East Link toll bridge Dublin and cyclists

Beasty

Some reminders (before anyone gets themselves into trouble;))

• Keep it civil.
• Remember this is the cycling forum - anyone coming in here to have general swipes at cyclists can expect to be dealt with appropriately.
• If anyone has a problem with a post, report it.

Thanks

Beasty

justo

These signs we're put up a few years ago in recognition of the fact that crossing this bridge is damn dangerous.

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

The cyclist, Peter Heffernan, was my friend's father.

tomasrojo

I'm very sorry to hear it. Did that not happen on the roundabout in front of The Point though rather than on the bridge?

Cookie_Monster

justo wrote: »

These signs we're put up a few years ago in recognition of the fact that crossing this bridge is damn dangerous.

can you describe how it is dangerous exactly? more so than any other road...

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

you cannot turn left on the bridge and by the time you reach the roundabout if you had dismounted you would have remounted by that point anyway

The cyclist, Peter Heffernan, was my friend's father.

RIP but the bridge design had nothing to do with the above incident, the trucks inoperative lights and the cyclist position in relation to the truck (or vice versa) caused the collision.

justo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm very sorry to hear it. Did that not happen on the roundabout in front of The Point though rather than on the bridge?

As far as I am aware it happened at the round-about alright, but the signs were erected after the inquiry to attempt to improve the general area, in athe absence of proper facilities for shared-use in the area.

CramCycle

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

when disobeying the requirements suggestion

justo wrote: »

More specifically, they were put up following the inquest into the death of a cyclist who was killed when heading north by a left turning truck with a faulty indicator.

Sorry for your friends loss but in that situation it sounds like road position/situational awareness was the issue and not the bridge.

justo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

can you describe how it is dangerous exactly? more so than any other road...

you cannot turn left on the bridge and by the time you reach the roundabout if you had dismounted you would have remounted by that point anyway

Of course you can't run left on the bridge. At the end of the bridge you can turn left. As mentioned above, the request to dismount is an attempt to prevent more accidents in the general area, I would assume, as the problems with the bridge were highligted at the inquest.

RIP but the bridge design had nothing to do with the above incident, the trucks inoperative lights and the cyclist position in relation to the truck (or vice versa) caused the collision.

The bridge design and the cycling facilities in the area are central to the incident. The accident occured pre-tunnel so the bridge was a main entry/ exit point for 40foot trucks etc. to Dublin port. Even the worst town planner should be able to tell that this kind of traffic should not mix with cyclists if at all possible. Of course the faulty indicator was paramount as well.

tomasrojo

justo wrote: »

As far as I am aware it happened at the round-about alright, but the signs were erected after the inquiry to attempt to improve the general area, in athe absence of proper facilities for shared-use in the area.

I see what you mean, and you aren't necessarily defending the measure, but it doesn't actually make the dangerous bit -- the roundabout -- any safer. It's generally better to give some idea to a road-user what the hazard is, rather than tell them to walk anyway. For example, if the hazard is trucks, there's no reason not to cycle over when there are no trucks about. If the hazard is crosswinds, there's no reason not to cycle on a still day.

I personally don't like the bridge and avoid it, but if I worked in, say, East Point Business Park and lived just south of the East Link, I probably would cycle over it everyday.

tomasrojo

On the subject of roundabouts, it's notoriously difficult to mix cycle facilities with large roundabouts. They're quite incompatible in general.

For example:

Cycle facilities at roundabouts

Research has shown that even in large circular junctions that lack modern roundabout design features, a high rate of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes occurs when bicyclists are riding around the outside. Design guidance for modern roundabouts recommends terminating cycle lanes well before the entrances, so bicyclists merge into the stream of motor traffic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Cycle_facilities_at_roundabouts

There are expensive solutions, but even some of them break down (such as cyclist underpasses in areas of social deprivation).

EDIT:

Off-topic a little, but I couldn't agree more with this on the subject of pedestrian crossings at roundabouts:

Modern design guidance also recommends placing the footpath crossings far enough from the roundabout so that at least one exiting vehicle can wait without blocking the circular roadway. A roundabout with two lanes should place the footpath crossing two car lengths from the junction.

Crossings directly in the mouth of the exit are very hazardous, in my experience.

justo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I see what you mean, and you aren't necessarily defending the measure, but it doesn't actually make the dangerous bit -- the roundabout -- any safer. It's generally better to give some idea to a road-user what the hazard is, rather than tell them to walk anyway. For example, if the hazard is trucks, there's no reason not to cycle over when there are no trucks about. If the hazard is crosswinds, there's no reason not to cycle on a still day.

