Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

Cookie_Monster

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cyclists who intend taking the second or subsequent exits are expected to dismount at their junctions which reduces their momentum. This would explain why they many cyclists are taking to the main carriageway. OssianSmith raises a valid point in that cyclist also have to turn sharply immediately after entering the asphalt. This could easily cause the bicycle to topple over which is incredibly dangerous for two possible reasons:

They may very likely be thrown onto the main carriageway and into the path of moving traffic which is potentially fatal.
While not as serious, the impact of hitting the asphalt or a wall would cause serious injury.

Thankfully 9X% of cyclists have enough sense to simply use the road and avoid all the stupid lanes. Unfortunately the most vulnerable (kids) will tend to stick to the path and lanes and hence are likely to have the most problems.

Bits_n_Bobs

Slightly off topic - however could someone tell me what the story is with the ramps and the triangle yokes painted onto them? I assume it's some sort of 'yield to pedestrians' but not a zebra crossing? If so why not just stick in a zebra crossing or would that be too simple and obvious???

OssianSmyth

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Slightly off topic - however could someone tell me what the story is with the ramps and the triangle yokes painted onto them? I assume it's some sort of 'yield to pedestrians' but not a zebra crossing? If so why not just stick in a zebra crossing or would that be too simple and obvious???

from a pedestrian point of view it looks like an inviting place to cross.


from a car's point of view it's practically invisible.


It is dangerous.

Patrick Brophy previously sketched the type of design that would allow bikes to circulate without dismounting at each junction:

enas

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Slightly off topic - however could someone tell me what the story is with the ramps and the triangle yokes painted onto them? I assume it's some sort of 'yield to pedestrians' but not a zebra crossing? If so why not just stick in a zebra crossing or would that be too simple and obvious???

If it was a yield, they would be inverted. And besides, it would be non-standard in Ireland (it's the standard in the Netherlands, in Ireland you just have one big inverted triangle, such as the one you see on the cycle path just before the ramp). I think they're just the standard (?) way to highlight ramps, such as here for example: http://goo.gl/maps/G4b7v Without them, it's not always easy to spot a ramp until the very last moment when you drive.

enas

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Patrick Brophy previously sketched the type of design that would allow bikes to circulate without dismounting at each junction:

That is compatible with the Dutch approach, a video of which had been linked on a previous post. I would be of the opinion that, if they're willing to experiment something new, they might as well experiment what's already known to work elsewhere.

Cookie_Monster

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Patrick Brophy previously sketched the type of design that would allow bikes to circulate without dismounting at each junction:

They can already do this on the main carraige way, it's safer and easier and has less stigma attached as cyclists don't have to be seperated from the main body of traffic.

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They can already do this on the main carraige way, it's safer and easier and has less stigma attached as cyclists don't have to be seperated from the main body of traffic.

Err "stigma"?!

Yeah, and the context here is that you also think cyclists are fine mixing with traffic on free-flow dual carrageway with traffic at speeds of 100km/h+.

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Err "stigma"?!

Yeah, and the context here is that you also think cyclists are fine mixing with traffic on free-flow dual carrageway with traffic at speeds of 100km/h+.

They are fine, dual or single carraige way, why wouldn't they be? I cycle on 100km stretchs nearly ever day without issue, no difference to a 50, 60 or 80 kph road. Of course I am assuming the vaguest amount of competence on the part of a cyclist cycling on such roads.

Re the stigma, cycle lanes do nothing but reinforce the belief among many motorists that cyclists are a lessor form of road user that don't belong on the main carraigeway and should be in cycle lanes no matter how stupidly designed, out of the way and dangerous they may be.

enas

Those are so common and unimaginative arguments, that they have their ready made answers.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

They are fine, dual or single carraige way, why wouldn't they be? I cycle on 100km stretchs nearly ever day without issue, no difference to a 50, 60 or 80 kph road. Of course I am assuming the vaguest amount of competence on the part of a cyclist cycling on such roads.

That's pretty spot on: I cycle, so you could cycle too.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Re the stigma, cycle lanes do nothing but reinforce the belief among many motorists that cyclists are a lessor form of road user that don't belong on the main carraigeway and should be in cycle lanes no matter how stupidly designed, out of the way and dangerous they may be.

So don't design them stupidly, out of the way, and dangerously, maybe: If you build cycle paths we will be banned from cycling on the roads.

josip

Why don't we all just give up on this roundabout? It's obviously the council's long term plan to cock it up repeatedly and to such an extent that we will all be grateful when they replace it with a super-duper set of traffic lights with which they are currently having a love fest all around the county.

Cookie_Monster

enas wrote: »

So don't design them stupidly, out of the way, and dangerously, maybe: If you build cycle paths we will be banned from cycling on the roads.

Wouldn't that be great, however the track record of design in Ireland isn't exactly brilliant and I don't have any hope that it will change any time soon. And even if it does I'll still try avoid such lanes where possible and stick to the road like normal traffic thanks.

enas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the track record of design in Ireland isn't exactly brilliant

The discussion in this thread is precisely about how to make that roundabout better. It is quite pointless to some extent, I'll grant you that, seeing as they don't seem to bother with public consultations.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

And even if it does I'll still try avoid such lanes where possible and stick to the road like normal traffic thanks.

That's entirely your right. But may I refer you again to this post? The point is not that you're fine riding on any road, the point is that most aren't, and those are the people that we want to reach if we're serious about reaching official targets in terms of cycling modal share.

OssianSmyth

An example of a zebra crossing in Dun Laoghaire more obvious to cars:

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Re the stigma, cycle lanes do nothing but reinforce the belief among many motorists that cyclists are a lessor form of road user that don't belong on the main carraigeway and should be in cycle lanes no matter how stupidly designed, out of the way and dangerous they may be.

To a certain extent, I understand this. The main carriageway offers better access to connected roads and cul de sacs with right turns and I do realize that this level of flexibility is largely lacking in most cycle lanes (especially when segregated). Indeed, a huge percentage of cycle tracks on the straight are in a state of disrepair and this needs to be rectified. In such instances, I can appreciate why a cyclist would take to the main carriageway. However, assuming that the cycle track is new (2-3 meters wide, smooth and pleasant) and a cyclist is going straight on, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to use such a cycle track.

I still have reservations about the need to provide of two way cycle tracks on both sides of the road. The reason for this is that one side of the road is dedicated to one direction while the other side is dedicated to the other direction (the only exception to this is pedestrians). Otherwise, things just get complicated. Having said that, where there are neighborhood centres that branch off the road on one side or are in close proximity to one side, there should be an underpass or signal controlled crossing to facilitate access from the other side. If it's a busy road like the N11 or at a point where there are traffic lights in quick succession, an underpass is preferable.

Back to the topic at hand, the sketch that I provided and which OssianSmith made reference to does offer cyclists a fully segregated cycle track with the same amount of flexibility as the main carriageway. I improved on the first draft by adding speed ramps at the exits as well as a cobblestone surface to the main carriage to restrict speeding. Like the first draft, this design is based on the original geometry of the roundabout and reinstates the wide exit and entry radii to an extent. Nevertheless, much of the surplus space from the original shape has been consolidated for concrete buffers and the segregated cycle track.

Many people on this thread and other similar ones complain that pedestrians and cyclists feel marginalized due to segregation. However, in numerous cases segregation is safer. Moreover, a lot of pedestrians and cyclists are kids. Many of them lack basic observation skills and a large portion of these road users (not sure about the statistics) would not be able to keep up with motorised traffic. It is for this exact same reason that they are not allowed to drive. I've not problem with athletic level cyclists using the main carriageway because they can keep up and are often faster than motorised traffic as long as they obey the rules of the road.

Paulownia

The mad roundabout designer in Dunlaoghaire Rathdown is at it again, spending the taxpayers money. There is a new roundabout on Grove avenue, worth a detour to view. It is so narrow that anything larger than a saloon car will have to drive over it, hard to imagine how it will improve the road for users.

monument

Paulownia wrote: »

The mad roundabout designer in Dunlaoghaire Rathdown is at it again, spending the taxpayers money. There is a new roundabout on Grove avenue, worth a detour to view. It is so narrow that anything larger than a saloon car will have to drive over it, hard to imagine how it will improve the road for users.

What junction is it on?

Any images?

Paulownia

it is on Grove Avenue off Mount Merrion Avenue, I have no images, I only spotted it this morning on my way to work

uch

Paulownia wrote: »

it is on Grove Avenue off Mount Merrion Avenue, I have no images, I only spotted it this morning on my way to work

If it's at the Avoca Rd junction, then I'd say good job, as that was a brutal junction if you were heading towards Mt. Merrion Ave.

Aard

Is this it?

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,9143,en.html

Paulownia

It is not the intersection with Avoca Avenue which is the difficult one to get through, I would agree, and would merit a roundabout due to lack of visibility until you emerge from Grove Avenue but presumably at Priory lodge or Avoca road which are estates off Grove Avenue. Swing by there and have a geek, obviously there is a second one going in there too which will be even more unwieldy

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

Is this it?

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,9143,en.html

In this particular instance, it is off the beaten track. In other words, it is an enclosed neighborhood. As such, the road system here is one which vehicles outside of the private car (trucks, buses and commercial-use vehicles) wouldn't commonly travel. Moreover, it is the type of location where the passage of the aforementioned larger vehicles is discouraged. They are side roads and cul de sacs whose function is entirely residential. It is for these reasons that I strongly agree with the works being carried out. Main stream traffic doesn't benefit from these roads anyway.

Paulownia

It is a very busy road at eight o clock in the morning when I travel it and as it stands the alignment for travelling south north is skewed and difficult and badly designed

Chinasea

ted1 wrote: »

Cyclists are over accomdated for. I'd love to see how much money is spent per cyclist v any other road user bear in mind cyclists don't actual pay road tax or any tax if brought on cycle to work scheme

Oh gawd what a ridicules statement. I would gladly pay tax to use a safe, properly planned incorporated cycle infrastructure, INSTEAD OF PAYING with my life.

Just a reminder, that Ireland has Europe's fastest growing population, a population that is very car reliant. How oh how do you think you and your multiple off springs will continue to cram, clog and pollute the highways and byways of Ireland.

Paulownia

Has anyone actually driven towards Merrion Ave on this roundabout yet?

zagmund

"Off the beaten track"? I don't think so. It's a busy through road linking two very busy roads, with loads of local residential access.

Incidentally, I see DL have marked in an "unsignalised raised crossing". Having done my driving test 20+ years ago, this arrangement is something that has puzzled me for a long time now - back in the day, pedestrian priority crossings were pretty hard to miss since they had black and white lines and flashing lights Do these crossings give priority to pedestrians and require cars to stop, or is it just to make the physical crossing easier by keeping it level? Before anyone goes off on a drive safely rant, I already do slow down and let people cross when I approach them, but I've seen plenty of people bale through them on cars, oblivious to the fact that they are ramps and (often) have people standing at them.

z

Larbre34

zagmund wrote: »

I've seen plenty of people bale through them on cars, oblivious to the fact that they are ramps and (often) have people standing at them.

In fairness, if driving at 50kph or less they can't see with their own two eyes that there are ramps and there are either people or no people standing at them, they have no business driving at all.