Bicycles, Phoenix Park and traffic

KevRossi wrote: »

Phoenix Park Station

What/where's this?

Cabaal wrote: »

Zero you say?

Tell that to the mountain rescue volunteers throughout Ireland who have had to rescue countless people off mountains or forests during restrictions and have had to wear PPE while doing so.


It's most certainly not zero.

I presume you're not claiming limiting 5 million people to within 5k is with a view to protecting mountain rescue volunteers?

Even leaving aside the fact that that risk existed before the 5k limit (while our public health authorities were making, apparently, zero effort to determine where and how the virus was being transmitted) that risk is absolutely tiny in public health terms. How do you think that risk might relate to leaving off licences open, allowing under 18s sport to continue, people doing DIY?

How many people have to be rescued from forest parks as opposed to mountains, relative to public parks generally? Should we close all public parks?

Its a measure of badly articulated and reasoned the 5k limit is that we have people making up rationales for it. I still have not heard any public health official say that it is with a view to protecting the emergency services from having to deal with people getting injured.

I think its with a view to simply trying to get people to stay at home, because the more people who leave their home the more likely the virus is to spread. I think that 8 months into a pandemic which I think is highly likely to last at least another year, that's too blunt and patronising and in reality they should limit the activity, i.e., close contact with others, that actually causes the virus to spread.

I know you'll all be glad to know I'm at peace

alentejo wrote: »

Just to note:

During the spring lock down, when the restrictions allowed for movement within 5K, in my case, the 5k boundary covered half the area of Phoneix Park. I asked a guard on duty if I could cycle the whole way around the park, The Guard at the gate said if your residence is within 5 K to the the park gate, you can use the whole area of the park without breaking the rules.

Does that mean if you live in the park (Michael D) the 5km would start once you leave the park???

Stark wrote: »

Don't think it was made up on the spot. A few people from my club checked with the Gardaí before the virtual Dublin marathon series last weekend and were told the same thing. So it seems to be something consistently agreed upon at Garda level anyway.

Not sure if the Strava curtain twitcher alliance follows the same interpretation though :pac:

yeah, from the first lockdown's 5km zone and the re-opening of golf clubs, I call this "golf club rules". Because you can be sure that if any of the golfers on NPHET lived within 5km of their golf club entrance then they weren't going to restrict themselves to only the subset of the 18 holes that were fully within 5km. So apply the 5km rule to logical blocks, such the PK, or the biking centre trails.

Irish Times: Decision to shut Phoenix Park gates at weekends gets mixed reaction

Mostly unsurprising. People who live close by are happy. Those who live further away (but even as close as Finglas or Ranelagh) are not.

I'd still say decent parking facilties at the edges, and some kind of electric shuttle bus service inside would solve the access problem. Even if it were closed to general traffic some access would still be needed and I'd say a 30km/h (or less) average speed enforcement would be needed as well.

beauf wrote: »

Dunno is anyone saying they have an issue with the current restrictions?

Just back from some circuits around the perimeter roads and there were plenty of others doing likewise. There were probably slightly more cars than bikes and it certainly isn't as enjoyable as it was when the gates were closed mid-week as well as weekends. The main safety issue was approaching cars pulling out to pass cyclists and forgetting there were other cyclists heading towards them at speed.

beauf wrote: »

I guess then if it's the actual number that's critical.... if no one breaks that limit and doesn't actually hit anyone its all ok then.... ...since it's the number that's important...

https://youtu.be/Vn29DvMITu4

Your YouTube link seems to be broken.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that 40kmh is a reckless speed? I wouldn't consider it to be a reckless speed on a road with 50kmh traffic.
On part of my commute, I freewheel at 40kmh in a 50kmh area. Most motorists won't stay behind me at that speed, they even overtake into oncoming traffic to get past me. I don't really consider myself to be going too fast, in that scenario, personally. The motorists overtaking me don't seem to think I'm going too fast either. Certainly wouldn't consider myself to be "racing".

Then, if a car from the opposite direction comes into my lane driving towards me and we have a scary moment, then I also don't consider myself to have been at fault for "driving too fast". Maybe the driver didn't anticipate me because of my relative pace, but I'm not supposed to anticipate somebody suddenly driving towards me in the same lane as me.

AKA, I can't imagine why I should need to hold my brakes, just on the off chance that somebody on the other side wants to overtake.

beauf wrote: »

Speed is relative to the location and the conditions. Just because there's a sign up that says 50kmh, or that other people are driving like formula 1. Doesn't imply its safe to do so. Considering its a recreational park, with deer, dogs, children and families roaming all over it. If people think 50kph is too fast on Chesterfield Ave, and are suggesting 30kph, how is 50 or 40 appropriate in the rest of the park.

Does it make sense to keep travelling "at speed" in a location, hilly with poor sight lines, that you know from past experience people aren't expecting to meet you travelling at speed towards them.

Sounds like they need some traffic calming. Speed ramps.

It's a road? There was no discussion of dogs, children or families roaming?

The earlier poster said that cars were overtaking without expecting cyclists might be coming towards them at speed.
You said that the cyclists were at fault and should slow down. You said "it's no place for racing" etc.
That makes no sense? Nobody said they're cycling too fast or without due care. No speed is slow enough when someone is coming towards you in the same lane!

Mercian Pro wrote: »

The main safety issue was approaching cars pulling out to pass cyclists and forgetting there were other cyclists heading towards them at speed.

This is what you were replying to.

You managed (somewhat impressively) to make it seem like the oncoming traffic could be at fault for a poor overtaking attempt.

beauf wrote: »

In lieu of enforcement, you'd imagine traffic calming should be considered.

Hell no, they have severe speed bumps on the north section of the park and they're terrible for cycling, nearly as bad as the road surface. Generally avoid that section of the park.