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

monument · 27-01-2014 04:41PM

Mod warning: Unless somebody has post clearly or even mildly clear that they support law breaking, don't try to claim that they do.

Claiming with little or no bases that somebody's argument amounts to law breaking falls under one of the definitions of trolling and will be treated as such.

SeanW · 27-01-2014 06:03PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Quote/link please.

You may not have been explicit, but you were asked a direct question - multiple times:

Daith wrote: »

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

Yet this evasive, condescending, mealy mouthed non-answer was the closest thing you gave to an answer:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

See above.

When in doubt refer to above.

Repeat until penny drops.

(The "above" being some boilerplate soapboxing on a different, imaginary question that was not asked). Despite the question being a simple, straightforward, Yes or No question.

Your repeated evasion evidently lead Daith to his own conclusions, no doubt others as well.

You now need not only to answer his question, I repeat:

Daith wrote: »

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

Again with a YES or NO answer.

And additionally to explain why you treated the question and the person who asked it with such extreme contempt and hostility.

Aard · 27-01-2014 06:28PM

I wonder if the consensus would be: It's not OK to cycle on a pedestrian-only bridge, but it would have been nice if such a bridge were originally designed to cater for both pedestrians and cyclists in a mutually respectful way.

Does that sum it up?

monument · 27-01-2014 06:57PM

Ad hominem attacks that try to negate an opinion by alleging negatives about the person supporting it = trolling.

Next person to baselessly ask if somebody supports breaking the law will be infracted and, if this continues, there will be bans handed out for trolling and/or ignoring mod instructions and/or bring the thread off topic.

Daith · 27-01-2014 07:32PM

Aard wrote: »

I wonder if the consensus would be: It's not OK to cycle on a pedestrian-only bridge, but it would have been nice if such a bridge were originally designed to cater for both pedestrians and cyclists in a mutually respectful way.

Does that sum it up?

Or what exactly is wrong with having a pedestrian only bridge though? Does everything have to cater to different groups?

Why shouldn't the bridge cater to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists in this case?

Aard · 27-01-2014 07:37PM

Yeah sure, that's an option too.

Sheldons Brain · 27-01-2014 10:22PM

This thread boils down to that everyone is a pedestrian some of the time and pedestrians are entitled to some facilities suited to their needs. There is a comfort in a pedestrianised area where everyone is moving at the same pace and you don't have to look over your shoulder at oncoming wheeled transport. Cyclists have a case for facilities too, and a real cause for complaint about the crap design of some so called cycle facilities, but their case should not be allowed impinge on the much larger number of pedestrians.

Spook_ie · 27-01-2014 11:03PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Which of these is the least efficient use of both (a) road space and (b) non-renewable energy?

(1) Car
(2) Bicycle
(3) Bus.

Considering the original question is the use of shared road space then hardly surprising that you now feel the need to move the goal posts by putting two variables to an argument, if the argument is against sustainable resources then yes petro carbon is going to lose out just because it's a non renewable source, however with the advent of carbon neutral bio mass fuels and other future technologies, is that always goiing to be the case?

But sticking to the ORIGINAL question then, the more people you can through put in a given time then the more efficent a design, excluding everything but bicycles ( which seems to be the cyclists answer ) is wrong plain and simple.

monument · 27-01-2014 11:25PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This thread boils down to that everyone is a pedestrian some of the time and pedestrians are entitled to some facilities suited to their needs. There is a comfort in a pedestrianised area where everyone is moving at the same pace and you don't have to look over your shoulder at oncoming wheeled transport. Cyclists have a case for facilities too, and a real cause for complaint about the crap design of some so called cycle facilities, but their case should not be allowed impinge on the much larger number of pedestrians.

Indeed, and you'll find many to most cyclists agree with this.

High-quality cycling facilities as seen in Denmark and the Netherlands keeps people on foot and those on bicycles separate 99% of the time -- and that adds to comfort for both types of road users.

Aard · 28-01-2014 02:29AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

[...] if the argument is against sustainable resources then yes petro carbon is going to lose out just because it's a non renewable source, however with the advent of carbon neutral bio mass fuels and other future technologies, is that always goiing to be the case?

This is a very interesting question, and one that I'm sure merits its own thread. This post is not directed at you Spook, just quoting because I found this line highly thought-provoking

I think, ultimately, the debate will centre around allowing the maximum of choice with the maximum of respect. So if somebody wants to driver their (for the sake of argument) electric car, they should be able to do so. And if somebody wants to bike to work, they should be accommodated too. Neither should be put out more than the other, is that reasonable? If we can all agree on that (I'm sure I've lost people by now), then the next hurdle is asking how we allocate, let's call it, the "space between buildings". (Shout out to Jan Gehl :pac:)

It's a balancing act between accommodating the current mode-split, while also anticipating the trend -- what are things gonna be like in 15 years? This generally means change. And people hate change! And given that vast majority of roadspace built since the 1950s is entirely car-oriented, that means that any change whatsoever is usually to the detriment of the car. Which makes it seem like cars are being specifically targetted. (In a way they are, but I suspect that it's not that people have an issue with the car and drivers per se, just that their specific preference isn't accommodated as much as the car is.)

It doesn't help that highly emotive phrases are used such as "the war on cars" or "rogue cyclists". These phrases and the sentiment behind them just mask the problem: that a society's values change constantly, and that some individuals' values will be on the up-trend, while others' are on the down-trend. And when it comes to values, there's no right or wrong -- it'd be like saying there's a right or wrong answer to "What's your favourite colour?" Maybe I'm philsophising a little too much for Commuting & Transport, but I really think that this is the crux of the issue.

Iwannahurl · 28-01-2014 04:25PM

Daith wrote: »

Or what exactly is wrong with having a pedestrian only bridge though? Does everything have to cater to different groups?

Why shouldn't the bridge cater to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists in this case?

Because the more infrastructure that is built for cars the more cars will use it eventually.

Because if the authorities fail to accommodate cyclists not in just one instance but with the construction of "several" bridges that prohibit cyclists (as stated previously) then cyclists will continue to try to avail of the inherent advantages of cycling anyway, despite the efforts of engineers/planners/whoever who haven't got what it takes to design infrastructure appropriately.

Sheldons Brain · 28-01-2014 11:54PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Because the more infrastructure that is built for cars the more cars will use it eventually.

Good, more citizens will enjoy convenient transport as a consequence.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Because if the authorities fail to accommodate cyclists not in just one instance but with the construction of "several" bridges that prohibit cyclists (as stated previously) then cyclists will continue to try to avail of the inherent advantages of cycling anyway, despite the efforts of engineers/planners/whoever who haven't got what it takes to design infrastructure appropriately.

We all welcome cyclists availing of the inherent advantages of cycling anyway, despite the efforts of engineers/planners/whoever who haven't got what it takes to design infrastructure appropriately, provided they respect the law.

One hopes engineers/planners/whoever will design infrastructure properly and will provide properly segregated facilities for pedestrians and that law enforcement will keep non pedestrian traffic out.

Iwannahurl · 29-01-2014 12:26AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Good, more citizens will enjoy convenient transport as a consequence.

That sentence on its own confirms that you just don't get it.

ardmacha · 29-01-2014 10:01AM

The point is that nobody would have any problem with someone wheeling a cycle over this bridge, if they wish. That this would be regarded as an unacceptable waste of time by those who illegally cycle there is an indication that they are aiming to achieve a speed that is substantially faster than pedestrians, which is exactly why it is inappropriate to mix cycle and pedestrian traffic.

Iwannahurl · 29-01-2014 10:20AM

ardmacha wrote: »

The point is that nobody would have any problem with someone wheeling a cycle over this bridge, if they wish. That this would be regarded as an unacceptable waste of time by those who illegally cycle there is an indication that they are aiming to achieve a speed that is substantially faster than pedestrians, which is exactly why it is inappropriate to mix cycle and pedestrian traffic.

Cycling is generally faster than walking, and in city centres may even be faster than driving or public transport. Which is why the Dublin City shared bike scheme is so successful, for example.

It was stated previously in this thread that there are "several" bridges in Dublin (across the Liffey?) where cyclists are prohibited. Why would anyone pay to walk while wheeling a shared bike when they could just walk?

A little more joined-up thinking is needed. Unfortunately what seems to be the case is that Councils -- too lazy, incompetent, disorganised or underfunded to do things properly -- fail to provide for cycling in an efficient and coherent manner. This is manifested in, for example, banning cyclists on bridges rather than designing for them in the first place and the shoddy practice of reclassing footpaths as shared use instead of devising more workable solutions.

ardmacha · 29-01-2014 11:06AM

Why would anyone pay to walk while wheeling a shared bike when they could just walk?

Perhaps because this is only 100m of a 5Km journey?

and the shoddy practice of reclassing footpaths as shared use instead of devising more workable solutions.

Amen to that.

Macy0161 · 29-01-2014 11:36AM

ardmacha wrote: »

The point is that nobody would have any problem with someone wheeling a cycle over this bridge, if they wish. That this would be regarded as an unacceptable waste of time by those who illegally cycle there is an indication that they are aiming to achieve a speed that is substantially faster than pedestrians, which is exactly why it is inappropriate to mix cycle and pedestrian traffic.

Could be that they take up less space on the bike, rather than walking beside it too. Not necessarily just because it's a "waste of time".

ardmacha · 29-01-2014 12:21PM

Could be that they take up less space on the bike, rather than walking beside it too. Not necessarily just because it's a "waste of time".

yeah, right.

Iwannahurl · 29-01-2014 12:47PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps because this is only 100m of a 5Km journey?

When it comes to the built environment we have to plan for populations, not just individuals.

For an individual cyclist on a single trip, it may just be a minor inconvenience to do a 140 metre crossing on foot over one bridge instead of doing a 1.5 km cycle around a one-way system designed to speed up the flow of motorised traffic

However, there are, reportedly, several bridges in Dublin that do not accommodate cyclists. There are thousands of cyclists (regular and occasional) in Dublin. Many thousands of cycling trips are taken every day.

The aggregate effect of inadequate infrastructure (such as lack of direct and convenient routes or inappropriate and unnecessary mixing of cyclists and pedestrians) is to reduce the overall utility of cycling as a mode of travel. Where local authorities contrive to make cycling needlessly inconvenient, they shouldn't be surprised when cyclists try to adapt accordingly.

As the cliche goes, it's not rocket science. Unfortunately, the level of official ignorance and apathy on this subject remains high in this country.

Annasopra · 31-01-2014 11:19AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

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.

We have a problem locally where I live where runners and joggers comandeer the cycle lane and some of tgem expect cyclists to give way.

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

Comments