However, it should also be noted that cars turning left from the main road happen to cross the pedestrian/cycle way after making the turn. Although there is no left lane or slip, the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists, and that the cycle/pedestrian path is not on the blindside for motorists having initially made the left turn - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:
It's good in principle, but agree that it should be wider to give more comfort to pedestrians/cyclists.The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:0 -
Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:
It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.
EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.
Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.
You should send those images to the NTA!
Regards!0 -
Advertisement
-
Irish and Proud wrote: »Firstly, great pictures I must say.
To be clear: All images from Google Street View.Irish and Proud wrote: »On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.
Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.
And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.Irish and Proud wrote: »Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.
There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.Irish and Proud wrote: »...the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.
As above, it's not important.Irish and Proud wrote: »Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.
You should send those images to the NTA!
Regards!
I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.
Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.0 -
Well it's still good to have them posted...To be clear: All images from Google Street View.Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.
And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.
If I had my way, there would be no private property with direct access to a new/upgraded main road - the small left pockets I'm talking about would be for the mere few cases that might fall through the net for some reason - small pockets could also be used for access to beaches, parks, playgrounds etc. Speaking of low traffic volume, roads such as the Wicklow Port (Port? :rolleyes:) Access wouldn't be built as I would crush the parish pump system - the actual Wicklow Town Relief Road (R750 link) is IMO a good idea.There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.
Well it should be for cyclists too...As above, it's not important.
Well as a cyclist, it doesn't matter to you if traffic is held up - I'm not looking at this road design from a partisan point of view - I'm trying to be inclusive - also as a motorist, it's quite natural that I'm not going to be anti-car. IMO, the left turn design on the road in question is safer in that if motorists had to give way to pedestrians/cyclists, the cycle track would not be on the blindside as the motorists will already have made the turn (please refer to Holland) - maybe when a few of your cycling mates are killed or injured on these new NTA designs, you might appreciate that my ideas are not just car oriented. I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of knocking down a cyclist I didn't see coming from behind.I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.
Agreed for the most part! - Regarding the centre of traditional towns, I'd be using a concentric modal model similar to what's used in some towns in France - the cars go around the town and in, but not through - the town centre is primarily for people (and presumably cyclists) - Vannes in Brittany for example.Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.
Roundabouts that cater properly for all modes would be my priority - funny enough, the old Ballymun Roundabout did just that for a heavy traffic situation - I used it a long time ago myself. I have to reiterate - if we're going to take cycling seriously, we have to put the dosh in - simple as. BTW, I believe that in Holland, 59% commute by car and 25% commute by cycling - the other modes are quite insignificant (16% for the remainder). I'll try and dig up the information source later, but if we are going to follow the Dutch model, then we have to follow the Dutch model (not pseudo-Dutch nonsense) - that means properly catering for motorists and cyclists (and in the Irish case, pedestrians). Walking is IMO quite a popular mode in Ireland given it's flexibility and interchangeability with all modes including public transport, cycling and motoring.
Regards!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Irish and Proud wrote: »Well Ok! I was really talking in general. However, I still think it is important that when a motorist is yielding to cyclists/pedestrians upon turning, the cycle/pedestrian path is properly visible to motorists as they're about to cross - having it coming up right beside you on the blind side is IMO dangerous.
...
No! I said yielding to cyclists coming up on the blind side - what I want is a yield to pedestrian cyclists having made the turn where-upon the cycle/pedestrian path is relatively perpendicular to motorists (for side roads). At main signalized junctions, what I want is equal priority where straight through pedestrians/cyclists get the same priorty as straight through motorists - left turning traffic would only get the same priority as right turning traffic so as to eliminate conflict altogether.
Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are!Irish and Proud wrote: »Also, most current NTA designs do not have any scope for 2 way cycling on both sides of the road.
The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.Irish and Proud wrote: »75% agree - however, with no pocket turning into a side road and aggressive drivers behind you, I just don't think that idea will work in Ireland where there's a relatively high volume of motor traffic and cyclists - I've been screaming for a clampdown on aggressive drivers - they shouldn't be on the road IMO
Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.Irish and Proud wrote: »The roundabout wasn't perfect, but did you see the gombeenism that has taken it's place. My principle is: Grade Separation and Segregation is a good thing where there's excessive conflict, but it's the cars that must be Grade Separated and Segrated, not the pedestrians and cyclists - such should be left to their natural routes as much as is possible - also cars should be grade separated downwards rather than up so as to not injure visual amenity and block out natural light .....................
Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.
Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.0 -
Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are!
Speaking of Dutch, have a look at this!!!:D:D
from a page on >>www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com<<!!!The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.
The following is the common theme for the various signal junction designs from the >>National Cycle Manual<<:
Please tell me how you can safely achieve 2 way cycling on both sides of the road with the above design - if you want proper cycling infrastructure that serves local as well as long distance cyclists, then there should be 2 way cycling available on both sides of the road - two way paths also allow cyclists to avoid awkward right turns once they can cross over midway between main junctions.Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.
What are you on about? Of course I'm referring to the main urban centres - starting with Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Kilkenny - Kilkenny (due to it's size) could make a good pilot project for new sustainable transport innovations - it has a good substantial ring road (with plans for an almost complete o-ring) which is a start towards the European model.Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.
and are you telling me what's there now is working??? :rolleyes:Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.
You should know well by now that I was only quoting Wicklow for design reference purposes and no I wouldn't be suggesting grade separation there - no need IMO. About the M50, the interchanges were designed before the NRA assumed the role of cycle track provision nationwide - AFAIK, cycling wasn't their responsibility and they fulfilled what was required then - what I'd do there now would be to join up sections of old road (where cycle provision is seriously deficient) with high grade cycleways using gentle curves for ramps (these should be minimized as much as is possible) as opposed to what they're expected to use currently - not good enough IMO. For example, I'd put in a gentle curved flyover for cyclists from the Liffey Valley SC across the N4 and M50 highways to the old road at Palmerston where a circular loop would be used for the decent - this IMO would be far superior to the rubbish the have to contend with today. The planners should also look at widening the Westlink and in doing so, include a high grade cycle/pedestrian facility.
I just want to say that I have no interest in either auto-totalitarianism or auto-bashing - these positions are IMO childish. If Holland can provide for the car and bicycle, then why can't we??? It's a matter of appropriate use of each mode. Also, in making the country in general more cycling friendly, I'd do something about aggressive dogs coming onto the road (especially in rural areas), bike crime, teenage loitering and taunting of cyclists etc - these were the things that put me off cycling - something that I did for years. Now, cycling is taking off once again (even in rural areas) and that's why I've been changing my position - cycling now needs to be considered properly as well as pedestrians and motorists. I also think teenagers etc should be made cycle more and IMO, the minimum age for driving should seriously be looked at - more bikes please!!!
BTW, I recently help my little nephew to cycle - not doing too well in being anti-cyclist! 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
There is a certain view among some cyclists, and you would seem to be among them, that being pro-cycling means you must be anti-motorist.
Many people however, myself included, want solutions that benefit everyone. The Dutch roundabout in the O.P. certainly qualifies, as does to a certain extent even the "old" roundabout design, providing as it does segregated cycle paths around the RAB.
I drive a lot these days and don't even own a bike, but I have campaigned in the past for public transport, when such things were better organised (including the DART Underground, which I still believe in).
So if you want to build a cycle track, go for it! Same with commuter railway lines, and yes, things for motorists like motorways and whatnot (it's not as if we don't pay enough!).
Meanwhile you and your ilk believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.
With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"
You've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?
I'm anti-silliness. Like the silliness of around 100,000 people in Dublin driving between 0-4km to work or education. Or like the silliness of having a traffic light system so focused on moving traffic that j-walking is something most Dubliners do on mass without thinking. I'm also interested in moving people around in healthy and cost effective ways -- which benefits the individual and the state.
I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.
I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.
But increasing the levels of cycling does have a wide range of benefits for people, communities and the state -- in general and overall, more benefits than any other mode of transport.Meanwhile you and your ilk believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.
With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"
The Killiney Towers Roundabout is far from perfect last time I seen it, but it's not in the least bit dangerous compared to what was there before. But, hey, according to you the council put it there for "no purpose other the ****ing motorists over" EDIT: ...is there any point in arguing with such an extreme view? And you are the one with the extreme view here, as the design at the Killiney Towers Roundabout still seems to be working, even if some small tweeks would help it.
How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists? Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so?
0 -
I edited my post my post to take it down a notchYou've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.
I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.
What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit?How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists?
Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 10 miles of a 15 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so?0 -
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.
Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.
But talking about extremists....What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.
I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:
Not a 90 degree turn:
No 90 degree turn off:
The next turn, no 90 degree turn:
I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
Are you sure you're not being an extremist?Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.
Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?
But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?0 -
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.
Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.
But talking about extremists....What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.
I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:
Not a 90 degree turn:
No 90 degree turn off:
The next turn, no 90 degree turn:
I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
Are you sure you're not being an extremist?Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.
Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?
But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?
I was at the Killiney Towers Roundabout myself and no, they're not as generous as the images suggest - that camera IMO has a long lense. Now, the turns are not 90 deg. either but are rather tight - one or two of them are even tight for cyclists. Solution might be to leave the cycle track as is (except the tight turns) and construct a smaller proper roundabout further in with proper perpendicular yields to cyclists upon exiting - that IMO would be closer to the Dutch model - I would use continental geometry, but not like the NTA specs.
About Slane, I'm a Meathman, so don't even go there - I don't think you know what you're talking about - 22 people have died there. I don't think it's even suitable for cyclists - they probably need the bypass too given the steep ascents/descents.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me. I used to live in Dublin, and on a couple of occasions I drove out to Dalkey and that area, before these works were done, and if this is the same RAB I remember, the old version was quite big and worked quite well, from a motorist POV, but could have used better cycling facilities, to be sure.I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.
Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.Are you sure you're not being an extremist?
By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.
I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.
Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."
So that's all their problems sorted then :rolleyes: I'm sure.I don't need to ever write a reply to that, somebody else has here: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/13/4004252-no-deaths-in-slane-since-traffic-calming/
The letter you linked to also makes sure to paint the people of Slane as some kind of vile evil monsters, floating their dead like zombies in some nefarious plot to build a needless road that will demolish Newgrange or something, all for no benefit. All they're missing out there in Slane it seems is someone like this
and a Sphinx cat.
And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!0 -
<snip>I don't need to ever write a reply to that, somebody else has here: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/13/4004252-no-deaths-in-slane-since-traffic-calming/
I really can't let that one go...
...that article is the greatest load of rubbish - OK, there were no deaths, but:
This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!
BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ya better be careful there Patrick, or you might be called an extremist too :rolleyes:
My questioning if you were an extremist came from you first calling people extremists and then you making up stuff to support your position.Irish and Proud wrote: »...that article is the greatest load of rubbish...
This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!
Question:
Is it one notable accident and no deaths in over 10 years? And that's compared to 22 deaths in the previous 20 years?
If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?Irish and Proud wrote: »BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:
Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50... and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »I have to agree with SeanW that junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout has made it significantly harder for buses to negotiate their way in and out of junctions. While the junctions may not be 90 degree junctions, they are far from being friendly for vehicles exceeding 11 meters in length.
In other threads you were unable to answer how Dublin Bus's low level of buses using the roundabout were unable to manage on a daily bases. Do you have an answer yet?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »The purpose of the mountable cobble-lock buffer from the roundabout center presents it's own dangers. This is because the hind axle of long vehicles inherently becomes way too close to the traffic island itself which increases the likelihood of jack-knifing.
Err... now you're claiming the centre island which is designed to take large trucks etc, will cause a jack-knifing?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Irish and Proud took the words right out of my mouth by describing such "solutions:rolleyes:" as turn the clock back. Don't get me wrong monument, I do think that it is great that the government are actively encouraging cycling as a mode of transport. However,
However the next think you say is a nonsense reason why you would not promote cycling...patrickbrophy18 wrote: »mechanically driven modes of transport (such as trains, trams, buses, trucks and cars) are capable of reaching their destination in a much smaller amount of time than a bicycle.
Not true. From the Department of Transport:- Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
- For trips within the M50, the 2006 Census reveals average speed for cyclists of 14kph compared to 18 kph for cars.
As for buses, trams, and trains: Add in the time to:- to get to the station/stop
- from the station/stop
- waiting time for buses/trams/trains
...and cycling is a bit faster or a bit slower depending on trip - it compares very well for trips around and under 9km (ie the bulk of trips). The difference for the state is that investment in cycling costs a lot less than public transport and on going costs are tiny for cycling compared for rail or buses.
In the meanwhile, nothing compares to the health benefits of cycling and the return that can have for the state in health care savings.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »While I am somewhat impressed with the OP's picture, the one criticism I might make towards the layout of it is that the lower deck has been turned into a crossroads. This is because the free-flow element has been removed. As per SeanW's assertion of "benefit everyone", a double-decker roundabout is the ultimate solution given that they enable a free-flow mechanism for all modes of transport. In this case, pedestrians don't have to look left or right at all when traversing the roundabout as they would be passing over/under(depending on which level is allocated to cyclists and pedestrians and the level allocated to motorised traffic) the flow of motorised traffic. For the same reason, cyclists wouldn't have to worry about being cut off by motorised traffic. Ergo, no tightening of junctions is necessary for motorised traffic. YAY!:D
The 'bottom deck' is an increase in capacity.I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me.
The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.
Patrick is quite fond of exaggeration.Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.
By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.
What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?
Conor Faughnan cycles, he also seems supportive of Dart etc, and I would not call him an "AA stooge".I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.
Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."
I guess you're an extremist on one small level because you see anything from tight corners (standard practice of making urban roads safer) and you can't even see the benefit in restricting the dominance of cars in areas which should be free for children to play in!
Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist. Extremists tent to not think they are extremists.And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!
In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.0 - Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
-
Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
No, but it helps if you're an actual stakeholder, like the people who live in Slane are. But even if one is not a stakeholder, it would add some credibility to admit that maybe, just possibly those who actually are stakeholders, are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50...
It's the beauty of free speech - when someone is as transparently full of shoite as "Save Newgrange" is, the paper giving them a platform is as good as giving them rope to hang themselves.and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?
My bad, I meant Google Images.The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.
I saw some images of the new RAB in blogs and the like and it looked like all the approach roads end in T-junctions at the roundabout. Suggested that the turns were ridiculously sharp.
I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?
Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist.
*Holds up a mirror to monument*Extremists tent to not think they are extremists.
And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.0 -
Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.
That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?...are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.
Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.
Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.
*Holds up a mirror to monument*
And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.
Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist.
IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.0 -
-
That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
You're talking about very steep gradients - what traffic calming do you propose - ramps, road narrowing and chicanes would be seriously asking for trouble - the speed limit there is already 30kph - the only extra thing that could be done IMO are average speed cameras measuring vehicles going through the village.Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.
I've driven through there recently and it's dangerous - simple as. The traffic in Slane can be extremely heavy at times - people living there have to contend with not one, but two main roads through their village (N2 and N51) and both with steep gradients (N51 from Drogheda has a very steep section) - that's no way for the people of Slane to live as far as I'm concerned!Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.
Re-balancing on our roads also means that the improved roads must work for everyone - there's this >>new scheme<< near Sandyford for example - bigger roads with pedestrian/cycle facilities they boast - but certainly not better IMO.
Take this >>proposed junction<< (PDF File - 1.9MB) for example. This is what's proposed for the current Leopardstown Roundabout. To me, their main priorities in the overall scheme are (not in any particular order):
1) M50 entry/egress traffic;
2) Cycling Facilities;
3) New Road Linkages from Sandyford to Leopardstown and Leopardstown to Murphystown (including cycle tracks).
The said junction won't work well IMO - most left turning traffic and pedestrians seem to be an afterthought and will this will ultimately impact on the effectiveness of 1 & 2 above:
1) Complete omission of 3 left lanes and slips (I've already stated my problem with left slip omission) - in fact, at least one of these turns (bottom left) could be removed completely as there's a proposed link road (Burton Hall Road Extension - commencement due next month) that will do more or less exactly the same job. The left turn on the opposite corner (top right) could probably bite the dust too as it would link 2 relatively parallel roads heading for the N11 Stillorgan Road - the funny thing is that neither of these turns have corresponding right filters, so is there really a need for these left turns at all. That's 2 down (literally), 1 to go (top left). This remaining left turn is probably required - now the focus of need shifts to cycle tracks - the ones on Burton Hall Road (I've already compromised the motorist). There is already one new cycle track along part of the old Harcourt line linking Sandyford to Leopardstown Road - there will be another in connection with the Burton Hall Road Extension (not Burton Hall Road, but perpendicular to it) - another thing is that the cycle tracks on the Burton Hall Road itself (left arm) lead to an at grade crossing with the Luas and on one of it's sharper curves - hardly a safe thing for cyclists. The cycle tracks on that stretch should IMO be omitted and the left lane from Burton Hall Road to Brewery Road can go ahead without any problem (subject to signals to allow cyclists to travel along the Brewery Road safely. So as a cyclist, you win some and lose some - cyclists would now have less left turning traffic to contend with on some of the other cycle tracks - one of my main reasons for the compete omission of 2 left turns (other reason is for re-alignment of pedestrian crossings - see #3 below).
2) Excessive crossing distance for pedestrians - especially those with mobility issues - on a tangential note, having visited Killiney Towers Roundabout, a very worrying thing was the vulnerability of old people, people with mobility issues (MS etc) etc on that Roundabout. Is there a right wing element creeping into urban road design - survival of the fittest? Buses forced to negotiate tight corners can't be good for old people either. I am devising road designs myself where pedestrians have no more than 2 lanes of traffic to cross at a time, but yet with signal phases long enough to allow 85% of pedestrians to comfortably clear a main road completely. Back to this junction - just look at the approach from Leopardstown Road West - how the hell are a reasonable percentage of people with mobility issues supposed to clear those 4 lanes in one go (that's 4 x 3.25m = 13m) - there should be an island in the middle - with the left slip (bottom left) gone, there's ample room under the Luas flyover to broaden out the road to accommodate the extra island - the main median AFAIK is occupied by a bridge pier. A little strip of land along Leopardstown Road West might be required. My real preference would be for grade separation of one of these busy traffic movements under the junction (completely) and out of the way - for pedestrians and cyclists, business as usual but with less traffic to contend with.
3) Staggered Pedestrian Crossings causes too much deflection and would probably force pedestrians to wait a second time (for traffic) in the refuge island (centre each arm) thereby wasting time. This IMO will encourage more jaywalking. These crossings should be aligned straight across the road to allow at least 85% of pedestrians to cross the entire road in one phase comfortably - the refuge island would be primarily for people with mobility issues. The propose layout, as it stands, is IMO designed to put people firmly in their place - the lack of left slips would exacerbate this situation - left slips with pedestrian priority (zebra crossing) would be preferable where ever significant left turning traffic is accommodated.Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist.
IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.
Look, we had auto-totalitarianism in the 1980's - it didn't work, then we had a spell of auto-bashing in the 1990's - it too didn't work - traffic is still as mad as hell in the city despite the cutbacks in road building there and the upgrading of the bus service. There are two things that actually worked well: (1) Luas Green Line (no need for government subsidy) and (2) Dublin Port Tunnel - with the pricing policy, it seems that Dublin has managed to build an inner urban motorway that actually works! :eek: The point I'm making is that we have got to see what works, where it works, when it works etc. In general, I think Luas is the way to go inside the M50 - I've even been drawing plans for a third Luas line - they're in my drawer actually. If there was a Luas Line from the Northside with a good Park 'n' Ride near the M50, I'd visit the city centre more often.
In short however, Cars are good for certain things, Cycling is good for certain things, Trains ", Buses ", Walking " - even Boats - look at New York etc. I also think it's time to scrap this stupid "Car Free Day" and replace it with something much more positive - "Sustainable Transport Day". Instead of banning cars (or trying! :rolleyes:) - promote public transport by allowing free rides that day and if the crowds come, put on more buses/trains where possible - promote walking and cycling - maybe free bikes with a deposit and let people try it out etc. Cycling is taking off and will replace many car journeys, but the car will remain an important mode along with the renaissance of cycling.
Regards!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJqX9LMk0RAAdvertisement