'Footpaths are for pedestrians' - new DCC billboard

droidus · 30-11-2011 10:58am #1

'Cyclists - Footpaths are for pedestrians - obey the rules of the road'

Anyone seen this? Cant find a picture online. There's one on the corner of the N2/Finglas village - just across the road from a notoriously bad stretch of off-road cycle path...

Big Nasty · 30-11-2011 10:59am

No but what about it?

Cookie_Monster · 30-11-2011 11:04am

but won't someone think of the children dogs, buggies and wheelchairs?

HivemindXX · 30-11-2011 11:06am

I've seen them for about a month. There's one on Constitution Hill which changes between this and a bunch of other ads and another one on Ballymun Road.

I like them. Footpaths are for pedestrians.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:08am

MCMLXXV wrote: »

No but what about it?

Seems like a strange use of ever-dwindling resources, and sends a mixed message to cyclists who are simultaneously told to use cycle lanes on the footpath.

Cookie_Monster · 30-11-2011 11:12am

but why target cyclist when motorists are much much much worse offenders when it comes to using (parking) footpaths which is effectively ignored.

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 11:15am

I agree about the mixed message. Footpaths are for pedestrians, except when we have a target to meet for kilometers of cycle track "constructed", in which case we'll hive off half the footpath to make a useless cycle track, thus simultaneously making it illegal for cyclists to use the road there.

ondeball · 30-11-2011 11:18am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why target cyclist when motorists are much much much worse offenders when it comes to using (parking) footpaths which is effectively ignored.

Not to mention parking in cycling lanes. Ranelagh village is a joke for this. On any given evening there are cars abandoned in the cycling lane just by McSorleys. I wouldn't normally mind but there's plenty of parking in the streets off Ranelagh road and the street is always really busy fo rbikes to be weaving around a parked car and out in front of a bus.

reprazant · 30-11-2011 11:20am

droidus wrote: »

Seems like a strange use of ever-dwindling resources, and sends a mixed message to cyclists who are simultaneously told to use cycle lanes on the footpath.

Pretty sure they are not referring to cycle lanes.

The clue is in the bit where they specify footpaths.

Are people now so sensitive that the council can't put an ad up for what is a problem without people getting annoyed about it?

They should do something about it. Also, they should go bloody hard on people who cycle without lights at night. The amount of times I have nearly crashed into somebody that appears from nowhere,clad in black and with no lights. They are like rubbish, Kamakazi ninja's.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:23am

reprazant wrote: »

Pretty sure they are not referring to cycle lanes.

The clue is in the bit where they specify footpaths.

OK sherlock, what do you deduce from this?

Located directly across from the billboard in Finglas.

reprazant · 30-11-2011 11:26am

droidus wrote: »

OK sherlock, what do you deduce from this?

Located directly across from the billboard in Finglas.

Ok, sorry.

It does seem to be the case that people are so touchy that the council now cannot ask for cyclists to stay off the footpaths in case the danger pedestrians.

My mistake for thinking that we cyclists are actually adults.

Bluefoam · 30-11-2011 11:28am

I have no issue with the fact that they are promoting the issue of footpaths being for pedestrians, but it does add to the wave of negative publicity aimed at cyclists and only fuels the uneducated view from some motorists that cyclists act as a law unto their own... must wear helmet, may not use the road, must wear special cycling iluminous protection clothing...

I think the money would be better spent making sure the infrastructure was in place to discourage cyclists from using the footpaths. For instance, good safe cycle lanes, or better integration to allow cyclists to use thye roadway more safely. Or by promoting cycling as a safe and positive alternative to driving and the concept of sharing the road...

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:32am

Im guessing the part with the bicycle is the cycle path, and the part with the man is the footpath. Didn't think it was that hard - what with the pictures and all.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:35am

reprazant wrote: »

Ok, sorry.

It does seem to be the case that people are so touchy that the council now cannot ask for cyclists to stay off the footpaths in case the danger pedestrians.

My mistake for thinking that we cyclists are actually adults.

I agree with the sentiment, but as mentioned above, it gives mixed messages as there are many miles of cycle lanes located (unsafely) on the footpath, it portrays cyclists in a negative light and is a questionable use of resources given the actual danger cyclists pose.

Incidentally, I cycle on the route above everyday. If I ignore the (illegal and unsafe) cycle lane and cycle on the road I get buzzed and abused by bus drivers. I see a lot of cyclists on the path where there is a tight on-road bus/cycle lane (Drumcondra for example). I'd say a significant percentage of them think that's where they're supposed to be as thats where the infrastructure tends to put them.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:36am

Zulu wrote: »

Im guessing the part with the bicycle is the cycle path, and the part with the man is the footpath. Didn't think it was that hard - what with the pictures and all.

Try again.

Where is the cycle lane located? On the footpath or on the road?

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 11:37am

Zulu wrote: »

Im guessing the part with the bicycle is the cycle path, and the part with the man is the footpath. Didn't think it was that hard - what with the pictures and all.

It's a footpath with paint on it. The lanes are too narrow, and it's quite clear that pedestrians don't even notice it. Have you ever used one of these? Do you find that pedestrians keep to their painted half-metre? You might think in theory this is different from cycling on the footpath, but in practice it's exactly the same.

Jumpy · 30-11-2011 11:39am

Can we please use the correct term.

Its "footpad".

HivemindXX · 30-11-2011 11:39am

There is an issue with telling cyclists to keep off the footpath unless we've splashed a bit of vaguely bicycle shaped paint on it and/or possibly a couple of signs at some point. I think these new posters would be a good spur for a letter writing campaign to ask the revlevant authorities to consider how poor off road cycle lanes conflict with this initiative. The picture Droidus posted is a perfect example. That is not wide enough to be a proper shared use facility, they are telling people (and in fact legally requiring people) to interact in a way that the new posters are saying is bad.

However this is a seperate issue. Plenty of people still cycle on the footpath whenever it suits them and it's not due to confusion it's due to either ignorance of what they are supposed to do or that quality I like to refer to as simply "being a dick".

On my new commute I notice a crazy number of people cycling on the footpath when there is a perfectly good road right next to it. Since this is near DCU I blame students. I was under the impression that all students drove these days but maybe times are so hard in the country now that parents can no longer afford to buy cars for their children. I wonder if this will mean good things for cycling in the future.

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 11:40am

droidus wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment, but as mentioned above, it gives mixed messages as there are many miles of cycle lanes located (unsafely) on the footpath, it portrays cyclists in a negative light and is a questionable use of resources given the actual danger cyclists pose.

Incidentally, I cycle on the route above everyday. If I ignore the (illegal and unsafe) cycle lane and cycle on the road I get buzzed and abused by bus drivers. I see a lot of cyclists on the path where there is a tight on-road bus/cycle lane (Drumcondra for example). I'd say a significant percentage of them think that's where they're supposed to be as thats where the infrastructure tends to put them.

Coupled with the long-running road-side "Garda message to cyclists" campaign on the parking info boards, it does give the impression that cyclists are an enormous problem in the city, compared with, say, speeding motorists.

Just bring in fixed-penalty notices and stop the negative advertising.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:41am

droidus wrote: »

Try again.

Where is the cycle lane located? On the footpath or on the road?

No you TRY again :rolleyes:

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't agree. In that picture there is a footpath & cycle lane side-by-side. They even appear to have used different surfaces to aid in the distinction, as well as the simple paint markings.

I'd suggest that you have little to be getting your knickers in a twist about, but...

Duke Leonal Felmet · 30-11-2011 11:42am

If only cyclists would take heed. I'm tired of walking to and from work, constantly looking over my shoulder for some cyclist who thinks its perfectly ok to speed past someone, leaving inches of room for space.

And yet these same hypocrites complains about cars that do the same.

Laughable.

rich.d.berry · 30-11-2011 11:45am

Zulu wrote: »

Im guessing the part with the bicycle is the cycle path, and the part with the man is the footpath. Didn't think it was that hard - what with the pictures and all.

So, Zulu, do you reckon that you would consider it safe to cycle down this section of "cycle path" at a fast pace, say 30-35 km/h.

What do you think the pedestrians who legitimately use their allocated space would have to say about the cyclists who fly past them? Would it make them happy to share the space? Does the council really believe that this is an adequate shared facility?

What about the motorists who feel that they are entitled to all the roadway because a compulsory (solid white line) cycle path has been provided and therefore cyclists should not be on that section of road?

So, while I agree that cyclists should not be on footpaths, I think that the council is irresponsible for placing these slogans adjacent to such an obviously inadequate facility.

Paparazzo · 30-11-2011 11:45am

Amazing how touchy some cyclists are over it and getting pedantic. Stay off footpaths, and if it's a share path/cycle lane, stay in your half. Simple!

Incidently, one of the messages a sign has on the Naas road at Bluebell every morning is "Beware of Traffic". Why thank you Mr. Sign, I never thought of that. I think that sign has saved many lives.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:47am

Zulu wrote: »

No you TRY again :rolleyes:

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't agree. In that picture there is a footpath & cycle lane side-by-side. They even appear to have used different surfaces to aid in the distinction, as well as the simple paint markings.

I'd suggest that you have little to be getting your knickers in a twist about, but...

The cycle lane is located ON the footpath. Its as clear as day. Splashing some paint on the footpath does not change the fact that it is a footpath.

I dont think this is a particularly difficult principle to grasp, but it I guess it takes all sorts.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:47am

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a footpath with paint on it. The lanes are too narrow, and it's quite clear that pedestrians don't even notice it. Have you ever used one of these? Do you find that pedestrians keep to their painted half-metre? You might think in theory this is different from cycling on the footpath, but in practice it's exactly the same.

This cut's both ways, there's a similar set up (but with far more room) along the cost between Sutton & Clontarf. I've had numerous cyclists ring there bell at me to get out of their way even though I've been on the footpath.

Futher along that road, the cycle lane moves over to the road, and there is a narrow footpath. I've had some of the ignorant twats sign in discontent when I've been too slow moving myself and dog out of their way (on the footpath). I believe the cycle lane on the road isn't suitable for them.

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 11:48am

droidus wrote: »

I see a lot of cyclists on the path where there is a tight on-road bus/cycle lane (Drumcondra for example). I'd say a significant percentage of them think that's where they're supposed to be as thats where the infrastructure tends to put them.

On the stretch passing the bishop's palace, that's exactly where the infrastructure is. On the bishop's side of the road it doesn't feel that much like a converted footpath, but it does on the other side, by the Blue Lantern, or whatever it's called. Both are incorrectly signposted, so not legally binding.

reprazant · 30-11-2011 11:52am

droidus wrote: »

The cycle lane is located ON the footpath. Its as clear as day. Splashing some paint on the footpath does not change the fact that it is a footpath.

I dont think this is a particularly difficult principle to grasp, but it I guess it takes all sorts.

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:52am

rich.d.berry wrote: »

So, Zulu, do you reckon that you would consider it safe to cycle down this section of "cycle path" at a fast pace, say 30-35 km/h.

No, I don't.

What about the motorists who feel...

What about whataboutary?

such an obviously inadequate facility.

It may well be inadequate, I don't deny that. It is however, very clearly a cyclepath (albeit inadequate).

droidus wrote: »

I dont think this is a particularly difficult principle to grasp, but it I guess it takes all sorts.

Clearly it does, you can't seem to recognise that which is right in front of you, even though it has a different surface & is clearly marked.

rich.d.berry · 30-11-2011 11:54am

Zulu wrote: »

This cut's both ways, there's a similar set up (but with far more room) along the cost between Sutton & Clontarf. I've had numerous cyclists ring there bell at me to get out of their way even though I've been on the footpath.

Perhaps they're being courteous and announcing their approach so as not to scare you when they pass on the cycle path.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:55am

reprazant wrote: »

By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

I reckon (s)he's driving at a system similar to what I've seen elsewhere where there is a kerp between the road & the cyclepath, creating an additional mini road between the road & the footpath.

I've no idea where (s)he thinks the money for such a massive & expensive undertaking would come from though.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 11:57am

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Perhaps they're being courteous and announcing their approach so as not to scare you when they pass on the cycle path.

Perhaps, but they never looked like they were going to pop down the kerb onto the road & pop back up again.

....but these are only a few people. And small amounts of people tend to be dicks regardless of what they are doing.

droidus · 30-11-2011 11:58am

reprazant wrote: »

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

A footpath is a raised area, often with a grass verge, designed to allow pedestrians to walk alongside roads whilst protecting them from vehicular traffic, they dont normally have 'lanes', and when they do these are usually unsafe, too narrow and ignored by pedestrians. The example I posted is clear case.

Lanes on roads are ALWAYS marked with white lines, but just so you know, there is ambiguity about whether a cycle lane is actually a legal lane at all, just as there is ambiguity as to whether many off-road cycle lanes are legal.

So yes, there is a strong possibility that there are just roads and footpaths, except in the case of a shared bus/cycle lane or 'proper' off road cycle lanes (such as the grand canal path), which are legally recognised as separate lanes.

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 11:59am

reprazant wrote: »

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

And if the council paints the top of a 10cm-wide wall the right colours and puts up a sign, then that's a cycle track, is it?

Well, legally it would be.

This is part of the problem. The definition of a cycle track in Irish law is the presence of a sign. There are no binding standards that specify any of the important stuff, like width, surface, how to interact with junctions and driveways.

These footpath cycle tracks are near universally rubbish. And pedestrians by and large don't keep to their bit, and it's not because they're stupid. It's because the design isn't clear. People just don't pay that much attention to strips of paint beneath their feet. It's been found over and over again, in all countries that try them.

So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.

Zulu · 30-11-2011 12:00pm

droidus wrote: »

A footpath is a ....

no defination of a cycle path there I notice. Care to provide?

Bluefoam · 30-11-2011 12:01pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

If only cyclists would take heed. I'm tired of walking to and from work, constantly looking over my shoulder for some cyclist who thinks its perfectly ok to speed past someone, leaving inches of room for space.

And yet these same hypocrites complains about cars that do the same.

Laughable.

That is a massive generalisation, are you trying to suggest that all cyclists are guilty of cycling on the path?!

droidus · 30-11-2011 12:02pm

Zulu wrote: »

I reckon (s)he's driving at a system similar to what I've seen elsewhere where there is a kerp between the road & the cyclepath, creating an additional mini road between the road & the footpath.

I've no idea where (s)he thinks the money for such a massive & expensive undertaking would come from though.

I dont believe that cyclists should ever cycle on the path or be put into conflict with pedestrians. Off road cycle lanes should only be put in place where there is sufficient space to allow them to be used safely (see Sutton-fairview) or where they are segregated, and cyclists should not be forced to cycle on the footpath by badly planned and dangerous infrastructure.

droidus · 30-11-2011 12:03pm

Zulu wrote: »

no defination of a cycle path there I notice. Care to provide?

Sure, anywhere the authorities decide to paint a white line.

No questioning of my definition of a footpath I see. Im glad we're in agreement.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 30-11-2011 12:03pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

reprazant wrote: »

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

By your logic, there is no such thing as a cycle lane, it is either the footpath or the road.

And if the council paints the top of a 10cm-wide wall the right colours and puts up a sign, then that's a cycle track, is it?

Well, legally it would be.

This is part of the problem. The definition of a cycle track in Irish law is the presence of a sign. There are no binding standards that specify any of the important stuff, like width, surface, how to interact with junctions and driveways.

These footpath cycle tracks are near universally rubbish. And pedestrians by and large don't keep to their bit, and it's not because they're stupid. It's because the design isn't clear. People just don't pay that much attention to strips of paint beneath their feet. It's been found over and over again, in all countries that try them.

So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.

Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?

droidus · 30-11-2011 12:04pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

So they're bad for pedestrians and bad for cyclists. So DCC should make up its mind; if footpaths are for pedestrians (a sentiment with which I concur), they should stop taking capacity away from pedestrians and giving it to cyclists who don't want it.

This ^^

Lumen · 30-11-2011 12:06pm

I would guess that no one on this thread is in favour of footpath cycling.

In which case, who cares?

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 12:07pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?

