There will be Blood
- This topic has 33 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
of innocent cyclists on Dublin’s roads. Recent alterations, changes, and other provisions that have been made by Dublin City Council, are lethal and will in all likelihood result in further deaths on the capitals roads. No new permanent/ mandatory cycle-ways are being installed; instead incredibly dangerous non-mandatory part-time cycle “tracks” are being put in – even though in many instances the roads are perfectly suited to having full time mandatory cycle-lanes.
The non-mandatory “cycle-tracks” are in my opinion fatal in terms of driver psychology; from a driver’s perspective they consider that the cyclist is provided for in terms of space provision – that is until they, the driver need to use that space. This is far more dangerous then if the roads are left as is, as the driver of the potentially lethal vehicle is lulled into a false sense of security on behalf of the cyclist who is the vulnerable road user!
It is a lethal combination. It is to my great regret that Hans Monderman passed away some months back as it had actually been my intention to have got an opinion from him as to this particular “Irish solution”, with a view to then using it to inform the process and to ascertaining as to whether the Irish state is in compliance with EU law. Poor Hans, RIP.
In any event, while I realize that there is already an excellent thread entitled “Cycling in Irish Cities”, I felt the need to start this new thread with a specific focus on Dublin – and recent/ ongoing “provisions” made by Dublin City Council. I am also doing this now because I believe it to be of significant public interest in advance of the introduction of Dublin City Councils hire-bike scheme. Although there are a number of related points on the already existing thread, “You thought Dublin’s streets were cluttered already”, there are one or two points worth restating here for consideration; less than a month ago, on Tuesday 19th February a cyclist was killed during daylight hours on the Malahide Road. While I am making no comment whatsoever about that specific case, what I am aware of is this:
1) The Malahide Road had some years back cycle-provision put in place, some of which was road based and some of which were the shared footpaths; in many instances this has been dropped, with in some cases total omission of cycle-provision such as where a left-turning lane has been added for motor vehicles.
2) The Malahide Road is scheduled to 7 of the large JC Decaux electronic “Metropole” billboards (again see “You thought Dublin’s streets were cluttered already”); where these units were referred at a cost of some €210 each to An Bord Pleanála, the board rejected each and every one of them – precisely on the grounds of road safety. Yet Dublin City Council had seen fit to pass 100% of all applications that had been made to them for the structures. Without getting back into that whole row of which there is already a specific thread, it remains the case that approximately 56% of that scheme is still going ahead (72 units in total), with the majority being the discredited “metropole” units – and it is these distractionary hazzards that are to be erected along Malahide Road.
We are at a critical crossroads. In Paris when they put in their hire-bike scheme, they put in an additional 310 kilometres of dedicated cycle lanes in advance. In Dublin, we attach a little round blue signpost to a lamppost on the footpath on Saint Johns Road up by Heuston Station and consider it “job done”. And when the inevitable collision occurs between the cyclist traveling 30km per hour and the pedestrian walking at 6 kph, we call it “an accident”.
The guff about “free bikes for Dublin” has distracted from the sinister reality, which is that as opposed to improving and introducing a cycling culture, the provisions now being put in place are far more dangerous than the standard of cycle-ways initially introduced over a decade ago.
Think for a minute as to when the last cycle-way contra-flow was put in place; there’s one on Andrew Street – an excellent one on the whole, and then there’s 2 more that I can think of; Ryders Row from Parnell Street to Capel Street, and also Stephens Green outside the College of Surgeons (which was in fact the last one instated). Inspect the approaches and the markings of the latter next time you are that way; what is the legality of a cycle-way that runs into an oncoming one-way or cycle-way without any signage or markings to advise? This merits consideration in that the responsible authority should and must be held to account next time there is a collision.
I would like to be more positive if I could. But I simply can’t – and this is far too serious a matter given that lives are at stake. I will be honest; the final straw has been the “bikes-for-billboards” scandal – if for no other reason than I see it as pure and dangerous hypocrisy that DCC will put another 450 vulnerable cyclists (majority probably novices) on the city’s roads while also putting in place measures such as these – both very recent:
Morhampton Road Lower to Leeson Street, with junctions at Waterloo Road and Apian Way, Dublin 4:
Previously the northbound cycletrack was marked red and was at all times routed on the very inside of the road. This wasn’t ideal as vehicles coming from Waterloo Road often turn left onto Apian Way, and have a filter light to do so (in many respects a staggered crossroads as it were). There was also a serious issue for cyclists in the approach to this, as coming from Morhampton Road onto Leeson Street there is a slight bend in the road, with the result that many of the vehicles at speed on the inside lane cut over the non-mandatory cycle-track. The risk is exaggerated by the nature of Morhampton Road, which is four lanes and straight – hence often sped along. Furthermore, the sightlines at this point are also complicated by a mature broadleaf tree on the pavement. That the cycle-tracks were non-mandatory was obviously far from ideal, however they were in red tarmac, and there was also a traffic light just before the bend that by default gave the cyclist a safety advantage.
Then a few months ago DCC “upgraded” this stretch, relocating the aforementioned traffic light further along around the bend, and also widening the feeder lane turning left onto the Apian Way. And as opposed to amending the pinch-point on the bend where vehicles skirt over the cycle-track, DCC put in an approx 30-metre long traffic barrier island into the middle of the road – thus exacerbating the problem by psychologically guiding drivers away from the barrier and more onto the track.
General establishing shot here:
New traffic island barrier on bend is here:
Speedy male motorist cutting across cycle-track at bend here:
While a dummy-mummy in a wally-wagon does it her way:
Moving onwards northbound, where DCC Road engineers have widened the filter lane leading onto Apian Way, they have relocated the cycle-track so that it flows into the middle lane. Properly engineered with a fulltime mandatory cycle-way, this should not be a problem; in the past DCC have put in such provisions on approach roads to the UCD Belfield Campus, such as the right-turning lane onto Milltown bridge/ Dundrum Road, coming eastbound from Milltown Road. However here DCC have opted for a weaving non-mandatory cycle-track – which cannot even accommodate a cyclist when also used by a vehicle – as can be seen in this (over-exposed) snap:
Resultingly now when approached by cyclists, they avoid endangering themselves in the outside lane – but really don’t know where they should be, so as a result float along the feeder lane. A more obvious problem with this is that motorists coming from Waterloo Road and heading for Apian way will perceive that the cyclist is catered for by the weaving cycle-track, and thus not anticipate for the cyclist to be going straight if they are using the feeder lane. As now used by cyclists, seen here:
However, the real prizewinner for a potential corporate manslaughter suit against DCC is just across the road, on the outbound southward stretch of Leeson Street, just before Waterloo Road. In this instance, there had been three lanes of traffic, comprised of two going straight with one turning left; the cycle-track traveled on the inside and was marked by dotted white lines and red tarmac. The general result was that 46A and other buses straight-bound ended up remaining in the filter left-turning lane, and while this may have occasionally delayed left-turning traffic, this was in itself an inadvertent safety advantage for the cyclist.
Yet among the “improvements” made by Dublin City Council was that when they extended the bus-lane so that it uses the middle lane, they also relocated the cycle-track so as to become a non-mandatory weaving cycle-track in the middle lane, demarcated only by dotted white lines – not even the red tarmac! The left-turning feeder lane onto Waterloo Road is now dedicated solely to that purpose, with buses supposed to use the middle lane (this despite a bus-stop being present).
As with the opposite side of the road, it was again made physically impossible for a cyclist to share space with another vehicle if the new markings were adhered to. Subsequently – and coincidentally after comment had been made on this site by ctesiphon, myself, and others – the new arrangement was revised, and the new cycle-track was removed as far as Waterloo Road junction.
Progress? Actually no! No further remedial measures were taken, with the result that there is now a red strip of tarmac on the inside with no dotted lines, while burnt out marks are all that remain on the stretch, as seen here:
However as weaving dotted lines were left at the junction, road-users are still guided by “the road they see in front of them”, and here are the demarcations at the junction:
Note the non-replacement of red tarmac on the left-hand side of the cyclists stop box, right where it is most necessaryIt would be my contention that as you have the absence of clear markings, yet two conflicting quasi markings, it is an obvious likelihood that each of the two forms of road transport will act according to calculations considering their speed – hence the car driver going faster acts sooner regarding the dotted lines in the outside lane on the junction, yet the cyclist sticks to the side of the street, on red tarmac that oddly no longer has dotted lines. This leads to an obvious hazard in that users expectations and actual behaviours will at loggerheads with each other.
The result? Lad cycling home from work halted at red light, waiting for the green light in order to proceed straight:
Yet the lady needs to turn left!
And I add, the driver legally did so – although with speed. The filter light indicating that she is allowed turn left is not visible to the cyclist. Unless the cyclist is already familiar with the sequence of that specific junction, as indicated on lights directed at other streets, there is no warning as to traffic coming from behind cutting left.
It becomes patently clear that those that are responsible for provision for cyclists never have to use their own designs. It is simply impossible to escape this conclusion. Bad that things used to be, at least when Owen Keegan was around you were assured that at least one person in Dublin City Council used a bike. Happily however, for the motoring bureaucrat in council there is ample parking provision – as there is for a sizeable chunk of state workers; some €9 millions worth per annum in Dublin City alone all courtesy of the tax-payer.
-
Finally before we leave this junction all together, I think its only fitting to pay one last tribute to DCC road engineers and their most recent works here – though this time non-cycling related. This time it is pedestrians that are the casualty.
Wellington Place, opposite the new traffic barrier island shown in the first picture in this post, is a road that splits off the very start of Morhampton Road. As it is a wide splayed junction there have always been traffic islands here. However, never to miss an opportunity to erect even more cluttering shite onto Dublin footpaths, the lads responsible for Morhampton Barricade Islands completed their project so that its now this way, with a 30-metre detour to cross a 3-metre stretch of road:
Predictably the resulting pedestrian behaviour is this:
Sandwith Street, Dublin 2:
There is a final shot that I would like to include with this post, this time of the city centre located stretch of where Sandwith Street approaches the junction with Pearse Street, Dublin 2. Again this shot is just one of the many, many places where DCC are failing to provide safe full-time cycling provision. In this instance there are three lanes of outbound traffic, which as they are unhindered travel at speed having approached this around a bend. As much of this outbound traffic is expectant of a generally green feeder light SE bound onto Pearse Street, there is every incentive for speed. If any location has both the space and the need for clearly marked safe full-time cycle-ways, this is it. Yet give the job to Dublin City Council and what do we get? Well judge for yourself – I’ll only note the basic absence of red tarmac as a starter…
There are so many instances around Dublin where non-mandatory cycle-tracks are put in instead of mandatory lanes. They’ll get put in because its seen to be compliant; yet if ever there was a most lethal form of lip-service, this is it. Ultimately such provisioning can become of a legal significance. All told it is high time that senior officials in Dublin’s Roads Department consider their responsibilities to all road users equally.
In view of what is in my opinion a matter of significant public interest, I invite other posters to contribute, and ideally add photos of other danger locations so as to create some kind of public record on this matter.
-
Hutton,
If you get on yer bike and head out towards Templeogue you’ll find a couple of real peaches! Although admittedly they’re not in DCC’s jurisdiction I think they’re worth a look.
The junction of Springfield Avenue and Templeogue Road is very poor for unnecessarily diverting pedestrians trying to cross (on the outbound side).
Further up the road, turning right from Templeogue Road onto Cypress Grove Road, the lights are positioned quite a distance back from the actual point of turn, with none on the opposite side, so once the driver / cyclist edges forward to wait for oncoming traffic (entering the Village, or turning left onto CGR) to clear, they’ve no idea what the light sequences are, and are left like sitting ducks in the middle of a very busy junction.
There are “cycle paths” provided through the village and along CGR, but they’re absolutely abysmal. The one through the village is simply a <5mm lumpy screed slapped onto the existing concrete paving, dished for vehicular entry to the front gardens, and with line markings that encourage ponding of the track in wet weather. Along CGR, the track is at road level, with a raised perpendicular kerb of circa 250mm separating car from bike. Overtaking requires the cyclist to move onto the road, or else risk hitting the kerb and being thrown in front of moving traffic!
-
This could take a week! Are you trying to get me fired? 😉
In essence, while I would agree with some of what you say, I think you’ve been unnecessarily harsh in some places, and factually incorrect in one or two others. Haven’t time to get into it now, but I’ll be back.
-
sounds like the thread title may be appropriate for the discussion as well as the topic in hand 😉
-
Not from me! I’m going to be on my best behaviour.
As a daily cyclist, I have sympathy with much that hutton says, but equally I think sometimes DCC gets it in the neck for doing the best it can- we need to separate the lazy/incompetent stuff from the ‘best under the circumstances’ stuff. Of course I’d like to see car free roads with 10 metre wide, three lane bike routes, but I’m also a realist- the n11 is a national primary route and carries what is probably the busiest and most successful QBC in the city. These are facts, however much the cycling fraternity might wish it were otherwise.
No blood. I promise.
-
pity the muppets in DCC turned down Michael McDowell’s very reasonable idea about linking up all the laneways and making them dedicated cycleways – they said it would attract antisocial behaviour!!! Which underused laneways don’t do anyway – fools
-
Hutton you make some valid points but also neglect to highlight the danger to themselves that inexperienced and unassertive cyclists pose at left/straight -on turning junctions.
Not enough cyclists do the sensible thing ie. look behind you- make eye contact with the driver-give a clear signal you are moving into a more central position on the road in the direction you choose to head in- butt your way in-then give a clear signal of thanks to the driver for occupying ‘their’ roadspace. You can try engineering out these problems til the cows come home but a bit of cop-on goes a long way. Traffic is rarely moving that quickly in the centre city that this manouevere can’t be undertaken 99% of the time.
You have to command the road if you wish to cycle in Dublin-we would all like to see this change but I don’t think 100% seperated cycle tracks are warranted or feasible in most city locations.
FWIW I think the Sandwith st/Pearse junction is an improvement on the previous free for all with no road markings where I’ve seen countless cyclists nearly get creamed for want of some decent hand signalling.
-
Not enough cycle training is a key element in all of this as well as bad driver training. One must take personal responsibility as any road user in any mode. Looking behind you, slowing to manouevre, making eye contact with others all make for a safer journey. If a motorist hit me on me bike coz he/she didn’t check their mirrors i’d be rightly fucking fuming. Same goes for a cyclist who doens’t make him/herself aware of the road around them. Some of DCC’s interventions are shocking and may be regarded as dangerous. However moving the cycle lane into the middle of the road at a left-turn only is acceptable (if done right of course) as it forces the cyclist to make the inevitable move early and imposes decisiveness upon them – but of course DCC make a bollix of it at Morehampton as you rightly show
I’d agree with ctesiphon on places like the N11 – it’s not a cycle friendly route – acting more as a canyon of speed. But as you say, a bus practically every minute at peak hours along an intensifying corridor ain’t something to be sniffed at in the overall scheme of things. However tumble yourself down any of the avenues towards the bay to Rock Road to see some poxy cycle provision. 3.5 m wide bus lanes incorporating 1,2 m wide advisory cycle lanes – since my eh footballing injury last year I’ve been getting the bus along here rather than cycling (that’s my excuse, that and a broken bike and a fierce lazy element to my personality) and often the bus ends up being delayed by cyclists which is unfair on all road users especially the pressured cyclist
But it’s a perfect example of the environment that the Local Authoritys operate in. This is not a city which is easily adaptable to the needs of the growing population. There are massive physical constraints to every single element of change in our transport offer. And daft political nonsense eg – the Donnybrook bus lane was derided when proposed as a disaster that would cripple South Dublin – LUAS lines are challenged by people and so is cycle provision like S2S. So although we’d like to think that cycle lanes and junction improvements are on everyones agenda we must bear in mind where cycling remains in the hierarchy – rock bottom.
Now that’s not to say it’s right and I certainly know this attitude is changing – if not exactly by choice at the highest levels of administration more by external sustainability issues. I’m led to believe that a National Cycle Policy is being developed. We will see the DCC free bike scheme eventually and as infrastructure like more LUAS lines, Metro North and the interconnector give car users real choice we will see a better urban environment for cyclists in Dublin.
remember the base we’re coming from in the early 90’s. (When was the first cycle track or lane created in the city?) And bear in mind the type of city we have inherited from people who saw the inner tangent as a solution. These people are slowly shuffling off into retirement and as they do new people (like us I hope) will start to make decisions in this city.
Dublin has exploded and it’s still an insane mess. DCC et al don’t always help but I don’t really think a thread titled “there will be blood” really addresses the issues to be honest. You’ve highlighted very well a number of infrastructural interventions which do not seem to work, and in general people will agree. However these represent worthy battles which we must engage in as a matter of emergency. But the war is going to have to be fought at the higher level. The war to create a wide ranging political, legislative and design guidance framework to hang every piece of infrastrcture on is the essential fight.
We need Central government policy and legislation on cycle provision and we need an updated design manual. But even those two documents will probably only scratch the surface as planning and education must tie it all together. in the meantime those daft feckers who fly past on the inside of a narrow cycle lane, break lights as a matter of course and don’t signal to other road users don’t help the case being made
This my longest ever post – good night
ooh penos at goodison, must watch!
– PS maybe “war” and “battle” is an exaggeration – “debate” or “policy shift” is more appropriate?
-
Paul, I wonder if, in the same way as you moved all planning matters to a separate forum, you might set one up for “infrastructure” issues where like minded souls can go and rant about all things road related. While we’re at it let’s have my 2 cents.
I walk to work. I hate motorists. In fact, the only things I hate more than motorists are cyclists. Whingeing bloody cyclists. Here’s what I put up with every day:
motorists that go through red lights and pedestrian crossings several seconds after they change
horns. bloody horns
cars turning without signallingcyclists that go through red lights and pedestrian crossings regardless
lycra, bloody lycra
cyclists turning without signallingmind you, motorists will stop and let you cross with a buggy.
I’ve yet to be hit by a car driving on the pavement
I’ve yet to see a car driving the wrong way down a one way streetso post all the pictures you want but dry your eyes – you don’t deserve any special attention because you’re just as big a menace as the motorist
-
wearnicehats…
I walk aswell 😀
one solution to this problem is provide 400 bike racks at each metro station and other things as mentioned within 50 metres
-
@wearnicehats wrote:
Paul, I wonder if, in the same way as you moved all planning matters to a separate forum, you might set one up for “infrastructure” issues where like minded souls can go and rant about all things road related. While we’re at it let’s have my 2 cents.
Yep an infrastructure section sounds like a good idea.
I used to cycle to work, did so for about 5 years & on no section of my route was there a cycle lane (advisory or otherwise) at that time, whereas now a cycle lane of sorts covers over half of it. Not great, but a fair improvement.
I have to say sometimes we’re our own worst enemy, plenty of risky moves going on out there … I was involved in a massive pile up (about 10 bikes) just ahead of leeson street bridge … to be honest we were all lined up at the lights, familiar faces i’d encounter every morning, and were pretty much racing each other – the leader of the pack swerved between two cars & the rest of us came down sliding all over the place … bicycle armegeddon, you should have seen the bemused faces on the jammed motorists 😮
I think it should be mandatory that road bikes are fitted with rear view mirrors, as stupid as they might look.
In general though, i’d agree that it seems like no thought at all goes in to where a cycle lane is actually headed or how it will negotiate a set of traffic lights, lets just put down a bit of red & stop it up here somewhere :rolleyes:
-
@wearnicehats wrote:
so post all the pictures you want but dry your eyes – you don’t deserve any special attention because you’re just as big a menace as the motorist
I may be wrong but I never hear of a pedestrian who was killed by a cyclist. I also never heard of a motorist who was killed by a cyclist. And what about all thoses wonder people who seem to love crossing roads and not look around them. When I was a cyclist, the amount of times pedestrians who while crossing roads just walked out infront of me as if they have the right of way to do so is just is scary. 😮
The reality is that Motorist, Cyclists and Pedestrians are AS BAD AS EACH OTHER and we can be here all day stating who is the worst. People are stupid and that is a simple fact of life. However the most important fact is HOW CAN WE SAVE LIVES. That is all that matters.
-
I appreciate the idea behind creating a separate thread but most of these arguments have been beaten to death already in the other thread. I’m probably just restating what I’ve already said there.
As weehamster points out, no matter what your personal opinions, the statistics are there; motorised vehicles have caused about 400 deaths a year on average over the last few years; pedestrians and cyclists have caused absolutely none. In London, a cyclist caused the death of pedestrian a couple of years ago but it was remarkable because it was exceptional despite the demographics of London. Unfortunately most of these arguments end up with some sort of equivalence being suggested between the irritation caused by the behaviour of cyclists or pedestrians and that of drivers when there is no equivalence at all. A pedestrian or cyclist breaking a red light is not even in same ballpark of moral equivalence as a driver doing the same. So the whataboutery is disingenious.
On a different tack, tommyt has to a t. Where the average speed of motorised traffic is more than 40 km/h or so, fully segregated cycling facilities can make sense. In the city centre any attempt to provide segregated cycling lanes will fail; simple topology indicates that it is impossible to provide a segregated network. Just as pedestrians have to interact with traffic (by crossing streets), cyclists will always have to interact with traffic. It is far safer to become part of the traffic rather than keep out of the way and suddenly impose yourself at junctions where 90% of cyclists are killed. Where traffic is going 30 km/h or less (most of the city centre), cyclists should be advised to cycle as part of the traffic – in the middle of traffic lanes – and negotiate lanes (using signals) like vehicles. When I drive, I far prefer having cyclists visibly in front of me than beside me where they can drift in and out of my blindspot. I can handle cyclists I can see; I fear for cyclists I cannot. I’ve put a lot of effort into thinking about these things over the years and hopefully will not sound immodest by saying that I’ve managed to avoid injury despite cycling around Dublin for more than 15 years. Maybe I’ve been lucky but I am sure that cycling without asserting yourself is deathly dangerous.
As a result of this thinking, I firmly believe that, for example, the experiment on O’Connell Street with a section of fully segregated cycle lane is misguided to say the least. What is required is a universal imposition of a 30 km/h speed limit within the city centre for motorised vehicles. This would save the lives of pedestrians and cyclists without requiring the physical imposition of segregation (i.e. by cycle lanes or pedestrian barriers/railings on footpaths) which is guaranteed to be implemented in a haphazard fashion at best. I would remove all cycle lanes within this area and remove all pedestrian barriers on the edges of footpaths. It might sound idealistic but I believe that the streets can be shared by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians; I’d rather rattle my bones cycling though Temple Bar in a milou of taxis and pedestrians than try to use the cycle lanes on O’Connell St.
-
Do you think that raised junctions would be the solution at intersections.
Level footpath road and speed hump in one might not work everywhere but some places.I think the big issue we are missing here is money
fines and tax incentives large to not own a car because once you have increase the critical mass you can take control of 30 percent of the main inner city roads.
If you kill a cyclist you should have to pay as well as the NRA 2 million euro to build new cycle lanes in the city centre and you should also be able to lose your house if drink drugs are involed or talking on your phone
-
Why not have castration as well? If you kill a cyclist (deliberately), that is murder and there are criminal sanctions. If it was not deliberate, but there was negligence on the driver’s part, then that could be construed as culpable homicide (manslaughter) and again there are criminal penalties. What do you do if there is no intent or negligence? (Don’t answer, it’s just more money for the lawyers.) Basically, cars, cyclists and pedestrians do not mix, unless (paradoxically) there is either (a) complete segregation, or (b) complete integration. In (a) nobody has to look out for other users (in theory), and in (b) everybody has to exercise constant vigilance – and cut speed (and that includes cyclists). At present we have a hybrid setup the real answer to which is to cut speeds drastically and for all road users to exercise extreme caution (no jaywalkers, boy-racers or madcap cyclists).
-
An old chap was killed on Baggot Street a few years ago when a cycle courier riding on the pavement smacked into him – what price that missarchi?
-
Lot of crap being posted here, including this from jimg above…….”As weehamster points out, no matter what your personal opinions, the statistics are there; motorised vehicles have caused about 400 deaths a year on average over the last few years; pedestrians and cyclists have caused absolutely none.”
Duh! Which is more breakable? How many of us see pedestrians launching themselves off the sidewalk in front of an on-coming car? “It’s my right to cross the road right now” (Seems to be a phenomonen of the adolescent schoolgirl!) I exit my office car park by a narrow lane and on a regular basis pedestrians walk in front of me, when it is plainly obvious that it is “blind” Observance of traffic lights by pedestrians and cyclists is a joke. Perfectly obvious to me that there is an equal number of stroppy bs out there on foot & pedal. Darwin will rule.
K. -
@Rory W wrote:
An old chap was killed on Baggot Street a few years ago when a cycle courier riding on the pavement smacked into him
Minor correction- courier was riding the wrong way down a one-way street, if I recall correctly. The man looked in the direction of oncoming traffic and was hit from behind.
***
I will be back to respond to the OP as promised, but I think it best if I withdraw from the emerging debate as a) I’ve said my piece before in the other cycling thread, and b) I’m trying not to make any more enemies. 😉
-
😀 ctesiphon, I know what you mean. But it’s like an itch – I just can’t resist. 😮
Duh! Which is more breakable? How many of us see pedestrians launching themselves off the sidewalk in front of an on-coming car? “It’s my right to cross the road right now” (Seems to be a phenomonen of the adolescent schoolgirl!)
So what? Pedestrians and cyclists do not kill other people by their mistakes. Motorists do. The stats back up a very simple and uncontroversal claim that pedestrians and cyclists, at worst, endanger themselves. The mistakes of motorists kill others more often than themselves.
There are at least 20 times as many pedestrians and cyclists using the city centre streets at any point in time as there are motorists; sometimes 100 times as many. Therefore priorities have to be set by modern approaches to the situation and not by Le Corbusierian ideals of universal private car ownership, the razing of tracts of city centers to accommodate dual carriageways, confining pedestrians to stinking subways or marshalling them behind metal barriers and the dismantlement of public transport.
Giving giving priority to someone in a car over someone on foot (which seems to be the full time objective of the roads dept in DCC) is an urban design philosophy which will be fully dead in a few years; so you’d better to get used to having to work your way around pedestrians and cyclists if you want to bring your car into a city. This shift of power will be resented for sure – particularly by motorists – but it is inevitable.
The idea of giving right-of-way on 90% of the surface area of a city street to less than 4% of its users (motorists) is ludicrous. Legislating for this or trying to impose it by physical alteration of the cityscape is futile or immensely destructive. What is amusing is the indignation on the part of motorists if their priveledged position is not revered by everyone else. On the rare occasion when I drive through the city, I know I am lucky to allowed to do so; I do not get indignant.
The period is over where supremacy was granted to the motorcar in cities; historically it’s been a blip – just the last 50 years or so. It’s no accident that its reign has coincided with universal urban decay. This experiment will be terminated and we will return to a more egalitarian approach; the streets will be once again shared equally by pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, buses and trams. If that means everyone has to slow down and show some consideration for others, then all the better. This is already starting to happen in other cities – we’re just a few years behind.
-
@KerryBog2 wrote:
Lot of crap being posted here, including this from jimg above…….”As weehamster points out, no matter what your personal opinions, the statistics are there; motorised vehicles have caused about 400 deaths a year on average over the last few years; pedestrians and cyclists have caused absolutely none.”
Duh! Which is more breakable? How many of us see pedestrians launching themselves off the sidewalk in front of an on-coming car? “It’s my right to cross the road right now” (Seems to be a phenomonen of the adolescent schoolgirl!) I exit my office car park by a narrow lane and on a regular basis pedestrians walk in front of me, when it is plainly obvious that it is “blind” Observance of traffic lights by pedestrians and cyclists is a joke. Perfectly obvious to me that there is an equal number of stroppy bs out there on foot & pedal. Darwin will rule.
K.I hate this nonsense: a car driver is in charge of a potentially lethal machine; freak accidents aside, pedestrians and cyclists are not, further, cars have a huge environmental and planning cost, it is wrong to pretend there is a symmetry of responsibility.
-
@Rory W wrote:
An old chap was killed on Baggot Street a few years ago when a cycle courier riding on the pavement smacked into him – what price that missarchi?
I love your roar!!! paddy power is offering odds
-
@hutton wrote:
Yet the lady needs to turn left!
And I add, the driver legally did so – although with speed. The filter light indicating that she is allowed turn left is not visible to the cyclist. Unless the cyclist is already familiar with the sequence of that specific junction, as indicated on lights directed at other streets, there is no warning as to traffic coming from behind cutting left.
While i see the problem, I can speak from the point of view of someone who cycles all over this city every day, like others on this forum. The lady in the car did nothing wrong in this case – the cyclist did. He is on the inside of a left hand turning lane, therefore he should have indicated that he wanted to continue straight on with hand signals well in advance of the junction, and as he waited there. If he had indicated correctly then he would have the right of way in that situation, if however he doesn’t indicate straight on (which he hasnt) he does not have the right of way to continue straight on….
Im not against cyclists, I am one. I do however think that in situations like this people really ought to learn their road traffic act / rules of the road!!!!
On another note – the road traffic act also states that where a mandatory cycle lane is provided, cycles and motorcycles MUST use it…… Now the cycle lane (mandatory) on the churchtown road down towards Dundrum (the raised one on the footpath) MUST be used be cycles, its in the road traffic act, but that cycle lane is full of potholes… and when you cycle a 2,000 euro racer around the last thing you want is buckles in your wheels!!! wo do you use the lane and destroy your bike and claim… or do you use the road and go against the road traffic act, but still keep your bike….. Personally I use the road… but that means that I now have very very few rights of way as a cyclist…
Just a thought!
-
@djasmith wrote:
While i see the problem, I can speak from the point of view of someone who cycles all over this city every day, like others on this forum. The lady in the car did nothing wrong in this case – the cyclist did. He is on the inside of a left hand turning lane, therefore he should have indicated that he wanted to continue straight on with hand signals well in advance of the junction, and as he waited there. If he had indicated correctly then he would have the right of way in that situation, if however he doesn’t indicate straight on (which he hasnt) he does not have the right of way to continue straight on….
Im not against cyclists, I am one. I do however think that in situations like this people really ought to learn their road traffic act / rules of the road!!!!
On another note – the road traffic act also states that where a mandatory cycle lane is provided, cycles and motorcycles MUST use it…… Now the cycle lane (mandatory) on the churchtown road down towards Dundrum (the raised one on the footpath) MUST be used be cycles, its in the road traffic act, but that cycle lane is full of potholes… and when you cycle a 2,000 euro racer around the last thing you want is buckles in your wheels!!! wo do you use the lane and destroy your bike and claim… or do you use the road and go against the road traffic act, but still keep your bike….. Personally I use the road… but that means that I now have very very few rights of way as a cyclist…
Just a thought!
It was not suggested that the driver was in any way in the wrong here, the issue is that the moving of the cycle lane to the right to accommodate cars turning left, was undertaken in an incomplete fashion by the council. The non removal of the red tarmac leads cyclists to believe they are in the cycle lane, when it has technically been moved.
-
From Today’s IT
Gormley refuses to appoint cycle lanes engineer
OLIVIA KELLY
THE DEPARTMENT of the Environment has refused to appoint an engineer to develop safe cycling routes in Dublin city, despite an urgent request from Dublin City Council.In a letter to the council management dated February 26th, a department official said she had been directed by Minister for the Environment John Gormley to say that the post could not be sanctioned because of a Government policy on public sector employment. However a spokesman for Mr Gormley yesterday said he only became aware of the council’s request in the last 24 hours.
“The Minister will review the request and see what can be done. He is very supportive of cycling initiatives, but has to be mindful of the cap on public service employment.”
The request had been made by the council’s cycling forum, which said there was a serious lack of resources dedicated to cycling, despite Government assertions that it wanted people to stop using their cars for commuting.
The chair of the cycling forum, Labour councillor Andrew Montague said it was particularly disappointing that Mr Gormley, who is known to be a keen cyclist, would refuse to sanction the appointment of a cycling officer.
“Estimates from Dublin City Council show that there were 26 million journeys done by bike in Dublin in 2006 – about the same as the number of journeys undertaken by Luas passengers in that year. Hundreds of millions have been spent on the Luas, yet the Minister won’t sanction the wages for one engineer to improve cycling facilities in the capital.”
Currently one city engineer has responsibility for cycling facilities, such as fixing potholes in bicycle lanes, resurfacing lanes, planning new lanes, locating bicycle racks and identifying junctions where cyclists are in danger. However, this engineer does the work in a part-time capacity, which Mr Montague said is “way short of what we need”.
“Improvements carried out so far are having an impact, but our work has been hampered by the lack of a full-time traffic engineer to follow through on our plans.
“A full-time cycling engineer in Dublin City Council would allow us tackle the poor cycling infrastructure in the city and encourage even more commuters to us their bikes.”
Mr Montague said cycling was undergoing a “renaissance” in Dublin with a 44 per cent increase in the number of cyclists crossing the canals into the city in the last three years.
“Following the opening of the Port Tunnel last year, the numbers cycling in Dublin surged by 17 per cent in 2007. Cyclists feel much more confident about cycling in Dublin since HGVs were banned from our streets.”
Yet another example of the lunacy of capping public sector employment at a time of massive growth and infrastructural inadequacies. How this pans out will be very interesting especially in the light of the recent tender to develop a National Cycle Policy. We desperately need to remove cycling from the remit of the dinosaur Roads engineers who think only in terms of capacity and to employ full time cycle planners who are educated in how best to cater for other modes.
It’s no accident that the motor cars reign has coincided with universal urban decay
Totally agree with everything jimg says in that post above. The car is the enemy of the city. Cities by definition exist to maximise human interaction. Cars and Highways sever communities, be they suburban or inner city, residential, commercial or cultural, and compromise interaction. Cycling and walking by definition increase interaction.
This is not only a transport issue. This is a social issue, an urban design issue and a civic issue. What type of city do you all actually want?
-
I don’t know the roads act 2 well…
but who is responsible for glass on the roads and if you took it to court who would win the man with the puncture or the authority???
-
It’s a hard one to call – It’s the drivers responsibility to ensure that they can see and react in good time to anything on the road that may cause a danger to them, others, or their vehicle…..
If you took a speed ramp at 30 miles an hour and destroyed your suspension, is it your fault for not responding to it, or the councils fault for putting it there?? Ok it’s a totally different thing, but the principle is the same. The glass shouldnt be there, but at the same time the council can’t be expected to respond it to straight away, so therefore the driver must react to it…
And anyway….. a puncture is only about 8 quid to get fixed 😀
-
Urban decay was directly caused bty the rise of suburbanism, which was possible by the rise of the affordable motor car and new middle class
-
Nope; suburbanisation predates high levels of motor car ownership and predates the urban decay of the latter half of the 20th century. In many cities (Dublin included) suburbanisation was initially facilitated by mass public transport systems. London is a prime example which grew huge suburbs as a result of it’s extensive train system more than half a century before car ownership became feasible for the general public. The sort of decay we associate with the 70’s was caused by many factors but it’s hardly a coincidence that the areas which were “re-engineered” in the 50s and 60s to facilitate traffic in Dublin are the ones which suffered the worst decay. The UK cities which succeeded in bringing motorways into their centres were the ones which suffered the most extreme decay; the same thing happened in cities in the US which did the ultimate to reshape cities to support the movement of motorcars – for example LA and Boston.
-
But the pattern of suburban development changed because of cars; from small towns to subdivisions.
-
@hutton wrote:
Recent alterations, changes, and other provisions that have been made by Dublin City Council, are lethal and will in all likelihood result in further deaths on the capitals roads. No new permanent/ mandatory cycle-ways are being installed; instead incredibly dangerous non-mandatory part-time cycle “tracks†are being put in – even though in many instances the roads are perfectly suited to having full time mandatory cycle-lanes.
Have you put your concerns in writing to the local authority? If so, what reply did you receive if any?
-
On which point, the Dublin Cycling Campaign recently posted contact details for same.
See here: http://home.connect.ie/dcc/docs/contact.html
If anyone uses this service, I’d be curious to know how it works out. -
@ctesiphon wrote:
On which point, the Dublin Cycling Campaign recently posted contact details for same.
See here: http://home.connect.ie/dcc/docs/contact.html
If anyone uses this service, I’d be curious to know how it works out.i will keep you posted : P
-
There was a vicious pothole at the top of Dawson Street which caused me to crash my bike and doubtless was a contributor to many near misses. I phoned up the South City Roads Maintenance Department and followed up with an email.
Refreshingly, I was courteously dealt with and a few weeks later the hole was filled in. So far so good in my dealings with them. That said, the cycle lanes in the city in general are in quite poor repair. Can’t say I have seen any comprehensive (i.e. not makeshift repairs) resurfacing of said lanes since they were put in place over five years ago.
I feel the problem is that the standard of finish in a cycle lane really needs to be above that of the main carriageway. Small depressions and cracked paving have a huge impact on the cyclist, whereas heavier, well balanced cars are much less affected. I don’t think DCC have copped on to this yet to be honest. Hopefully the increased presence of cyclists on the road will help focus minds.
Optimistically, …
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
