cycle route - Grand Canal

monument

And an even bigger pain when you can't even pass them or can't use panniers or a trailer!

OR if you're disabled with a large wheelchair or you're a parent with a large pram.

RacoonQueen

tomasrojo wrote: »

nak posted this:



Is that what you had in mind?

Are these the whole way up the canal now? Have seen them on each side of the Kylemore road and at Clondalkin village so assume they're all along this stretch now?

Sean02

The "Kissing Gates" used by OPW are far better for keeping out motorbicks. It only take 5 seconds to be back peddeling, a small price to pay for preserving this fantastic facility for walkers, cyclists and fishing. It's a shame that with alll the millions spent on Dublin traffic system noting was ndone to utilise the Royal and Grand towpaths. If it was'nt for the fact that the planners made a cock up of ESB power to Adamstown there wouuld'nt be a new path to-day.

jameverywhere

monument wrote: »

And an even bigger pain when you can't even pass them or can't use panniers or a trailer!

OR if you're disabled with a large wheelchair or you're a parent with a large pram.

As a semi-frequent pannier user, I find this very annoying indeed. Especially since I attach my panniers securely to the bike (lost a bag off a bike once--it wasn't a bike-specific bag, but it still made me paranoid). Taking them off is annoying.

Even worse, though, is the lack of access for wheelchairs, trikes, and other mobility aids. Doesn't Ireland have some kind of disibility legislation requiring equal access to all?? Especially in 100% public places???

Doctor Bob

jameverywhere wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland have some kind of disibility legislation requiring equal access to all?? Especially in 100% public places???

I believe - but I'm not certain - that the legal provisions apply to public buildings (new and retro-fitted), public services and private buildings (new only?), but not to public spaces.

http://www.universaldesign.ie/
http://www.nda.ie/
Disability Act 2005

Sean02

Jameverywhere how about the alternative i.e. no gates or deterant from the gurriers. Free access for wheelchairs is all very well but access to where in many the towpaths are just about passable on bike. These A frame and bollards are very nice as with the trial gates in Ballyer will last only a few weeks. They certaintly would be a joke in the Cabra /Finglas towpaths. The present swing gates are effective and vandal proof. As I said a 5 second delay with or without panniers, a small price to pay.

petethedrummer

Sean02 wrote: »

As I said a 5 second delay with or without panniers, a small price to pay.

It is longer than five seconds. There used to be 11 of those gates to my place of work and as I've said before that meant 110 unnecessary dismounts and remounts of my bike per week, roughly 5000 per year. That's beyond retarded planning. Also if you meet another cyclist at a gate it more than doubles the '5' seconds. All this cycle track is good for is a leisurely stroll or pootle on a bike. It could be a great cycling highway.

If a few fellas get on it with scooters so what, they're on the roads already. It's not gonna turn in to Mad Max II.

monument

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I believe - but I'm not certain - that the legal provisions apply to public buildings (new and retro-fitted), public services and private buildings (new only?), but not to public spaces.

http://www.universaldesign.ie/
http://www.nda.ie/
Disability Act 2005

From the act:

“service” means a service or facility of any kind provided by a public body which is available to or accessible by the public generally or a section of the public and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) the use of any place or amenity owned, managed or controlled by a public body,

(b) the provision of information or an information resource or a scheme or an allowance or other benefit administered by a public body,

(c) any cultural or heritage services provided by such a body, and

(d) any service provided by a court or other tribunal.

Access to services...

Access to services, etc.

26.—(1) Where a service is provided by a public body, the head of the body shall—

(a) where practicable and appropriate, ensure that the provision of access to the service by persons with and persons without disabilities is integrated,

(b) where practicable and appropriate, provide for assistance, if requested, to persons with disabilities in accessing the service if the head is satisfied that such provision is necessary in order to ensure compliance with paragraph (a), and

(c) where appropriate, ensure the availability of persons with appropriate expertise and skills to give advice to the body about the means of ensuring that the service provided by the body is accessible to persons with disabilities.

