[Article] Cyclists deem new bridge 'dangerous'

Victor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6962775.ece

Cyclists deem new bridge ‘dangerous’
Sarah McInerney

Dublin’s new Samuel Beckett bridge, which will form part of the government’s €10m cross-city cycle route, has been described as “dangerous, unusable and unacceptable” by a cycling lobby group.

The landmark €60m piece of infrastructure, which opened last week, is an integral part of a circuit that will link Rathmines and Fairview Park. When launching the 7km route in September, Noel Dempsey, the transport minister, said it would “open up the city” to cyclists and show that “cycling can be safe for everyone”.

However, the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after testing the course that the cycle lanes are of insufficient width and in some cases put cyclists in danger. The group also claims that many lanes stop without warning and much of the signage appears to be illegal.

“It’s just not usable,” said James Leahy, who tested the route for the cycling body. “You cannot use it safely or without breaking the law. This is meant to be a new flagship phase in cycle routes for the next generation, but in this case they have just repeated all the same mistakes of the past.”

Mike McKillen, chairman of Cyclist.ie, an umbrella group for Irish cycling campaigns, said the design of the facilities suggests they were an afterthought. “I suspect that when the bridge was designed it had no cycle lanes, and then last year Dempsey gave the city council €10m for the cycle route across the city,” he said.

“At that point it was too late. They couldn’t make the bridge wider, so they just put lanes in willy nilly wherever they could find the space. It really makes us despair. The engineers in Dublin city council just don’t get things right for cyclists.”

Leahy claimed the cycle lane on the east side of the bridge leads directly into oncoming traffic. The one on the west side has a “a very narrow cycle track on the footpath” which turns sharply on to the road, he added.

“These particular instances are actually quite dangerous,” Leahy said. “It would have been much better for the council not to draw out any cycle lanes and leave cyclists on the road.”

In a number of instances, the council has erected signs directing cyclists on to the footpath, which Leahy believes may be against the law.

“It is illegal to cycle on footpaths unless there is a designated cycle lane, and on one side of the bridge, there’s no cycle lane,” he said. “It’s meant to be a ‘shared space’ but that only works in an area where pedestrians and cyclists are taking their time. This is a commuter route where cyclists are likely to be going at high speed. This signage also is not in the Traffic Signs Regulations, so I would question its legality.”

Leahy said that even if the design does not break the rules, it is still unsuitable for cyclists to be on the pavement. “We’re constantly hearing calls from pedestrian groups to get us off the path, and we agree,” he said. “For elderly people it’s disconcerting to have cyclists zipping past in a blur, and it’s also been a big issue for the blind.”

Fionnuala Murphy, communications officer for the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, said the group is opposed to having cyclists on the pavement. “If you’re trying to navigate the city with a guide dog or a cane, it already takes a lot of concentration,” she said. “Trying to be aware of people flying past you at high speed just adds to the difficulty.”

A spokesman for Dublin city council said there was no case of a cycle track leading into oncoming traffic on the bridge and that the sign indicating shared pedestrian and cycle use was “being incorporated within the new Traffic Signs Manual”. The plan had always been to have cycle lanes on the bridge, he added.

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

Dempsey said he could not comment on the situation on the bridge but admitted there were substandard cycling facilities in urban areas. “One of the reasons I published Ireland’s first national cycle policy in April was because I recognised there were so many problems to be addressed before we could have a cycling culture,” he said.

Leahy and McKillen praised the principles set out in the policy, but said they were not in evidence on the bridge. “The policy has a hierarchy of what facilities should be put in place, and the introduction of cycle lanes is right down the bottom of the list,” Leahy said.

amacachi

Am I the only one that the Times website never ever works for?

Cookie_Monster

So just cycle on the road then?

RedPlanet

Yep, sounds like it be: take-the-lane and ignore the cycle "facilities".
Bloody typical.

Cookie_Monster

there are supposed to be luas track on it too aren't there, in case needed in future?

Or was that plan abandoned. If they do eventually put a luas in, I can't see there being too much space left for the other lane or cyclists if this happens

dowlingm

I think it was more that the bridge was designed to accept the load, not that rails would be preinstalled.

BrianD

The luas "grooves" to accept rails are under the road surface towards the centre of the bridge as far as I recall. I think this is going to get as much milage as the track spacing on the green line. It was a good idea to put in the capability but I can't see a tram using that routing.

The article is really a load of hot air and a non-issue. This lobby group is commenting on a cycle route that is only in the planning permission. The bridge is probably the best bit of it. A little like years ago when you'd have a country lane turn into a really well built wide road that lasted about 1km!

As for the bridge, one can only commend the council for the very generous non-vehicular lanes on the bridge. It seems like some of these cycle groups only ever want to complain.

paulm17781

The other side is, "what will keep pedestrians out of the cycle lane?".

markpb

BrianD wrote: »

As for the bridge, one can only commend the council for the very generous non-vehicular lanes on the bridge. It seems like some of these cycle groups only ever want to complain.

Do you cycle around Dublin? A wide footpath that cyclists are allowed use it next to useless. Entrances, exits and turning restrictions that are dangerous or useless make any cycle lane on the bridge useless. DCC have some fairly valid points.

I got this (partial) mail from a councillor:

I met with the engineers today. They know that the bike lanes aren't up to scratch and are putting a plan together to fix it.

delta_bravo

http://www.dublincycling.ie/beckettbridge

The bridge has been designed very poorly for cycling, most of the signs and markings dont comply with the signage rules.

Cookie_Monster

delta_bravo wrote: »

http://www.dublincycling.ie/beckettbridge

The bridge has been designed very poorly for cycling, most of the signs and markings dont comply with the signage rules.

While some of the points in the blog are a little whiney, ie problem with the ramps.. WHat a mess they made of that whole area :eek:

csd

Having read through the blog post, I have to agree that this is very poor indeed. It's just not acceptable that a €60m project like this relegates the safety of cyclists to such an extent.

Anyone claiming that the cycling lobby is a bunch of whingers clearly hasn't tried making use of the "facilities" provided by DCC and the other local authorities. What's more unforgivable is that time and money is spent "designing" and implementing this nonsense.

DCC's transport department should send one of their engineers over to the Netherlands or Paris to learn how to do it properly. Until cycling facilities in general are brought up to scratch, all the guff from the Minister about encouraging cycling as a sustainable mode of transport is just so much hot air.

/csd

Cookie_Monster

what i really find astonishing about the whole thing is that they've laid the round metal bumps to indicated the edge of the cycle path and looked to have turned it into footpath in a lot of cases.
Or at least changed the surface for no apparent reason to make it harder to distinguish the cycle lane.
Methinks they changed the plans mid way through or more than once...

RedPlanet

Great link that http://www.dublincycling.ie/beckettbridge
Thanks for posting it.
It's obvious the "cycling facilities" are a merely an inconvenient after-thought that was hastily designed and sloppily done. (is that a word?)
Definately a case of ignore dangerous cycle facilities and take the lane.

antoinolachtnai

This is a good documentation of the problems on the route, although personally i do not think the sharpish ramp is a problem.

In fairness, there is a scheme planned for North Wall Quay as part of a QBC.

Would bikes be better off in the bus lanes on the bridge?

Cookie_Monster

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Would bikes be better off in the bus lanes on the bridge?

Yes.

Short enough and I'd imagine that there realtivly infrequent buses to be blocked by cyclists

monument

BrianD wrote: »

...As for the bridge, one can only commend the council for the very generous non-vehicular lanes on the bridge.

As a bicycle is classed as a vehicle, that's not really on topic.

BrianD wrote: »

... It seems like some of these cycle groups only ever want to complain.

That's not too surprising really. Not surprising at all.

And, no, these are not isolated case. Cycle tracks generally are of very poor design and badly maintained, see more here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

Just on the bridge alone, there is:

• An exit at 90 degrees to the road. Sub standard even by the old Irish cycle manual, given both then potential danger and the clear slowing down of cyclists
• An advance stop line which is so small it puts cyclists in the blind spots of HGVs.
• If you do turn left here, just after you were directed off the footpath, you're again directed onto it, for just a few meters until you're redirected onto the road again at 90 degrees.
• At least two endings with nowhere to legally go but to dismount
• No ramp on entrance on one side other than ped crossing (again, you have to dismount)
• One side which leads cyclists on to concrete tiles/slabs which are not suitable to cycle on (this type of weather a case in point). In other words it's just a footpath really.
• One reasonably well designed ramp on the one-way street on the south side, but there are no marking on the cycle track after the ramp at footpath level, and going the other direction there's no marking with the road and cyclists are left with traffic on right hand side
• Cycle tracks end and are disjointed at all ped crossing etc. So, to get from the one way street contraflow to cross the bridge the signs demand a dismount. Otherwise, what you have here is the council normalise use of footpaths for cyclists?
• A shared space footpath / cycle track one side of the bridge with pedestrians walking all over the place, and a one-way marked cycle track the other side with cyclists coming at you the wrong way. Enforcement of the cyclists action here seems unlikely since we seem unable to enforce traffic laws high up the chain (even the far more dangerous act of using a one-way cycle track in the same way on the road).

D'Peoples Voice

the funny thing is that this bridge is to be part of Sutton to Sandycove cyclepath!
http://www.bikescheme.ie/green-party-cycle-plan-dublin
Hence if they are PROACTIVELY encouraging more cyclists to use this bridge then the cyclelane should not be an afterthought!

BrianD

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

the funny thing is that this bridge is to be part of Sutton to Sandycove cyclepath!
http://www.bikescheme.ie/green-party-cycle-plan-dublin
Hence if they are PROACTIVELY encouraging more cyclists to use this bridge then the cyclelane should not be an afterthought!

The so called cycling lobbyists that we hear so much from here relish the opportunity to bring ordinary decent cyclists into disrepute through petty arguements and their righteous ways.

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the bridge other than it is a number of years ahead of the cycle way that is supposed to lead to it and from it.

BrianD

monument wrote: »

As a bicycle is classed as a vehicle, that's not really on topic.



That's not too surprising really. Not surprising at all.

And, no, these are not isolated case. Cycle tracks generally are of very poor design and badly maintained, see more here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

Just on the bridge alone, there is:

• An exit at 90 degrees to the road. Sub standard even by the old Irish cycle manual, given both then potential danger and the clear slowing down of cyclists
• An advance stop line which is so small it puts cyclists in the blind spots of HGVs.
• If you do turn left here, just after you were directed off the footpath, you're again directed onto it, for just a few meters until you're redirected onto the road again at 90 degrees.
• At least two endings with nowhere to legally go but to dismount
• No ramp on entrance on one side other than ped crossing (again, you have to dismount)
• One side which leads cyclists on to concrete tiles/slabs which are not suitable to cycle on (this type of weather a case in point). In other words it's just a footpath really.
• One reasonably well designed ramp on the one-way street on the south side, but there are no marking on the cycle track after the ramp at footpath level, and going the other direction there's no marking with the road and cyclists are left with traffic on right hand side
• Cycle tracks end and are disjointed at all ped crossing etc. So, to get from the one way street contraflow to cross the bridge the signs demand a dismount. Otherwise, what you have here is the council normalise use of footpaths for cyclists?
• A shared space footpath / cycle track one side of the bridge with pedestrians walking all over the place, and a one-way marked cycle track the other side with cyclists coming at you the wrong way. Enforcement of the cyclists action here seems unlikely since we seem unable to enforce traffic laws high up the chain (even the far more dangerous act of using a one-way cycle track in the same way on the road).

To paraphrase. Nothing wrong with the bridge. Everything wrong with the approaches to it that are part of the yet to built cycleway.

What the council should do now is close the cycleway facility on the bridge and reopen it when the route is complete.

Marvinthefish

BrianD wrote: »

To paraphrase. Nothing wrong with the bridge. Everything wrong with the approaches to it that are part of the yet to built cycleway.


there is nothing wrong with the bridge other than it is a number of years ahead of the cycle way that is supposed to lead to it and from it.

Maybe then the question is why were any new road markings or new signs (for cyclists) put up around the bridge? Wait for the Sutton to Sandycove cyclepath so that all signs and markings are consistent and legal.

BrianD

Marvinthefish wrote: »

Maybe then the question is why were any new road markings or new signs (for cyclists) put up around the bridge? Wait for the Sutton to Sandycove cyclepath so that all signs and markings are consistent and legal.

I haven't cycled across the bridge or walked it. I have only driven accross it a few times. Perhaps the signage for cyclist is consistent and legal in isolation. Having said that, the signage is pretty dreadful for motorists as well. It seems that DCC have a lot to answer for the project management for the introduction of this piece of infrastructure. It's been a bad experience for all users.

Unfortunately, the whinge fest that the so called cycle lobby goes on with makes me take their complaints with a grain of salt. They really need to improve how they interface with the public.

the_syco

“We would not accept the accuracy of all the points raised in relation to the bridge,” he said. “The cycle lanes have been designed in accordance with accepted national standards.”

I think here lies the problem: the accepted national standards generally suck. I'm a ped in Dublin, but the only cycle lanes I ever see are the ones that go under the parked cars.

monument

BrianD wrote: »

To paraphrase. Nothing wrong with the bridge. Everything wrong with the approaches to it that are part of the yet to built cycleway.

What the council should do now is close the cycleway facility on the bridge and reopen it when the route is complete.

No. Everything I have listed is on the bridge or was part of the bridge works.

RedPlanet

BrianD wrote: »

The so called cycling lobbyists that we hear so much from here relish the opportunity to bring ordinary decent cyclists into disrepute through petty arguements and their righteous ways.

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the bridge other than it is a number of years ahead of the cycle way that is supposed to lead to it and from it.

Well you're obviously not cycle commuter so why should anybody listen your opinion of the cycle "facilities"?