I imagine because they're either arses or because the road doesn't allow them to get where they want directly. They should be stopped and issued with fixed-penalty notices. Fixed-penalty notices for cyclists should have been introduced a long time ago.

seamus · 30-11-2011 12:08pm

Zulu wrote: »

No you TRY again :rolleyes:

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't agree. In that picture there is a footpath & cycle lane side-by-side. They even appear to have used different surfaces to aid in the distinction, as well as the simple paint markings.

reprazant wrote: »

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

I'm going to be very pedantic here and say that the markings are very clear that this is one lane to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians.

If there were two separate lanes here, there would be white line painted in between. There isn't. Different surface types don't mark out a lane.

You could say that it's "obvious" what's intended, but that's irrelevant in a legal context. What's "obvious" is that the lane is not wide enough to accomodate separate lanes for cyclists and pedestrians, so the council created a shared-use lane with ambiguously placed images in the hope that no-one would challenge their claim that it's a cycle track.

Now that pedantry is passed, I have no specific problem with the message mentioned by the OP. There is a bit of a drive on by DCC with messages for cyclists, but I don't think the intention is to demonise cyclists, but rather educate them as to their responsibilities on the roads. Many cyclists are genuinely unaware that it's illegal to ride on the footpad or that they have to stop at red lights or have lights on their bike.
Drivers break lights and park on footpads, but they know this is illegal, they just choose to do it.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 30-11-2011 12:11pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why do cyclists have trouble noticing that one should not cycle in busy, city centre footpaths? Would it be the lack of signs telling them not to be a moron?

I imagine because they're either arses or because the road doesn't allow them to get where they want directly. They should be stopped and issued with fixed-penalty notices. Fixed-penalty notices for cyclists should have been introduced a long time ago.

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

rich.d.berry · 30-11-2011 12:14pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

You're just trolling, aren't you?

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 12:15pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

There are threads here about this idea already. Suffice it to say that it would be prohibitively expensive and impossible to enforce. That's why you need fixed-penalty notices. The Gardaí can stop a cyclist and penalise them without having to waste court time.

Does anyone know what happened to the plan to create laws to allow FPNs for cyclists?

Bunnyhopper · 30-11-2011 12:18pm

reprazant wrote: »

I would have said that the cycle lane is beside the footpath.

The markings on it specify the difference.

Actually, the law says that the edges of a cycle track should be marked either with a thick white line on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track. So in this case, you could argue that it's not a cycle lane beside a footpath, it's a wide cycle track. In many cases the markings and signage used on cycle facilities by local authorities are confusing at best.

A cycle track can be part of a footway which is provided primarily for the use of pedal cycles, and a cycleway can be for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians, so the footpath V cycle track V cycleway distinctions are unhelpfully confusing.

Where it's clearly a footpath provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians then cyclists should not be on it. However, the lack of clarity is part of the problem with these "facilities". You may object that this is pedantry, but in the event of a collision on a footpath?/cycleway?/cycle track? you can be sure that the professional pedants will be out in force and charging by the hour.

dubmess · 30-11-2011 12:18pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 30-11-2011 12:27pm

dubmess wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.

Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

Zulu · 30-11-2011 12:27pm

droidus wrote: »

Off road cycle lanes should only be put in place where there is sufficient space to allow them to be used safely (see Sutton-fairview)

And yet this stretch is exactly were I've had problems with cyclists using the footpath/not using the cycle lane.

droidus wrote: »

Sure, anywhere the authorities decide to paint a white line.
... Im glad we're in agreement.

Super, so you agree there's a cycle lane there afterall. :rolleyes:

seamus · 30-11-2011 12:30pm

dubmess wrote: »

Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.

Switzerland charges a small fee on bikes, I think it's basically a sort of public liability insurance & tax rolled into one.
The discussion was had here before, but basically in order to make it a reasonable cost relative to a bicycle (i.e. less than €10/year), it costs more to collect the cash and print up the "discs" than the system takes in.

tomasrojo · 30-11-2011 12:36pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

I suggest you take it up with every government in the world (apart from the Swiss) as none of them can be bothered with registering cyclists.

From what I know, the purpose of vehicle registration is primarily to establish ownership and to tax owners, not to fight crime, though I suppose that is a useful side effect.

'Footpaths are for pedestrians' - new DCC billboard

Comments