I personally don't like the bridge and avoid it, but if I worked in, say, East Point Business Park and lived just south of the East Link, I probably would cycle over it everyday.

Agreed. But all too often, an Irish problem is fixed with a make-shift, under-performing, Irish solution.

Hermy

Magic Beans wrote: »

And pay the toll? Or squeeze through with a vehicle?

Earth calling cyclists, Earth calling cyclists...

Must be the bee sting I got yesterday - I don't understand this posters response.

CramCycle

Hermy wrote: »

Must be the bee sting I got yesterday - I don't understand this posters response.

The bee probably seen the argument coming and opted for the easy way out when he realised it just wasn't worth it, the rest of us don't understand it either.

Hermy

Oh, so now I'm the easy way out.

Mr. Presentable

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.345146,-6.227531&spn=0.003753,0.032487&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.345029,-6.227505&panoid=SV6LDOTpyjNmPsEqV4XE4w&cbp=12,9.34,,0,2.08

There's the offending sign.

1) on the wrong side of the road, why would you even be looking over there while on the corner2) Request only, not a direction/order.
3) Look at the positions of both cars in that photo, there is clearly enough room within the lane for a cyclist to safely traverse the bridge and be passed by cars (as the Renault is doing)

Look at the other side of the road, there are signs on both.

CramCycle

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Look at the other side of the road, there are signs on both.

Stuck to a temporary board and not facing the oncoming traffic? Very helpful indeed

Tayto2000

The bridge is too narrow to comfortably accommodate everyone - there's room to cycle but in order to overtake a cyclist on the bridge safely, a vehicle would need to cross the solid white line (Illegally - not an emergency or for access). So instead of, say widening the footpath to add a bike path, DCC whack in a made up sign. Bravo.

Luckily, the gardai don't seem to be rushing to punish transgressors...

Mr. Presentable

CramCycle wrote: »

Stuck to a temporary board and not facing the oncoming traffic? Very helpful indeed

There nonetheless. Is the site work still ongoing there?

SuiteCheex

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There nonetheless. Is the site work still ongoing there?

Nope. Finished up a couple of months ago but I'll keep an eye out for any signs on my way home.

After reading this thread I'm now sh!t scared of crossing this bridge!!!

CramCycle

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Luckily, the gardai don't seem to be rushing to punish transgressors...

Probably because they can't as it's not illegal :pac:

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There nonetheless. Is the site work still ongoing there?

But if going that way across the bridge (towards the port/point), the sign is/was almost completely blocked from traffics view by the lampposts. I honestly thought that sign was a work site sign as I never got a clear view of it. I'll pop down from work to see is there one there tomorrow if I get a chance.

chakattack

hardCopy wrote: »

If DCC/NTR are so concerned with cycle safety they should remove those obsolete rails from the road surface on the roundabout

True story! I was going to post about that.

That's the only section road in dublin that I don't feel safe on.

You have to cross them slowly and head-on which can make staying out of harms way with the traffic tricky.

glic71rods46t0

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Ok, I'll say this one more time for you. The sign is below:



The text on it says "Cyclists are requested to dismount and walk bicycles across east-link bridge via the footpath".

Note the important word on the sign, I'll even embolden it for emphasis: requested. Now, I'm not sure if English is your first language, or if your comprehension is off, or if you're just a bit dim, but in the real world, requested does not equal a requirement. That's nothing to do with law, common sense or anything else, it's the English language, and isn't open to interpretation.

I can request that you fuck off and stop trolling the thread, and you could, quite rightly, ignore that with no consequences at all. If a moderator required you to do it on the other hand, you'd have to comply, or face a ban. Is that clear enough, or would you like to twist things a bit more to fit your agenda?

Perhaps, instead of using foul language and insulting me, you might re-read my post (its in basic english). You will see that the context of my post related to the wider issue of carparks which is where the discussion had moved to at the time.
Oh, and from my limited knowledge of language I have heard that language is always open to interpretation - thats what we have solicitors, barristers and judges for;)

gymnipities

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

... there is clearly enough room within the lane for a cyclist to safely traverse the bridge and be passed by cars (as the Renault is doing)

The problem is that it's heavily used by HGVs and there definitely isn't room for a HGV to overtake a cyclist safely. That doesn't stop them doing it anyway if they see a clear stretch in the oncoming lane but I've had some very close scrape-bys and there's nowhere to go because of the enormous kerb on the path. I regularly cycle over and on past the next roundabout at Sean Moore Road and find it the most dangerous stretch in Dublin because it's busy and it's all too narrow for the number of HGVs using it.

Magic Beans

CramCycle wrote: »

I call TROLL

Not guilty. It's a genuine difference of opinion and I have tried to put forward my point of view in a friendly, light hearted manner so as to cause no offence. I have not personalised any aspect of the debate. If you genuinely feel I am trolling please report any / all of my posts and I will abide by the moderators decision without argument.

Jawgap

justo

gymnipities wrote: »

The problem is that it's heavily used by HGVs and there definitely isn't room for a HGV to overtake a cyclist safely. That doesn't stop them doing it anyway if they see a clear stretch in the oncoming lane but I've had some very close scrape-bys and there's nowhere to go because of the enormous kerb on the path. I regularly cycle over and on past the next roundabout at Sean Moore Road and find it the most dangerous stretch in Dublin because it's busy and it's all too narrow for the number of HGVs using it.

This is all makes a lot of sense.

CramCycle

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

Oh, and from my limited knowledge of language I have heard that language is always open to interpretation - thats what we have solicitors, barristers and judges for;)

But none of those people would be involved as it is not a legal sign and would not be brought up if there was an issue on the bridge.

Magic Beans wrote: »

Not guilty. It's a genuine difference of opinion and I have tried to put forward my point of view in a friendly, light hearted manner so as to cause no offence. I have not personalised any aspect of the debate. If you genuinely feel I am trolling please report any / all of my posts and I will abide by the moderators decision without argument.

Apologies if that is the case, it did seem like you were arguing for the sake of arguing but if I misinterpreted what you were saying than I apologise but to be fair if I thought you were trolling in a serious manner than I would have reported it, I am just enjoying this thread as its been a slow week in work.

Cookie_Monster

gymnipities wrote: »

The problem is that it's heavily used by HGVs and there definitely isn't room for a HGV to overtake a cyclist safely. That doesn't stop them doing it anyway if they see a clear stretch in the oncoming lane but I've had some very close scrape-bys and there's nowhere to go because of the enormous kerb on the path. I regularly cycle over and on past the next roundabout at Sean Moore Road and find it the most dangerous stretch in Dublin because it's busy and it's all too narrow for the number of HGVs using it.

so cycle in the middle of the lane to prevent them.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=R131&daddr=York+Rd&hl=en&sll=53.345889,-6.225944&sspn=0.003324,0.010568&geocode=FS0BLgMdZPqg_w%3BFQ_6LQMdKvug_w&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=17&z=17
210 metres from the roundabout to the end of the corner. 30 seconds at 25kph, hardly a major delay for anyone, as opposed to 18.9 seconds at 40kph...

glic71rods46t0

CramCycle wrote: »

But none of those people would be involved as it is not a legal sign and would not be brought up if there was an issue on the bridge.

Re-read the posts dude ...wow and you question my understanding of the english language? LOL

Beasty

Proof the East Link can accomodate a full peleton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9i04xr2kqI

So far as I am aware no-one was hurt in the making of this movie (well not physically anyway;))

glic71rods46t0

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so cycle in the middle of the lane to prevent them.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=R131&daddr=York+Rd&hl=en&sll=53.345889,-6.225944&sspn=0.003324,0.010568&geocode=FS0BLgMdZPqg_w%3BFQ_6LQMdKvug_w&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=17&z=17
210 metres from the roundabout to the end of the corner. 30 seconds at 25kph, hardly a major delay for anyone, as opposed to 18.9 seconds at 40kph...

Or alternatively, continue the policy of segregated traffic modes. A well policed mandatory cycle track would make a big difference there and in other areas throughout the city.
I doubt there are many fans of mandatory cycle tracks on this forum but with increasing volumes of cyclists on Dublin's streets, sensible use of mandatory cycle tracks seems inevitable

-Chris-

Where would you put a mandatory cycle lane on that bridge? Do you really think it has the width to accommodate it, two full lanes and one or two footpaths?

Cookie_Monster

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

Or alternatively, continue the policy of segregated traffic modes.

a flawed and unworkable policy

A well policed mandatory cycle track would make a big difference there and in other areas throughout the city.

how and why exactly would it make a big difference?
Who's going to pay for it to be "well policed" and what does that even mean, a Garda standing there all day, at rush hour only, cameras (ineffective as no reg to track bikes)...

I doubt there are many fans of mandatory cycle tracks on this forum but with increasing volumes of cyclists on Dublin's streets, sensible use of mandatory cycle tracks seems inevitable

sensible use of mandatory cycle lanes = zero use, anything more is not sensible at all.

Magic Beans

CramCycle wrote: »

Apologies if that is the case, it did seem like you were arguing for the sake of arguing but if I misinterpreted what you were saying than I apologise but to be fair if I thought you were trolling in a serious manner than I would have reported it, I am just enjoying this thread as its been a slow week in work.

Ireland is not cyclist friendly, tbh it's not motorist friendly either. If the truth be known the govt is employing a lot of divide and conquer tactics. Much like the constant public service vs private sector threads that we see so often.

Leaving aside my predilication for upholding regulations it's absolute horseshyte to ask people to get off their bikes and walk across bridges for very little good reason. That doesn't mean that rules and regulations don't have a role to play in our transport system.

Sr. Assumpta

I got bored waiting for Captain Havoc to contradict me/ apologise in another thread, and I thought I'd read through this thread to see what in God's name was keeping it active for so long, it is a very short bridge after all.

Anyhow, having read it all I can only conclude that some people just like to argue, topic is immaterial.

Also.......

tomasrojo wrote: »

.



.

For some reason this sign makes me think of sperm. Sperm hitting a wall to be exact. Yes, it's warning active sperm that there is a wall ahead, Careful!!!!

michaelm

Magic Beans wrote: »

Why not just do as the sign says?

Dismount, cross safely on foot, remount and be on your way.

It there a genetic problem with cyclists that forces them to disobey every possible rule or instruction? Seriously.

Because the majority of cycling related signs in this country are erected by people with little or no regard for cyclists and are frequently illogical. In fact if one was to carry out a survey of cycling signs in Ireland you would actually think that there was a long term plan to remove all bicycles from the country by eventually exasperating cyclists to the point where they just wouldn't bother. In many European countries however refreneces to cycling are in the main, positive, telling you what you can do, rather than what you cannot ("No entry, except cyclists" or "One way, except cyclists" are probably the most common ones in Belgium).

One of the most annoying one I have seen is on a bridge in Cork as you cross from UCC to some of their buildings on the other side of the Lee, a perfectly wide bridge, with no cars has the sign - "Cyclists must dismount when crossing bridge". It almost reminds of the Lottery ad - maybe they should just come out and say "all cyclists must wear barbed wire in their shorts"

Cookie_Monster

michaelm wrote: »

One of the most annoying one I have seen is on a bridge in Cork as you cross from UCC to some of their buildings on the other side of the Lee, a perfectly wide bridge, with no cars has the sign - "Cyclists must dismount when crossing bridge". It almost reminds of the Lottery ad - maybe they should just come out and say "all cyclists must wear barbed wire in their shorts"

"with nor cars" - you make it sound like a pedestrian only bridge, in which case it's basically a footpath and you shouldn't be cycling on it anyway, so that's fine.

CramCycle

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

Re-read the posts dude ...wow and you question my understanding of the english language? LOL

I didn't, I think you have me confused with someone else.

syuj5vbilpr30w wrote: »

I doubt there are many fans of mandatory cycle tracks on this forum but with increasing volumes of cyclists on Dublin's streets, sensible use of mandatory cycle tracks seems inevitable

The more cyclists the less need for cycle tracks IMO particularly in Ireland where existing infrastructure is unlikely to be capable of dealing with a retrofit.

Sr. Assumpta wrote: »

For some reason this sign makes me think of sperm. Sperm hitting a wall to be exact. Yes, it's warning active sperm that there is a wall ahead, Careful!!!!

Well at least we know the nuns are keeping celebate if thats what you think it looks like :pac::pac::pac:

SuiteCheex

I always wondered why I hadn't spotted these signs before (bearing in mind I don't usually keep and eye out for signs on the opposite side of the road!). These pics were taken this morning.

Cookie_Monster

SuiteCheex wrote: »

I always wondered why I hadn't spotted these signs before (bearing in mind I don't usually keep and eye out for signs on the opposite side of the road!). These pics were taken this morning.

so they only apply if you're cycling against traffic then
:pac:

Chips Lovell

SuiteCheex wrote: »

I always wondered why I hadn't spotted these signs before (bearing in mind I don't usually keep and eye out for signs on the opposite side of the road!). These pics were taken this morning.

No wonder I'd never seen them.

check_six

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so they only apply if you're cycling against traffic then
:pac:

I think you may have cracked this conundrum. It's possible to cycle down the cycle path on the North Wall heading east and arrive at the bridge on the wrong side of the road. In this circumstance it might be necessary to remind people to push their bike over the bridge on the footpath rather than cycle on the footpath.

I can't explain the sign on the other side (south side) though as I can't work out how you could end up on the footpath on that side on your bike.

In either event the path on the west side (nearest town) has a good bit of cycle traffic on it going both directions because it is possible to get into/out of Ringsend/Thorncastle St. from that path.

One other thought, due to the size of the path it's a lot easier for cyclists to pass each other (and pedestrians) if they are only taking up one bike width, ie. still sitting on the bike, not wheeling it beside them.

I wonder what would be a good sign that would signify "if you're going to roll along the footpath, take it easy"?

Seve OB

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.345146,-6.227531&spn=0.003753,0.032487&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.345029,-6.227505&panoid=SV6LDOTpyjNmPsEqV4XE4w&cbp=12,9.34,,0,2.08

There's the offending sign.

1) on the wrong side of the road, why would you even be looking over there while on the corner
2) Request only, not a direction/order.
3) Look at the positions of both cars in that photo, there is clearly enough room within the lane for a cyclist to safely traverse the bridge and be passed by cars (as the Renault is doing)

Look around you, there is one on the other side of the road, and one on the other side of the bridge!



Now I'm not going to tell everyone to do what the sign says because I agree that it is wrong. Cyclists have every right to use the roads as much as cars etc.

However, as both a driver and a cyclist, I really can't abide all the people here that are saying "I use the road all the time and never seen the sign before" crap. If you choose to use the roads well then you should bloody well follow the rules of the road, and look out for signs.

I expect these are the same people who come up to a traffic light thats red and because there is no cars coming think the red light doesnt apply to them, but then again, maybe I'm mistaken though and they do normally stop at red lights but happen to just not see that one they just went through.

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse. One day there will be a proper sign you need to be aware of and maybe you won't see it either, I just hope you don't catch a glipmse of it as you lie under a truck!

oflahero

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

Cookie_Monster

oflahero wrote: »

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

ah, he'll be fine, sure he can just cycle right across the water without any problem at all :D

CramCycle

stevieob wrote: »

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse. One day there will be a proper sign you need to be aware of and maybe you won't see it either, I just hope you don't catch a glipmse of it as you lie under a truck!

Please read previous posts, the first sign is not there anymore and the second one is on the far side of the bridge.

Jawgap

stevieob wrote: »

........ If you choose to use the roads well then you should bloody well follow the rules of the road, and look out for signs.

Does this sign appear in the rules of the road as published by the RSA

the question is rhetorical.

Can a rule that does not exist be followed - maybe this should be posted in the philosophy forum.......

tomasrojo

stevieob wrote: »

So if you are going to use "i didnt see it" as an excuse, thats codswallop and you need to learn the rules of the road and keep your eyes open, because that is not an excuse.

You're better off watching the road conditions and other traffic, rather than scanning the other side of the road on the off-chance that there's a sign incorrectly located there that applies to you.

But I was intrigued to see "codswallop" making an appearance. Got me to thinking where this word comes from.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/codswallop

Seems to have been very popular in the UK in the fifties and sixties, with its first recorded appearance in Hancock's Half Hour, which coincidentally I've been watching lately.

Seve OB

nice one on the codswallop info tomasrojo. what channel is hancocks half hour on that you been watching?

think one or two of you picked me up wrong, i understand this sign is flawed and was not having a go regarding this particular sign.

my point was ained at people "not seeing signs" and how many other signs do they not see or think that they dont apply to cyclists.

As a driver, it is so annoying and bloody dangerous when cyclists blatently break the rules of the road such as red lights.

and of course you got to observe what is going on around you i would have thought that was a forgone conclusion!

CramCycle

stevieob wrote: »

.As a driver, it is so annoying and bloody dangerous when cyclists blatently break the rules of the road such as red lights.

Lets not go down that road or over that bridge, stay on topic, the signs from one side of the bridge are not clearly visible (again read previous posts). I doubt many if any motor vehicle drivers saw that sign either.

Its dangerous no matter what road user breaks the rules unless doing so for their own safety.

coolbeans

To be fair this isn't a red light thread and thank God for that. I've cycled that route southbound many, many times and I never once saw that sign. I think that's more to do with cycling quickly and competently than ignoring blatantly difficult to see signs that aren't even legally mandated.