(2) Each head of a public body referred to in subsection (1) shall authorise at least one of his or her officers (referred to in this Act as “access officers”) to provide or arrange for and co-ordinate the provision of assistance and guidance to persons with disabilities in accessing its services.

(3) This section shall come into operation on 31 December 2005.

Accessibility of services supplied to a public body.

27.—(1) Where a service is provided to a public body, the head of the body shall ensure that the service is accessible to persons with disabilities.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the provision of access by persons with disabilities to any services provided to the body—

(a) would not be practicable,

(b) would not be justified having regard to the cost of doing so, or

(c) would cause unreasonable delay in making the goods or services available to other persons.

(3) In this section references to the provision of services include references to the supply of goods.

(4) This section shall come into operation on 31 December 2005.

Sean02 wrote: »

Jameverywhere how about the alternative i.e. no gates or deterant from the gurriers. Free access for wheelchairs is all very well but access to where in many the towpaths are just about passable on bike.

If that excuse was any way valid we would have never used dropped kerbs on footpaths for the disabled and prams because it aids cyclists illegally cycling on footpaths and motorists parking on them.

Sean02 wrote: »

As I said a 5 second delay with or without panniers,

Where are you getting five seconds from?

At 15km/h, 20km/h, or 30km/h etc you have to factor in the amount of time and energy to slow down and stop, fumble past the barrier, and then get going again.

X11 or even just four or five times and that's a lot of extra stopping. A lot of extra time and energy when the state is supposed to be promoting cycling as a form of transport, and as already said you can double or more the stopping time when there's a few people cycling.

Sean02 wrote: »

...a small price to pay.

It's not a small price to pay as there is no proven problem -- UK guidelines (we lack any) set out that the cost of installing barriers should be factored into projects but that they should not be installed until there is a problem.

In any case the gates do not seem to be working -- I've seen more than a few horses inside of them.

jameverywhere

Sean02 wrote: »

Jameverywhere how about the alternative i.e. no gates or deterant from the gurriers. Free access for wheelchairs is all very well but access to where in many the towpaths are just about passable on bike. These A frame and bollards are very nice as with the trial gates in Ballyer will last only a few weeks. They certaintly would be a joke in the Cabra /Finglas towpaths. The present swing gates are effective and vandal proof. As I said a 5 second delay with or without panniers, a small price to pay.

What's wrong with those pillar things that stop cars and motorcycles but allow pedestrians, bikes, trikes, and wheelchair users thru?

Also, where pedestrians are allowed wheelchairs should be allowed; where bikes are allowed trikes should be allowed (I personally know someone with a disability who rides a trike due to balance issues).

RacoonQueen

On the canal path between Portobello bridge and Harolds Cross bridge they have a 'no bikes' policy (bike painted on the towpath with an x through them) seems rather odd is it a DCC thing that you can't cycle on the towpath then when you get up to SDCC area you can?

monument

RacoonQueen wrote: »

On the canal path between Portobello bridge and Harolds Cross bridge they have a 'no bikes' policy (bike painted on the towpath with an x through them) seems rather odd is it a DCC thing that you can't cycle on the towpath then when you get up to SDCC area you can?

It's a footpath. They plan to link up the two cycle routes and are studying how they can do such.

Along there anyway, there's no reason not to just use the road. It's really quite and motorists around there seem really good around cyclists.

Doctor Bob

RacoonQueen wrote: »

On the canal path between Portobello bridge and Harolds Cross bridge they have a 'no bikes' policy (bike painted on the towpath with an x through them) seems rather odd is it a DCC thing that you can't cycle on the towpath then when you get up to SDCC area you can?

Covered here previously- includes my (and others') explanation and Sean02's rebuttal.

It's interesting to note that the western end of the current stretch of the canal route at Portobello College actually begins to turn the corner rather than head straight on up the footpath, suggesting that any continuation of the route westwards will not be on the footpath but rather on the road to the north of the old harbour.

RacoonQueen

Windsor Terrace is one way though if you wanted to continue on up that way and I assume it's no right turn from Richmond Street/the bridge onto Grove Road if you want to continue straight up the canal instead of through the side streets of Portobello?

Grew up along there, never realised it was classified as a footpath rather than a tow path.

Edit: I've been told you can turn right from the bridge onto Grove road.

monument

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Windsor Terrace is one way though if you wanted to continue on up that way and I assume it's no right turn from Richmond Street/the bridge onto Grove Road if you want to continue straight up the canal instead of through the side streets of Portobello?

Grew up along there, never realised it was classified as a footpath rather than a tow path.

Edit: I've been told you can turn right from the bridge onto Grove road.

Yes, for about 100m between Bloomfield Avenue and Longwood Avenue. They could allow cyclists if they wanted, traffic levels and speeds are low enoufe for this kind if treatment:

Sean02

sorry to disagree pete and jam makes me wonder have either of you cycled the royal from dublin city. Of course all public places should be accessable to disabled l dont need a paragraph of legistilation to know that. . what i was saying was that due to the shortsightness of our planners and councils its not safe or practible for many citizens let alone wheelchair or tricycle bound to use. i still stand by the minimal inconcience of swing gates as against opening the towpath to unsocial yoboos. i suggest that you use the canal for relaxed leisurly cycling and use the Batterstown or Boot Inn circuit for P.B'S.

jameverywhere

there's only one section of the royal canal that I have ever cycled, and that is the part from drumcondra to phibsborough.

it has three gates that I pass, two of which are cycle-around-able if you go in the grass, which means a scooter or horse would have no problem getting thru anyway....

I'm really not comfortable cycling in a place so obviously meant for pedestrians, tho.

monument

Sean02 wrote: »

sorry to disagree pete and jam makes me wonder have either of you cycled the royal from dublin city. Of course all public places should be accessable to disabled l dont need a paragraph of legistilation to know that. . what i was saying was that due to the shortsightness of our planners and councils its not safe or practible for many citizens let alone wheelchair or tricycle bound to use. i still stand by the minimal inconcience of swing gates as against opening the towpath to unsocial yoboos. i suggest that you use the canal for relaxed leisurly cycling and use the Batterstown or Boot Inn circuit for P.B'S.

What on earth are you talking about?

Unsafe for wheelchair users? How? The "unsocial yoboos" on mopeds and horses are going to attack wheelchair users? What nonsense are you talking about?

Sean02 wrote: »

Of course all public places should be accessable to disabled l dont need a paragraph of legistilation to know that.

You can't support kissing gates and also support the rights of disabled people to access the canal banks. That's doublespeak.

Sean02

I know the section Jam Very nice section alongside Mountjoy easily assessable from Dorset Street and Phibsboro for all types of users except cars. if only this very small well looked after tarmac section and the privatly built one between Reillys Bridge and Ashtown were typical of the Royals towpaths.

Doctor Bob

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Windsor Terrace is one way though if you wanted to continue on up that way and I assume it's no right turn from Richmond Street/the bridge onto Grove Road if you want to continue straight up the canal instead of through the side streets of Portobello?

Grew up along there, never realised it was classified as a footpath rather than a tow path.

Edit: I've been told you can turn right from the bridge onto Grove road.

Windsor Terrace would definitely need some attention but, as monument says, very little is required- maybe only an 'Except Cyclists' plate under the one-way sign as in the photo above, but maybe a bit more to maintain a consistent offer in keeping with the design of the rest of the route.

I'm pretty sure you've been misinformed about the right turn, though- it's not permitted (Streetview here- see the No Right Turn sign on the left-hand footpath on the bridge). However, you could just do a 'box turn' (aka two-stage turn, aka hook turn) by coming over the bridge and joining the front of the westbound traffic queue on Canal Road (Ontario Terrace). Of course, this only applies of you're on a bike*, not in a car.

*Or trike!

Sean02

Monument you did not read correctly. I never suggested the yobboos or horses or bike would attack anybody , except the environment. You clearly have little knowledge of the Royal towpath to infer that it is safe for wheelchair or tricycle users.I know what I am talking about and it far from nonsence.

monument

Sean02 wrote: »

Monument you did not read correctly. I never suggested the yobboos or horses or bike would attack anybody , except the environment. You clearly have little knowledge of the Royal towpath to infer that it is safe for wheelchair or tricycle users.I know what I am talking about and it far from nonsence.

What about the perfect surface on the Grand Canal?

Also on the Royal -- Nothing much wrong with the surface between Phibsborough and Drumcondra or between Ratoath Road and Ashtown. Other sections are needed / are due to be renewed.

jameverywhere

Sean02 wrote: »

Monument you did not read correctly. I never suggested the yobboos or horses or bike would attack anybody , except the environment. You clearly have little knowledge of the Royal towpath to infer that it is safe for wheelchair or tricycle users.I know what I am talking about and it far from nonsence.

even if this is true that the whole thing isn't safe, there ARE nice, safe sections like the phibsborough/drumcondra stretch. So, they should ditch the kissing gates for at least that stretch. Wheelchair users might want to see the swans as well, no?

In Phibsborough there's one annoying kissing gate that I practically have to lift the bike over. and the ones that you can cycle around, one of them would put a wheelchair user in the canal if they tried to go on the grass around it... only enough room for in-line wheels...

petethedrummer

Sean02 wrote: »

i still stand by the minimal inconcience of swing gates as against opening the towpath to unsocial yoboos. i suggest that you use the canal for relaxed leisurly cycling and use the Batterstown or Boot Inn circuit for P.B'S.

I'm pretty sure I've said all this before....probably in this thread but anyway.

I was using the canal to commute, not to set PBs. I don't use cycle lanes for head down training, I think its innappropriate. It failed miserably for commuting purposes.

The canal path was open as a gravel path for years. I was using it before it was done up and there was very rarely any trouble (I never saw any). On the new path with the swing gates in place there were still gangs of teenagers drinking along it in the evenings when I was commuting. Nothing will stop them going down. Not that they ever did anything to me.

All these gates do over and above a couple of bollards is stop horses and mopeds. I'll take the small chance of meeting a horse or a scobe on a scooter if that means not having to get of the bike 22 times a day on my way to and from work.

RacoonQueen

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Windsor Terrace would definitely need some attention but, as monument says, very little is required- maybe only an 'Except Cyclists' plate under the one-way sign as in the photo above, but maybe a bit more to maintain a consistent offer in keeping with the design of the rest of the route.

I'm pretty sure you've been misinformed about the right turn, though- it's not permitted (Streetview here- see the No Right Turn sign on the left-hand footpath on the bridge). However, you could just do a 'box turn' (aka two-stage turn, aka hook turn) by coming over the bridge and joining the front of the westbound traffic queue on Canal Road (Ontario Terrace). Of course, this only applies of you're on a bike*, not in a car.

*Or trike!

I knew I was right about the no right turn. The same person insists that there must be a right turn at Harolds Cross and Charlemont Street, but, there isn't. Seems odd that they wouldn't allow cyclists to remain along the canal after they go round the harbour. Am I right thinking there is no way for the cyclist to legally go from the new cycle route onto the south side of the canal bank and continue along the good cycle lanes on that side without turning through some side streets to get back to the canal?

I'm planning on using the canal as my route to/from Howth on Friday, trying to sort it out in my head now.

Stollaire

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I knew I was right about the no right turn. The same person insists that there must be a right turn at Harolds Cross and Charlemont Street, but, there isn't. Seems odd that they wouldn't allow cyclists to remain along the canal after they go round the harbour. Am I right thinking there is no way for the cyclist to legally go from the new cycle route onto the south side of the canal bank and continue along the good cycle lanes on that side without turning through some side streets to get back to the canal?

I'm planning on using the canal as my route to/from Howth on Friday, trying to sort it out in my head now.

There is no canal cycle path, or usable quiet road on the north side of the canal after Upper Clanbrassil St.
You'll have to box turn after the bridge, at the junction of Grove Rd and Parnell Rd. Contuine on up Parnell Rd and Dolphin Rd until you get to the luas track, there's a cycle lane beside that; joins onto the new Canal Track.

Doctor Bob

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I knew I was right about the no right turn. The same person insists that there must be a right turn at Harolds Cross and Charlemont Street, but, there isn't. Seems odd that they wouldn't allow cyclists to remain along the canal after they go round the harbour. Am I right thinking there is no way for the cyclist to legally go from the new cycle route onto the south side of the canal bank and continue along the good cycle lanes on that side without turning through some side streets to get back to the canal?

I'm planning on using the canal as my route to/from Howth on Friday, trying to sort it out in my head now.

The only currently legal option for getting from the western terminus of the canal track to the south side of the canal is via the streets of Portobello, then left onto Clanbrassil Street, over the bridge and a box turn onto the canal, as Stollaire says. If the box turn doesn't appeal, then you'd have to go right onto Clanbrassil, left onto SCR, left onto Donore Avenue, over the bridge and right onto Parnell Road. I think Sally's Bridge is the first bridge (from east to west) that allows right turns.

Alternatively, you could do the box turn from Richmond Street onto Grove Road, like so:



Or the more circuitous but definitely legal option below:



(Although the right-turn from Ranelagh Road to Price's Place [through the archway] is time limited- banned during rush hour [4pm to 7pm?], as far as I know.)

Of course, if you're willing to dismount and cross as a pedestrian at any of the bridges, your options are legion.;)

RacoonQueen

There is no canal cycle path, or usable quiet road on the north side of the canal after Upper Clanbrassil St.
You'll have to box turn after the bridge, at the junction of Grove Rd and Parnell Rd. Contuine on up Parnell Rd and Dolphin Rd until you get to the luas track, there's a cycle lane beside that; joins onto the new Canal Track.

I know, that was my point. There's two realatively new 'routes' but they don't exactly join up, which is a shame.

I just stayed on the cycle track on the south bank when I rejoined the canal from Haddington Road. There's no real issue with the cycle lanes on that side, they're in good nick and the motorists tend to be quite good with cyclists.

Crashed into those gates about three times when I was on the canal bank though. Still, big improvement from dismounting and lifting the bike over gates.

Tails142

jameverywhere wrote: »

Sean02 wrote: »

Monument you did not read correctly. I never suggested the yobboos or horses or bike would attack anybody , except the environment. You clearly have little knowledge of the Royal towpath to infer that it is safe for wheelchair or tricycle users.I know what I am talking about and it far from nonsence.

even if this is true that the whole thing isn't safe, there ARE nice, safe sections like the phibsborough/drumcondra stretch. So, they should ditch the kissing gates for at least that stretch. Wheelchair users might want to see the swans as well, no?

In Phibsborough there's one annoying kissing gate that I practically have to lift the bike over. and the ones that you can cycle around, one of them would put a wheelchair user in the canal if they tried to go on the grass around it... only enough room for in-line wheels...

kissing gates are designed to let wheelchairs buggies and bikes through by moving into the gate area and changing it's position so you can move out the other side, granted it causes problems for bikes with panniers.

what do you think kissing gates are for if not to allow wheelchairs pass while preventing anything longer from passing through? I'm baffled

tomasrojo

Tails142 wrote: »

kissing gates are designed to let wheelchairs buggies and bikes through by moving into the gate area and changing it's position so you can move out the other side, granted it causes problems for bikes with panniers.

what do you think kissing gates are for if not to allow wheelchairs pass while preventing anything longer from passing through? I'm baffled

The original purpose of kissing gates was to allow pedestrians through while keeping livestock on one side. It's a gate that pedestrians can't leave "open" by accident. Their use to frustrate motorcyclists is quite a recent one.

I don't know whether the gates in question in this thread block wheelchairs, but many kissing gates do, and even those that allow manual wheelchairs often block motorised wheelchairs.

Interesting article about Britain and kissing gates (and stiles):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571000/Kissing-gates-and-stiles-breach-Act.html

Doctor Bob

Tails142 wrote: »

I'm baffled

How ironic!