Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Cycling & walking: Can anybody stop councils from mixing both?

  • 10-01-2014 09:41PM
    #1
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    I'm seeing an increasing amount of "shared use" in street and road redesign projects across Ireland -- it now seems to be the default for new designs and redesigns to mix people on foot and those on bicycles. This is regardless of the fact that many people dislike mixing the two modes of transport.

    There has also been a national move in places to copy Dublin's mistake of just reclassing footpaths as shared use path.

    There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.

    It's really seems like a compromise too far -- the two don't mix well, and many cyclists (legally) keep to the road. Why can't we follow the examples in Denmark or the Netherlands, rather than following the failed design of shared use?

    Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?


«134

Comments

  • #2
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    I've raised this with my local labour councillor a number of times and to say he doesn't give a crap would be an understatement. A new cycle\walking route is being put in on the royal canal from Maynooth heading west and at a community council meeting made a smart remark about pedestrians already saying they won't like it. I asked him if the two will be separated by anything and he dismissed me and said no. So I told him that's why and cyclists wont like it either for the same reason. fair play to the council for putting this in but a simple divide - even a 1ft railing would improve it dramatically.


  • #3
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    It's symptomatic of the generally held notion that cyclists will manage to find a way. It's incredibly bothersome to ALL involved (peds and drivers too) that cyclists are just shoehorned in wherever convenient. Not enough space to build a proper cycle lane? Let them share the footpath with pedestrians. Footpath not wide enough? Send them back down into the carriageway.

    It's no wonder there are so many cyclist-haters out there. Cyclists are often made into a nuisance because Councils cannot make up their mind on how to treat them.

    ETA: Also, can we try not to let this degenerate into a cyclist-bashing thread? It's actually a very interesting topic raised in the OP.


  • #4
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    monument wrote: »
    There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.
    Shared cyclepaths/ footpaths don't work. In my experience, the painted line and painted bicycles and pedestrians make no difference to pedestrians, who treat the whole width as a footpath. One that I use regularly has benches on the cycling side of the shared path, so who can really blame people for not taking it seriously when the councils clearly don't either!

    I'm not sure what the answer is, as properly seperated cycle paths, (eg along the Grand Canal in Dublin), are treated as additional footpaths too.

    By the way, on the photo's posted, on my bike, I'd go up the outside of that line of cars, and cut in at the top/ when traffic started moving if I was going left and straight on.


  • #5
    Woodround
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭Woodround


    Macy0161 wrote: »

    I'm not sure what the answer is, as properly seperated cycle paths, (eg along the Grand Canal in Dublin), are treated as additional footpaths too.

    This is not entirely accurate. A very large chunk of the cycle path along the grand canal is shared with pedestrians.


  • #6
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    This is a thread started about preventing cyclists from intimidating pedestrians. It has a lot of posts about motorists and roads and so forth which are irrelevant. Somebody assaulted by a cyclist needs to take a case against a council.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    This is a thread started about preventing cyclists from intimidating pedestrians. It has a lot of posts about motorists and roads and so forth which are irrelevant. Somebody assaulted by a cyclist needs to take a case against a council.

    The problem (methinks) is that pedestrians are intimidated by the sportive section of cyclists where they often exhibit the same MGIF exhibted by a lot of motorists, if cyclists were subjected to speed limits on shared facilities I would wager that the intimidation factor would be drasticly cut, much the same as when motorists are subjected to 20 - 30 Kph limits the intimidation from them is reduced in school and built up areas


  • #8
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Woodround wrote: »
    This is not entirely accurate. A very large chunk of the cycle path along the grand canal is shared with pedestrians.
    Fair point, I was more thinking in my (work) back yard, which is the Lesson Street to Grand Canal Street section. This section is properly seperated, and cycle path only, but it's not at all respected by pedestrians. Why would they enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?


  • #9
    SilverLiningOK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 218 ✭✭SilverLiningOK


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Cycling on the footpath is illegal, which is why the "shared use" issues identified by the OP are problematic.

    I'll simplify it for you and Hilly Bill: there is no law or set of laws obliging cyclists to sit at the end of a queue of stationary traffic. If there is some specific law that I don't know about, please post the details here.

    Expecting cyclists to queue like motorised vehicles, whether because of begrudgery or legalistic notions, is pure nonsense, for good reasons already outlined in this thread and elsewhere. In the context of finite road space in urban areas cyclists are not "like everyone else", ie motorists. Only one mode of transport is causing traffic congestion: can you guess which one?

    Copehagenize once again illustrates car centric street "design" beautifully with this - a short history of traffic engineering

    Putting people cycling onto footpaths to share with people walking does no good for either. Some the older shared schemes, with marking long faded have either gone out of use for bicycles or cause much confusion for pedestrians. On top of that people using motorised vehicles seem to have no qualms at all for parking on cycling infrastructure, which they mostly get away with. To encourage greater numbers to cycle safety we need separation with clear demarcation such as used in NL and DK. Anything less is not fit for purpose and therefore will not be used. Would a person driving continue to use a road full of potholes, with large flooded patches, full of debris, long detours, poor connectivity etc. ? I doubt it.

    Top 10 Design Elements In Copehagen's Bicycle Culture video series is worth watching to show what is possible to do in a city.


  • #10
    Woodround
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭Woodround


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Why enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?

    Not sure why you're asking me that as it is not something I tend to do.


  • #11
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Woodround wrote: »
    Not sure why you're asking me that as it is not something I tend to do.
    It was a rhetorical question!


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Thread split and posts moved -- I'm at pains to move so many posts but I've explained in more detail on the new thread.

    Please try to keep on top here of mixing the modes of cycling and walking.


  • #13
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Fair point, I was more thinking in my (work) back yard, which is the Lesson Street to Grand Canal Street section. This section is properly seperated, and cycle path only, but it's not at all respected by pedestrians. Why would they enjoy walking along the fantastic amenity of the canal, when they can walk beside a road and get in the way of cyclists?

    The sections is mostly fine, the problem is what's at both ends of the section. On the Grand Canal Street end:

    6869502012_b1c8f52a48.jpg
    6869503498_f16b11d825.jpg

    And the Leeson Street Lower end:

    6869602728_f49b48b191.jpg
    6869481360_5e9575dc61.jpg
    7015593141_02ff65b5d3.jpg

    Mixing cycling and walking at the Leeson Street Lower end is more forgiveable given the space constraints, but even with that it feels like more could have been done (for starters, trimming or cutting the hedge back and not having different surface levels at the lock).


  • #14
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    That fourth pic looks horrible.


  • #15
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/
    After spending nearly €1.5 million on this pedestrian bridge over the River Moy adapting it for cyclists was easy: just add a shared use sign and a bicycle logo on the ground. Forget about the kerb between the road and the bridge. No need for a small ramp for easy access — as we know all cyclists use mountain bikes and can easily mount the kerb.

    Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?


  • #16
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    monument wrote: »
    The sections is mostly fine, the problem is what's at both ends of the section. On the Grand Canal Street end:

    6869502012_b1c8f52a48.jpg
    6869503498_f16b11d825.jpg

    And the Leeson Street Lower end:

    6869602728_f49b48b191.jpg
    6869481360_5e9575dc61.jpg
    7015593141_02ff65b5d3.jpg

    Mixing cycling and walking at the Leeson Street Lower end is more forgiveable given the space constraints, but even with that it feels like more could have been done (for starters, trimming or cutting the hedge back and not having different surface levels at the lock).
    No Pants wrote: »
    That fourth pic looks horrible.

    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers


  • #17
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

    I can safely say I've never attempted to try for a Strava PB anywhere at all, and usually use a Dublinbike as my road bike is overkill for the short spin to work. However, the layout of the canal cycle path is still a pain in the ass and still causes problems. You seem to be conflating "wanting well-designed cycle facilities" with "being a raging jerk".


  • #18
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    desertcircus wrote: »
    I can safely say I've never attempted to try for a Strava PB anywhere at all, and usually use a Dublinbike as my road bike is overkill for the short spin to work. However, the layout of the canal cycle path is still a pain in the ass and still causes problems. You seem to be conflating "wanting well-designed cycle facilities" with "being a raging jerk".

    Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes


  • #19
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes

    The problems with Dublin's cycle lanes are less to do with speed and more to do with ease of use. If the frustrating aspects of a cycle lane are bad enough compared to using the road, people will use the road. Cycle lanes that come to a dead stop, or require you to weave around pedestrians, do slow you down, but more importantly they're a pain in the ass to use compared to using roads.


  • #20
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

    What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being a race track?

    In any case, most of the shared use pictured is not effective in slowing everybody down.

    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/

    Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?

    You know well I'm the author of that so stop your trolling.

    Where does it say that I want any of those things?

    Maybe we should have a three to four inch kerb anywhere motorists are allowed to cross footpaths? Because that's what would be comparable to what that kerb pictured means to people using bicycles.

    Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?


  • #21
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Maybe just my colored view of the prick I encountered earlier today, unhappily though I do seem to be meeting more and more as time passes

    That is how life works as you live you gain experiences both bad and good


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    monument wrote: »
    What are you talking about? Who said anything about it being a race track?

    In any case, most of the shared use pictured is not effective in slowing everybody down.




    You know well I'm the author of that so stop your trolling.

    Where does it say that I want any of those things?

    Maybe we should have a three to four inch kerb anywhere motorists are allowed to cross footpaths? Because that's what would be comparable to what that kerb pictured means to people using bicycles.

    Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?

    Who's trolling ( you really need to get a new catch phrase ), there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists, like the Millenium Bridge

    or Sean O'Casey bridge


    Can't find the link to the Halfpenny Bridge I saw a while back but you get the idea.

    I suppose the question is why are people complaining when they don't even obey the laws as they are now?


  • #23
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists



    So that's "several" bridges that don't accommodate cyclists.

    A question (from someone who doesn't know Dublin well): if people want to cycle from City Quay to Custom House Quay, and from Wellington Quay to Ormond Quay Lower, (a) what route must they take, and (b) what is the total distance compared to crossing over the pedestrian bridge in each case?


  • #24
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So that's "several" bridges that don't accommodate cyclists.

    A question (from someone who doesn't know Dublin well): if people want to cycle from City Quay to Custom House Quay, and from Wellington Quay to Ormond Quay Lower, (a) what route must they take, and (b) what is the total distance compared to crossing over the pedestrian bridge in each case?

    They don't accommodate motorists either do they! Your point being that you're too lazy to follow the correct traffic route or what?


  • #25
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie -- any change of you answering any of the questions in my last post?

    Even just answer this question: Could you explain how a child, somebody on a loaded touring bicycle, or a parent carrying a child is supposed to mount and dismount a kerb somewhere between 1.5 and 2 inches high?

    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Who's trolling ( you really need to get a new catch phrase ), there are several pedestrian only bridges that are used with gay abandon by cyclists, like the Millenium Bridge

    or Sean O'Casey bridge

    Can't find the link to the Halfpenny Bridge I saw a while back but you get the idea.

    If you bothered to read the opening post, you'd see that the thread is the opposite of a call to mix cyclists and pedestrians.

    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers

    .....

    I suppose the question is why are people complaining when they don't even obey the laws as they are now?

    Your last few posts you have had some rather strange statements which seem to have no link with this thread.

    You then refuse to answer questions about how your random statement links with the topic at hand and then you post more randomness. There's a pattern to this and it's what got you banned here before and got banned permanently from the cycling forum.


  • #26
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Interesting to note that Cian Ginty wrote http://irishcycle.com/2014/01/20/irish-cycle-facility-of-the-week/



    Trying to make my mind up does he want to not slow cyclists up to share the bridge safely or if he wants a cyclists only bridge to built by the side of it?

    The sarcasm may be lost on you somewhere
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them,

    We all know you've never cycled in Dublin, but that's basically a blind corner so if you're taking it tight due to mixing with pedestrians and come through the gap, a cyclist and pedestrian may not see each other until right on top of each other. In fact the continuation of the cycle path there is not even obvious from the other side of the bridge.


  • #27
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    They don't accommodate motorists either do they! Your point being that you're too lazy to follow the correct traffic route or what?


    According to yourself there are several bridges (all of them over the Liffey?) that prohibit cycle traffic. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that a local authority has deliberately created a situation whereby people wishing to cycle across the city centre are expected to take detours on one-way systems designed for cars.

    For example, with regard to the Sean O'Casey Bridge, Google Maps suggests that the travel distance between the opposite ends of the bridge via the one-way system is 1.5 km, whereas the distance across the bridge is 140 metres.

    What kind of urban "planner" thinks it smart to expect people to cycle ten times further than pedestrians have to walk in order to get from A to B?

    What kind of urban "planner" constructs several city-centre bridges that impose the same restrictions on bicycles as on cars?


  • #28
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What is it with cyclists that see any time they have to slow down ( for ANY reason ) as being a slight on them, Dublin city or in fact any city/town is for commuting in NOT a flippin race track to try for your best ever Strava time, you want to compete in time trials against your own PB or others take it away from city centers
    I never mentioned speed, I was more referring to the fact that it's going to be an awkward manoeuvre through a gap between two walls. A gap that is also used by pedestrians.


  • #29
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    monument wrote: »
    the thread is the opposite of a call to mix cyclists and pedestrians.


    Again using the example of the Sean O'Casey Bridge, it ought to have been clear to any properly-educated roads engineer/urban planner that cyclists, when presented with a choice between taking a traffic-free 140 metre route and a 1.5 km one-way road system, are going to opt for the shortest and most convenient route.

    The complaints about cyclists on the Sean O'Casey Bridge show that mixing cyclists and pedestrians is not a good idea in this case.

    Cyclists should have been provided for when the bridge was being planned and designed. Why was that not done? Cost, perhaps? Apathy? Ignorance?


  • #30
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The complaints about cyclists on the Sean O'Casey Bridge show that mixing cyclists and pedestrians is not a good idea in this case.

    Cyclists should have been provided for when the bridge was being planned and designed. Why was that not done? Cost, perhaps? Apathy? Ignorance?

    Or they just wanted a pedestrian bridge?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    desertcircus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Daith wrote: »
    Or they just wanted a pedestrian bridge?

    If someone in charge of planning deliberately tried to exclude cyclists from a bridge between two cycle lanes, they deserve to be fired.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement