Dutch bicycle roundabout above road junction

SeanW

monument wrote:

so howm do you not know more can't be done at Slane.

Because I have common sense. A quick look at a map will tell you that - if you exclude the tolled M1 crossing - there is not a single decent Boyne crossing anywhere from Navan to the Irish sea. The road network in the area, with its single lane bridges, steep hills and sharp corners, would now need attention even if it wasn't expected to accomodate a busy national primary road.

Nothing but a bypass is going to deal with any of that, no amount of dicking around with traffic calming and whatever other nonsense you're on about. Bypasses work nationwide with excellent results and have already been applied to towns and villages with problems several orders of magnitude less bad than those of Slane.

In fact, I have recent expereince of the difference bypasses make - here in Longford, we have recently had completed an N5 bypass of the town. Not long after it opened, I was in a local take away that has a very good view of the main thoroughfare and it quickly dawned on me that I did not see any lorries passing by, and they were conspicuous by their absence. Lorries and huge volumes of Mayo/Roscommon traffic used to clog up the town routinely and were a part of the towns' 'furniture' so to speak.

That problem would never have been solved without the bypass and the same is true, perhaps dramatically more so, at Slane. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this is plainly as the sky is blue.

You cannot because you are an extremist.

Long story short, cycling is a clean, reliable, usually safe, healthy, space effective, cost effective, and fairly quite way of moving people around for the vast majority of trips taken daily.

I am in favour of promoting cycling, just as I am in favour of other things like public transport, motorway/DC construction etc. Ya'know things that benefit everyone. Also nuclear power, as you rightly point out.

All around me I see roads that could be widened to add cycle lanes: why not start there?

All it needs to thrive is space and priority to be taken away from transport which has mostly the opposite effects.

That's the fundamental difference: the "motoring is evil" stuff is coming from your camp: extremists.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

monument wrote:

so howm do you not know more can't be done at Slane.

Because I have common sense. A quick look at a map will tell you that - if you exclude the tolled M1 crossing - there is not a single decent Boyne crossing anywhere from Navan to the Irish sea. The road network in the area, with its single lane bridges, steep hills and sharp corners, would now need attention even if it wasn't expected to accomodate a busy national primary road.

Nothing but a bypass is going to deal with any of that, no amount of dicking around with traffic calming and whatever other nonsense you're on about. Bypasses work nationwide with excellent results and have already been applied to towns and villages with problems several orders of magnitude less bad than those of Slane.

In fact, I have recent expereince of the difference bypasses make - here in Longford, we have recently had completed an N5 bypass of the town. Not long after it opened, I was in a local take away that has a very good view of the main thoroughfare and it quickly dawned on me that I did not see any lorries passing by, and they were conspicuous by their absence. Lorries and huge volumes of Mayo/Roscommon traffic used to clog up the town routinely and were a part of the towns' 'furniture' so to speak.

That problem would never have been solved without the bypass and the same is true, perhaps dramatically more so, at Slane. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this is plainly as the sky is blue.

You cannot because you are an extremist.

Are you that unsure of your arguments that you need to resort name calling over and over?

Err I'm not against a bypass!

You're dismissing traffic calming as nonsense out-of-hand and based on nothing (you say bypasses are successful to counter this, but so is traffic calming - at Slane so-far and internationally over and over again).

And I did not suggest that such calming would solve the traffic problem, I suggested it would limit risk.

SeanW wrote: »

I am in favour of promoting cycling, just as I am in favour of other things like public transport, motorway/DC construction etc. Ya'know things that benefit everyone. Also nuclear power, as you rightly point out.

Being pro-cycing promotion does not mean much if you're against the actions required on the ground. It's like being pro nuclear power, in theory, but against building nuclear power stations.

Changing to a Netherlands-like road structure would also "benefit everyone" as much or more so than all of those things, but just like those things some people are put out, disrupted or annoyed while the building process is on going.

As with nuclear power, some people may be annoyed for ages.

SeanW wrote: »

All around me I see roads that could be widened to add cycle lanes: why not start there?

I can't comment unless I know what roads you're talking about.

As a genral comment: for the network to work, the cycle network must go most places people what to go and it must have a high quality and high level of service. There's little benefit only putting the network when it's easy to built.

SeanW wrote: »

monument wrote:

All it needs to thrive is space and priority to be taken away from transport which has mostly the opposite effects.

That's the fundamental difference: the "motoring is evil" stuff is coming from your camp: extremists.

Err... Motoring is evil? To be clear: I do not hold such a simplistic view. Err... My camp? I'm afraid you're out of luck there, I only speak for myself and don't allow others to speak directly for me.

Err...... What's any of this got to do with what you replied directly to?

I again have to wonder are you that unsure of your arguments that you need to resort to name calling and trying to paint me as extreme.

SeanW

monument wrote:

Err I'm not against a bypass!

On another thread you were: I had always understood that you were part of the "Save Newgrange" crew and that your stated policy was that traffic calming, HGV bans and de-trunking the N2 was the answer. And demonising the people of Slane out of all proportion to reality.

Being pro-cycing promotion does not mean much if you're against the actions required on the ground. It's like being pro nuclear power, in theory, but against building nuclear power stations.
...
As a genral comment: for the network to work, the cycle network must go most places people what to go and it must have a high quality and high level of service. There's little benefit only putting the network when it's easy to built.

Agreed in principle, I just favour cautious approach to making radical changes against motorists rather than a round of fast and furious changes that may create more problems than they solve.

I again have to wonder are you that unsure of your arguments that you need to resort to name calling and trying to paint me as extreme.

No, it's just that some of your posts (assuming I understand them correctly) have come across as extreme.

Capt'n Midnight

Pwetty picture somewhere in Shanghai ?

patrickbrophy18

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Pwetty picture somewhere in Shanghai ?

Very colourful and pwetty. If there was such a thing as road porn, this would be at the top (No pun intended)!:D

Irish and Proud

SeanW wrote: »

On another thread you were: I had always understood that you were part of the "Save Newgrange" crew and that your stated policy was that traffic calming, HGV bans and de-trunking the N2 was the answer. And demonising the people of Slane out of all proportion to reality.

Agreed in principle, I just favour cautious approach to making radical changes against motorists rather than a round of fast and furious changes that may create more problems than they solve.

No, it's just that some of your posts (assuming I understand them correctly) have come across as extreme.

I'm ATM finalizing a junction design I've been working on this month - this I believe will be a proper concept for re-balancing urban traffic priority at main junctions (where cyclists are processed in tandem with motor traffic) rather than these stupid 'turn the clock back' solutions that will IMO result in more traffic accidents, including those involving cyclists.

I'm using parallel left slips (subject to full signal control) which would allow pedestrians and cyclists to proceed straight through a junction alongside motor traffic, but without any conflict with left turning motorists - left turning traffic would be handled along with corresponding right turning traffic when all straight through traffic would be stationary. It's simple, I really can't understand why the NTA couldn't come up with something similar - the real question is, Is the NTA pro-cycling or just anti-car? Cycling policy should be just that - providing for cyclists - some compromise will probably be required on the part of motorists, but is has to be fair for all modes - I believe my new design (a basic version which I'll be posting sometime next month) will be just that - I'd say most cyclists would be thrilled with such a junction - and yes, the cycle lanes would be 2m wide for a single lane and 2 x 1.75m for adjacent uni-directional lanes!

Regards!

monument

Ah sure feck the Dutch and Danish who have been refining their designs for the last 50 years.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

On another thread you were: I had always understood that you were part of the "Save Newgrange" crew and that your stated policy was that traffic calming, HGV bans and de-trunking the N2 was the answer. And demonising the people of Slane out of all proportion to reality.

What are you talking about?

SeanW wrote: »

Agreed in principle, I just favour cautious approach to making radical changes against motorists rather than a round of fast and furious changes that may create more problems than they solve.

That's why -- like bus lanes -- you do a route at a time and focus on areas where cycling numbers are relatively high first. But sometimes limited big ban approaches work, but sometimes they backfire and set thing back years.

SeanW wrote: »

No, it's just that some of your posts (assuming I understand them correctly) have come across as extreme.

It's best to focus on actual points and not name calling / labelling.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

Ah sure feck the Dutch and Danish who have been refining their designs for the last 50 years.

Well I'm pretty confident that my design will be far superior to that of the NTA from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists. Most importantly, I'm very confident that it will be far safer too. I also read that some cyclists are also giving out stink about Killiney Towers Roundabout - might be time for NTA heads to roll!

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well I'm pretty confident that my design will be far superior to that of the NTA from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists. Most importantly, I'm very confident that it will be far safer too. I also read that some cyclists are also giving out stink about Killiney Towers Roundabout - might be time for NTA heads to roll!

Forget about the NTA for a second, because I'd say the same thing to the NTA:

The Dutch and Danish have been refining their designs for the last 50 years or so, what's the need to come up with something new?

strassenwo!f

Interesting arguments here on all sides, but I think we can all agree that monument needs a new keyboard.:p

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well I'm pretty confident that my design will be far superior to that of the NTA from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists. Most importantly, I'm very confident that it will be far safer too. I also read that some cyclists are also giving out stink about Killiney Towers Roundabout - might be time for NTA heads to roll!

Forget about the NTA for a second, because I'd say the same thing to the NTA:

The Dutch and Danish have been refining their designs for the last 50 years or so, what's the need to come up with something new?

From the cycling vids I've seen regarding Canada and Holland, they seem to cycle very slowly. From my experience in Dublin, many Irish cyclists seem to cycle much faster and would IMO, not mix in well with pedestrians - hence, I'm using separate lanes through the junctions and not allowing cyclists on the paths - too dangerous IMO given the higher speeds - in short, high speed cycle lanes for high speed cyclists - when I've finished my concept sketch, the cycle lanes will be far superior to those on the continent. What I'm aiming at is to achieve a design for maximum overall throughput in terms of persons whether they're walking, cycling, driving or taking the bus etc.

Still working on it...

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Well I'm pretty confident that my design will be far superior to that of the NTA from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists. Most importantly, I'm very confident that it will be far safer too. I also read that some cyclists are also giving out stink about Killiney Towers Roundabout - might be time for NTA heads to roll!

Forget about the NTA for a second, because I'd say the same thing to the NTA:

The Dutch and Danish have been refining their designs for the last 50 years or so, what's the need to come up with something new?

From the cycling vids I've seen regarding Canada and Holland, they seem to cycle very slowly. From my experience in Dublin, many Irish cyclists seem to cycle much faster and would IMO, not mix in well with pedestrians - hence, I'm using separate lanes through the junctions and not allowing cyclists on the paths - too dangerous IMO given the higher speeds - in short, high speed cycle lanes for high speed cyclists - when I've finished my concept sketch, the cycle lanes will be far superior to those on the continent. What I'm aiming at is to achieve a design for maximum overall throughput in terms of persons whether they're walking, cycling, driving or taking the bus etc.

Still working on it...

bambergbike

Irish and Proud wrote: »

From the cycling vids I've seen regarding Canada and Holland, they seem to cycle very slowly.

I can think of plenty of Dutch cyclists who are fairly famous for being fast.

What David Hembrow says about cycling speed in the Netherlands makes sense:
"Any lack of speed perceived is not because 'the Dutch are slow' but because in the Netherlands, even people who are slow still ride bikes."
(http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/07/reasonably-speedy-delivery.html)

Irish and Proud wrote: »

when I've finished my concept sketch, the cycle lanes will be far superior to those on the continent.

Many European cities have several different generations of good, bad and indifferent cycling infrastructure. It's very easy to find examples of infrastructure that could have been designed better and suggest improvements. It's more difficult to come up with designs that trump existing best practice.

galwaycyclist

bambergbike wrote: »

I can think of plenty of Dutch cyclists who are fairly famous for being fast.

What David Hembrow says about cycling speed in the Netherlands makes sense:
"Any lack of speed perceived is not because 'the Dutch are slow' but because in the Netherlands, even people who are slow still ride bikes."
(http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/07/reasonably-speedy-delivery.html)

Yes - what people often miss about the Dutch system is that mopeds were design users. They eventually found it safer to put the mopeds back on the roads in towns but rural "cycle" facilities are still used by mopeds.

One of the reasons Dutch cycle facilities work is because they are designed for speed.

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

From the cycling vids I've seen regarding Canada and Holland, they seem to cycle very slowly. From my experience in Dublin, many Irish cyclists seem to cycle much faster and would IMO, not mix in well with pedestrians - hence, I'm using separate lanes through the junctions and not allowing cyclists on the paths - too dangerous IMO given the higher speeds - in short, high speed cycle lanes for high speed cyclists - when I've finished my concept sketch, the cycle lanes will be far superior to those on the continent. What I'm aiming at is to achieve a design for maximum overall throughput in terms of persons whether they're walking, cycling, driving or taking the bus etc.

Still working on it...

You seem to have massive misconceptions of how the Dutch design their cycle paths.

A key part of their design is segregation of people on foot and those on bicycles. They use separate lanes through junctions and do not allow cyclists on the footpaths.

So, again, I'll ask:

The Dutch and Danish have been refining their designs for the last 50 years or so, what's the need to come up with something new?

Irish and Proud

Well speaking of Dutch design, here's a nuclear bombshell for the NTA:

http://momentummag.com/videos/intersection-design-the-dutch-way...

...as it now seems, there's absolutely no need to omit left lanes here whatever about slips. The real question is, what on earth has the NTA being doing - all I had to do was google 'velo infrastructure' and after on extra click, the above link appeared - again, what the hell has the NTA being doing??? - apparently, the Dutch have being doing the above for years now? :rolleyes:

The design I'm working on should be a good alternative for busy roads, but the above should be the first step IMO.

BTW, this is what I'd like to see in Dublin! I've been looking at this idea for suburban centres and M50 crossings around the city (wind resistance is a concern IMO) - I tend to call it the 'velo-tube'!


http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/10/what_ever_happened_to_velo-city/.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

You seem to have massive misconceptions of how the Dutch design their cycle paths.

A key part of their design is segregation of people on foot and those on bicycles. They use separate lanes through junctions and do not allow cyclists on the footpaths.

So, again, I'll ask:

The Dutch and Danish have been refining their designs for the last 50 years or so, what's the need to come up with something new?

You might have a point...

http://momentummag.com/videos/intersection-design-dutch-protective-traffic-island.

IMO, It's going from bad to worse for the NTA - Really, what have they being doing?????????????? :eek: