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.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

24

Comments

  • #32
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


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



    What might the rationale for that be, given the official support for cycling (at the level of rhetoric at least)?

    http://www.dublin.ie/transport/cycling-walking.htm

    Incidentally, there are reportedly "several" such bridges in Dublin, which suggests that there are several locations where Dublin City Council want to accommodate pedestrians but not cyclists. What's the unifying theme, and the overarching strategy?


  • #33
    bambergbike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 342 ✭✭bambergbike


    The bridges are a pretty key part of the bike infrastructure in Copenhagen; a lot has been done there and a lot more bridge-building will be going on in 2014 with the key aim of cutting the time taken by pedestrians and cyclists to cross the harbour.

    Separation between bikes and pedestrians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Iq-CXJYHw

    Cycling is facilitated like this in Copenhagen because they have done the maths and worked out that society earns 1,22 DKK for every kilometre cycled in Copenhagen and that each kilometre travelled by car costs society 69 cents.


  • #34
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What might the rationale for that be, given the official support for cycling (at the level of rhetoric at least)?

    http://www.dublin.ie/transport/cycling-walking.htm

    Incidentally, there are reportedly "several" such bridges in Dublin, which suggests that there are several locations where Dublin City Council want to accommodate pedestrians but not cyclists. What's the unifying theme, and the overarching strategy?

    Ask them.

    The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.


  • #35
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Daith wrote: »
    Ask them.

    The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.
    They break the bridge? Ah now, that's not on. :mad:


  • #36
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    No Pants wrote: »
    They break the bridge? Ah now, that's not on. :mad:

    Yes. Dublin ain't designed for bikes at all. Maybe someone should raise it as a topic sometime?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    The problem is that until cery recently, planners have had little, if any, input into the design of roads/bridges. That's been left to the engineers, who have different priorities to planners. With the ibtroduction of DMURS, however, these types of anomalies should be ironed out over time.


  • #38
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    The sarcasm may be lost on you somewhere



    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.

    Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    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?

    So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.


  • #39
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


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


    And never will be fired, unfortunately.

    Here in Galway the Roads department bungs in stretches of cycle lane here and there from time to time, and then the Parks department installs kissing gates to restrict access. They don't talk to each other before, during or after the process.


  • #40
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Daith wrote: »
    Ask them.

    The bottom line is that it's a bridge that states that cyclists are forbidden to use it. Which cyclists break every single day.



    That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.


    There's no lack of logic. What's lacking is proper provision for cycling. Shoddy "shared use" paths are unacceptable. Cheap and nasty pedestrian-only routes that systematically exclude cyclists by design are also unacceptable, imo.

    Galway City Council has made the city centre highly impermeable to cycling because of poorly-planned pedestrianisation and a convoluted network of one-way streets. It's highly inconvenient for cyclists, but what is the rationale for any authority to deliberately create such a cycle-hostile environment?


  • #41
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.

    Yes it is. Don't cycle on the bridge. It's for pedestrians only.

    Though I'm sure any well seasoned cyclist could cycle the three minutes it takes to get to the other bridges either side and cycle around there.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    That's not the bottom line actually, as any seasoned cyclist will tell you. Idiot "planners" and engineers in local authorities, and their enablers, wouldn't know a bottom line if it was stapled to their well-padded and well-supported derrieres.

    I take exception to that. As I said in my previous post, planners have historically had very little impact on how cycling infrastructure is designed. You will find that most planners are supportive of segregated and improved cycling infrastructure. The bottleneck is the councillors themselves who vote on development plans.

    Your flowery language is hiding your inexperience with how the system works.


  • #43
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits

    The it's a completely blind corner and a confined space with high volumes of people, so your comments about speed, like many of the comments you have made on the thread seem have little or no connection to what others have said.

    You are unwilling to engage in any questions people post about your post and then you keep posting disruptively with random comments.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So you see the logic then behind cyclists own arguments of not wanting to share facilities is so flawed that you have to do a complete turn around now to try and justify sharing a facility that pedestrians probably don't like sharing with cyclists but of course because it's convenient for cyclists to want to do something then it's OK.

    Nobody has said they want a shared facility -- bridges can easly accommodate segregation. You know, like most bridges, even narrower older ones manage to have segregation of footpaths and the roadway.

    All you seem interisted in doing is attacking cyclists and you're doing this even when you seem clueless of of the issues and clueless about cycling in general; thinking a 2" or 3" kerb is a speed limiting device is only of your more classical examples.


  • #44
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Which is probably a good enough reason to cycle at a reasonable pace and slow or even stop as required but methinks the thought of slowing down is somehow lost on a majority of cyclits
    Seriously, what are you on about?


  • #45
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Cheap and nasty pedestrian-only routes that systematically exclude cyclists by design are also unacceptable,

    What's unacceptable about it, do cyclists not have feet?


  • #46
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    No Pants wrote: »
    Seriously, what are you on about?

    The usual statements from cyclists tend to include things like travelling at a speed in which you can safely stop within the distance you can see, it would seem that yet again it's a case of one thing for cyclists and something else for others


  • #47
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,675 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    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

    you'd be perfectly fine with a piece of road being designed along the same lines as those bike lanes would you?


  • #48
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    you'd be perfectly fine with a piece of road being designed along the same lines as those bike lanes would you?

    Most roads are designated as shared
    edit And where they join with other routes or other roads usually have yield or stop signs , where they aren't present then extra care is supposed to be taken


  • #49
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    What's unacceptable about it, do cyclists not have feet?

    So do motorists. So you're saying it's acceptable for motorists to bring their cars over too ?


  • #50
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,346 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    The usual statements from cyclists tend to include things like travelling at a speed in which you can safely stop within the distance you can see, it would seem that yet again it's a case of one thing for cyclists and something else for others
    It would be very unusual for a cyclist not to be able to stop in the distance that he/she can see as their speed is considerably less than cars, but more importantly the weight is much less and therefore the momentum is less.

    However, at really low speeds bicycles can become unstable. So, using the picture that I referred to above, a cyclist is making a right-angled turn into a gap containing approaching pedestrians in no particular order at low speed. Hardly a desirable position to be in.

    Imagine if Henry Street was opened for cars, yet still left open for pedestrians. Add to that that you could only drive on two wheels, Dukes of Hazzard/Knight Rider style. So to travel safely, you'd have to lower your speed, but that would reduce the stability of your car while on two wheels.


  • #51
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes it is. Don't cycle on the bridge. It's for pedestrians only.

    Though I'm sure any well seasoned cyclist could cycle the three minutes it takes to get to the other bridges either side and cycle around there.


    You're missing the point entirely, and mere repetition of what you believe to be the "bottom line" doesn't change reality.


    Things are the way they are, not the way we'd like them to be. For some, that might mean being outraged at cyclists taking the most direct and convenient routes available to them, even when that means a 140 metre cycle over a pedestrian bridge instead of going ten times further via a one-way road system designed to facilitate motorised traffic flow.


    For others it might mean frustration at the way cycling has been designed out, neglected or sidelined by "planners" and engineers for decades, such as by failing to facilitate cyclists when a little more thought and funding would allow them to be properly accommodated alongside (not among) pedestrians.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Aard wrote: »
    I take exception to that. As I said in my previous post, planners have historically had very little impact on how cycling infrastructure is designed. You will find that most planners are supportive of segregated and improved cycling infrastructure. The bottleneck is the councillors themselves who vote on development plans.

    Your flowery language is hiding your inexperience with how the system works.




    Perhaps the planners in your locality are more enlightened than the "planners" in mine. However, I take your point that engineers and Councillors also have a central role. I wouldn't argue with that, but by their deeds shall ye know them.


    Not all road schemes come under Part 8 of the Planning Regulations. Therefore, sometimes Councillors can take the credit or blame, and on other occasions it's the engineers and/or planners.


    On schemes such as this travesty, the executive proposed and the elected members approved.


    The bigger problem, perhaps, is our dysfunctional system of local government.

    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    What's unacceptable about it, do cyclists not have feet?



    Missing the point entirely, but you're not alone in that unfortunately.


  • #53
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Things are the way they are, not the way we'd like them to be. For some, that might mean being outraged at cyclists taking the most direct and convenient routes available to them, even when that means a 140 metre cycle over a pedestrian bridge instead of going ten times further via a one-way road system designed to facilitate motorised traffic flow.

    It means cyclists going over a pedestrian bridge that specifically states "no bikes".

    The reality is cyclists shouldn't be using the bridge regardless if they feel it's more convenient for them.

    I think you are missing the point.


  • #54
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Daith wrote: »
    It means cyclists going over a pedestrian bridge that specifically states "no bikes".

    The reality is cyclists shouldn't be using the bridge regardless if they feel it's more convenient for them.

    I think you are missing the point.






    The reality is that many if not most cyclists will continue to take the most direct and convenient route, even when engineers/planners/whoever haven't bothered their arses to anticipate that and provide infrastructure accordingly.


    It's the same with desire lines in relation to pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrians will walk or cross where it's most direct and convenient, not where engineers/planners want them to (usually for traffic flow or cost-cutting reasons).


    No amount of pedantic pointing to signs will alter that reality. The proper official response should be to maximise the convenience of walking and cycling instead of making useless attempts to limit these modes of travel for no good reason.


  • #55
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The reality is that many if not most cyclists will continue to take the most direct and convenient route, even when engineers/planners/whoever haven't bothered their arses to anticipate that and provide infrastructure accordingly.

    Right so you're fine with cyclists going over a pedestrian bridge because it saves them time.


  • #56
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I'm not fine with planners/engineers/whoever excluding cyclists for no good reason and then expecting a small circular metal plate to take the place of sustainable and efficient transportation planning.


  • #57
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm not fine with planners/engineers/whoever excluding cyclists for no good reason and then expecting a small circular metal plate to take the place of sustainable and efficient transportation planning.

    So you are fine with cyclists using a pedestrian bridge to save time?


  • #58
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    See above.


    When in doubt refer to above.


    Repeat until penny drops.


  • #59
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,714 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    See above.


    When in doubt refer to above.


    Repeat until penny drops.
    I think the poster was looking for a simple, unequivocal, Yes or No answer, to the question that he actually asked.

    It would be very simple. Yes ... or No ...

    FWIW I would be interested in hearing an answer to this too, since in other contexts you seem to think that round signs with red borders should be treated as if they were placed by God himself.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #60
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The reality is that many if not most cyclists will continue to take the most direct and convenient route, even when engineers/planners/whoever haven't bothered their arses to anticipate that and provide infrastructure accordingly.


    It's the same with desire lines in relation to pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrians will walk or cross where it's most direct and convenient, not where engineers/planners want them to (usually for traffic flow or cost-cutting reasons).


    No amount of pedantic pointing to signs will alter that reality. The proper official response should be to maximise the convenience of walking and cycling instead of making useless attempts to limit these modes of travel for no good reason.

    So you are saying that cyclists will shaare pedestrian facilities whenever and where ever they feel the need, Soooooo why are people complaining when they are beimng allowed to share the facilities legally.... see the hypocrisy being exhibited by posters here!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,330 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    See above.


    When in doubt refer to above.


    Repeat until penny drops.

    I definitely missed your answer apparently. Much like the cyclists not seeing the "No Bikes" sign as they get on with their busy busy lives.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement