S2S Cycleway - northside

mr spuckler

mrcheez wrote: »

Could be he was pulling up to have a shmoke, or peer over the edge of the wall

or allowing 1.5m for passing cyclists

Roadhawk

mr spuckler wrote: »

some people just want to watch the world burn

Tut tut...down with that sort of thing!

buffalo

Was out on this last night for the first time, really nice facility.

While I'm willing to accept random pedestrian crossing points, I don't quite understand why they have to be so wide?

Tenzor07

mr spuckler wrote: »

some people just want to watch the world burn

Was it even determined why the cycle-lane isn't red asphalt like the Dutch have?

Would clearly mark it out as a cycling lane only and prevent motorists from parking in it etc...


Also, anyone notice the lane widening up towards the Sutton end?

mirrormatrix

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Was it even determined why the cycle-lane isn't red asphalt like the Dutch have?

Would clearly mark it out as a cycling lane only and prevent motorists from parking in it etc...


Also, anyone notice the lane widening up towards the Sutton end?

I think the kerb and the bike path signs do that pretty effectively. Plus, have you seen the state of the bike paths where they have put that red crap on? Falling to pieces. I haven't seen one single person park in this lane, so I really don't think it is a problem.

Saw the lane widening alright, looks good. The only thing is that the shiny black surface on the lane nearest the coast road looks like it would get pretty slick in the wet.

buffalo

mirrormatrix wrote: »

I haven't seen one single person park in this lane, so I really don't think it is a problem.

You haven't been paying close attention so. :pac:

Moflojo wrote: »

Everything is awesome!

https://twitter.com/broadsheet_ie/status/877814266539028480

Mercian Pro

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Was it even determined why the cycle-lane isn't red asphalt like the Dutch have?

Would clearly mark it out as a cycling lane only and prevent motorists from parking in it etc...


Also, anyone notice the lane widening up towards the Sutton end?

I don't really think that the idiots who park on the cycleway would be deterred by a coloured surface. It's not as if they don't know they are illegally parked.

That extra wide section near the Causeway is odd and is the only section that pedestrians use in my experience. It could also do with some lighting. I nearly ran into two rollerbladers there about 10.30 last night.

I think the cyclist in the photo is one of a sizeable minority of urban cyclists who don't feel safe and comfortable unless they are riding on a footpath!

PS - Just realised your comment about lane widening refers to the older section near Kilbarrack. Looks like they have divided the overall path into two equal sections whereas the pedestrian side was a lot wider than the cycling side before.

railer201

Mercian Pro wrote: »

I don't really think that the idiots who park on the cycleway would be deterred by a coloured surface. It's not as if they don't know they are illegally parked.

That extra wide section near the Causeway is odd and is the only section that pedestrians use in my experience. It could also do with some lighting. I nearly ran into two rollerbladers there about 10.30 last night.

I think the cyclist in the photo is one of a sizeable minority of urban cyclists who don't feel safe and comfortable unless they are riding on a footpath!

PS - Just realised your comment about lane widening refers to the older section near Kilbarrack. Looks like they have divided the overall path into two equal sections whereas the pedestrian side was a lot wider than the cycling side before.

Everyone cycling on the new section between the Bull bridge and Mount Prospect Avenue cycles on the footpath at three locations as there are sign-posted breaks in the cycleway at Dollymount Park/Dollymount Avenue/Mt Prospect Avenue. I think the same applies further on, opposite the duck pond at St. Annes Park.

mrcheez

I suspect the road width is constant through the whole length of the new section, but that the distance between wall and road varies hence the varying narrower/wider sections on the bike path

One of the local politicians in our area sent in a leaflet suggesting that they should have lessened the bike width and put in an emergency lane for cars/busses. Fair enough that might be ok where the bike lane is very wide, but not at all where the bike lane is about 1 m across (around the bus stop sign). Moron.

buffalo

railer201 wrote: »

Everyone cycling on the new section between the Bull bridge and Mount Prospect Avenue cycles on the footpath at three locations as there are sign-posted breaks in the cycleway at Dollymount Park/Dollymount Avenue/Mt Prospect Avenue. I think the same applies further on, opposite the duck pond at St. Annes Park.

They're the parts I was wondering about. They're huge, and far more than crossings to get to the sea-wall. What's the point of them? They encourage people to loiter in an area directly joining two dedicated cycle paths.

I'm not sure they're footpaths though, they're "shared" facilities from memory, though if anyone has a photo...

railer201

buffalo wrote: »

They're the parts I was wondering about. They're huge, and far more than crossings to get to the sea-wall. What's the point of them? They encourage people to loiter in an area directly joining two dedicated cycle paths.

I'm not sure they're footpaths though, they're "shared" facilities from memory, though if anyone has a photo...

Correct, they are shared facilities - just been on it to check. The sign-posts show a bicycle and pedestrian symbols, and also there are white triangles painted on the cycletrack to mark the break from cycle track to dual use.

As it stands these no man's land areas look like recipes for accidents between cyclists and pedestrians. To answer your question, the only reason I can think of is to alert cyclists of pedestrians accessing the adjacent footpath, or in the case of Dollymount Ave., the tram shelter.

In essence the arrangement seems to be a fudge !!!

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

Correct, they are shared facilities - just been on it to check. The sign-posts show a bicycle and pedestrian symbols, and also there are white triangles painted on the cycletrack to mark the break from cycle track to dual use.

As it stands these no man's land areas look like recipes for accidents between cyclists and pedestrians. To answer your question, the only reason I can think of is to alert cyclists of pedestrians accessing the adjacent footpath, or in the case of Dollymount Ave., the tram shelter.

In essence the arrangement seems to be a fudge !!!

But what other way could they do it? I mean it a cycle track not a velodrome. Once needs to recognise that there are points within it that require extra care, and in some cases to give way.

Despite these, it is a major upgrade on the shocking road that was there before. Terrible surface, parked cars, busses, trucks.

It is also normal to come up to cyclists going much slower and sometimes they aren't looking behind. Its annoying, particularly if a cyclist is approaching and you have to slow down, but its a mild inconvenience.

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what other way could they do it? I mean it a cycle track not a velodrome. Once needs to recognise that there are points within it that require extra care, and in some cases to give way.

Despite these, it is a major upgrade on the shocking road that was there before. Terrible surface, parked cars, busses, trucks.

It is also normal to come up to cyclists going much slower and sometimes they aren't looking behind. Its annoying, particularly if a cyclist is approaching and you have to slow down, but its a mild inconvenience.

We know it's not a velodrome but it's not unknown for cyclists to cycle at speed in that area. Now what happens when a group of people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus cross no man's land just as some cyclist comes speeding past ? Who gives way to who ? I don't have the answer but perhaps a mini zebra crossing could be a solution.

mr spuckler

railer201 wrote: »

We know it's not a velodrome but it's not unknown for cyclists to cycle at speed in that area. Now what happens when a group of people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus cross no man's land just as some cyclist comes speeding past ? Who gives way to who ? I don't have the answer but perhaps a mini zebra crossing could be a solution.

tbf that's not much different than any junction on a roadway. you anticipate and assume that someone may do something stupid and allow for that. i've had people step out at that spot in front of me but have seen them from a short distance away and either called out or hit the brakes.

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

We know it's not a velodrome but it's not unknown for cyclists to cycle at speed in that area. Now what happens when a group of people waiting in the tram shelter for the 130 bus cross no man's land just as some cyclist comes speeding past ? Who gives way to who ? I don't have the answer but perhaps a mini zebra crossing could be a solution.

A zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. so the bike would have to yield.

Take the same approach without the zebra crossing. WHy would you need a zebra crossing to tell you that.

railer201

[QUOTE=mr spuckler;104262265]tbf that's not much different than any junction on a roadway. you anticipate and assume that someone may do something stupid and allow for that. i've had people step out at that spot in front of me but have seen them from a short distance away and either called out or hit the brakes.[/QUOTE]

Here's the difference - a roadway is a roadway and pedestrians know that it is a roadway. In the case we're discussing it is a cycle-way and also a footpath. The pedestrian thinks he/she is perfectly within their rights to use it as such. The cyclist thinks he can use it as a cycle-way also - there is no clarity !

Leroy42

There is clarity. The pedestrian areas are clearly different from the cycle path. On the portion from Bull Wall to Sutton there is a line separating the two. On the new section they have gone one step further and actually changed the surface.

The problem seems to be that the cyclist doesn't want to have to yield at all.

Shedite27

railer201 wrote: »

I don't have the answer but perhaps a mini zebra crossing could be a solution.

Bit of an aside, but do we still do zebra crossings in this country? Haven't seen one built in years

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

A zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. so the bike would have to yield.

Take the same approach without the zebra crossing. WHy would you need a zebra crossing to tell you that.

Why would you give way otherwise ? Would there not be an equal expectation that the pedestrian should give way ?

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

Why would you give way otherwise ? Would there not be an equal expectation that the pedestrian should give way ?

Because the traffic rules haven't changed. Pedestrians have the right of way in all cases. The faster/bigger vehicle has the responsibility. As it is limited to bicycles and pedestrians, then bicycle become the larger/quicker and thus hold the onus of responsibility.

That doesn't mean that the peds shouldn't give way, it is the mannerly and safe thing to do. But one needs to be aware that you are crossing onto their path not the other way around at these particular points (I am talking about the ped crossing sections, not the bus shelter which I agree is an accident waiting to happen)

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is clarity. The pedestrian areas are clearly different from the cycle path. On the portion from Bull Wall to Sutton there is a line separating the two. On the new section they have gone one step further and actually changed the surface.

The problem seems to be that the cyclist doesn't want to have to yield at all.

We're discussing specific areas where dual usage is signposted, the most notable of which is the end of Dollymount Avenue.

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

We're discussing specific areas where dual usage is signposted, the most notable of which is the end of Dollymount Avenue.

Are they not concrete rather than tarmac? I thought they were?

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because the traffic rules haven't changed. Pedestrians have the right of way in all cases. The faster/bigger vehicle has the responsibility. As it is limited to bicycles and pedestrians, then bicycle become the larger/quicker and thus hold the onus of responsibility.

That doesn't mean that the peds shouldn't give way, it is the mannerly and safe thing to do. But one needs to be aware that you are crossing onto their path not the other way around at these particular points (I am talking about the ped crossing sections, not the bus shelter which I agree is an accident waiting to happen)

Well you see, this is the point - you are not crossing on to their path as the signpost depicts both pedestrian and cycle usage. It is both a cycle path and a footpath.

railer201

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they not concrete rather than tarmac? I thought they were?

Yes they are - and sign posted clearly dual usage - bicycles and pedestrians.

Leroy42

railer201 wrote: »

Yes they are - and sign posted clearly dual usage - bicycles and pedestrians.

Ah ok, got you know. I have been on that loads of times but can't picture it in my head!

Anyhoo, my take is that the change in the surface marks it out from the normal cycle track, i.e. yes it is dual usage as otherwise where do the bikes go, but it is a pedestrian area first, the dual usage is for the benefit of the bicycles.

mr spuckler

railer201 wrote: »

Here's the difference - a roadway is a roadway and pedestrians know that it is a roadway. In the case we're discussing it is a cycle-way and also a footpath. The pedestrian thinks he/she is perfectly within their rights to use it as such. The cyclist thinks he can use it as a cycle-way also - there is no clarity !

my roadway reference was related to vehicles. as you approach a junction where traffic is coming from the left for example, if you see a car at the junction you should allow for the fact that the car might just drive out in front of you. of course they shouldn't but you should prepare for the fact that they might.

similarly on the cycleway at the tram shelter, pedestrians shouldn't just walk out in front of you without looking but you've to allow for the fact that they might. equally cyclists shouldn't be belting along where the path becomes shared use. these points require give and take from both pedestrians and cyclists.

i agree btw that the shared use pieces are not ideal and have been saying that on this thread since before the path even opened. however now that they're there they require a small amount of consideration.

railer201

mr spuckler wrote: »

my roadway reference was related to vehicles. as you approach a junction where traffic is coming from the left for example, if you see a car at the junction you should allow for the fact that the car might just drive out in front of you. of course they shouldn't but you should prepare for the fact that they might.

similarly on the cycleway at the tram shelter, pedestrians shouldn't just walk out in front of you without looking but you've to allow for the fact that they might. equally cyclists shouldn't be belting along where the path becomes shared use. these points require give and take from both pedestrians and cyclists.

i agree btw that the shared use pieces are not ideal and have been saying that on this thread since before the path even opened. however now that they're there they require a small amount of consideration.

+1..........they are certainly not ideal. It seems to me that some very woolly thinking is going on amongst those who decide that sharing footpaths with cyclists is ok and at the same time declare that cycling on footpaths is illegal. These dual use sections of the S2S in Clontarf just point up the hypocrisy.

Leroy42

Yeah, thats a good point. I hadn't thought of it like that.

In saying that, it isn't really like cycling on the footpath though. But I see your point all right

odyssey06

railer201 wrote: »

+1..........they are certainly not ideal. It seems to me that some very woolly thinking is going on amongst those who decide that sharing footpaths with cyclists is ok and at the same time declare that cycling on footpaths is illegal. These dual use sections of the S2S in Clontarf just point up the hypocrisy.

I'm not exonerating the designers of the S2S completely here... The people who signed off on it also signed off on some v risky sections of cycle paths for example coming out of Fairview Park there's a blind corner and pedestrians have no idea they are crossing a cycle path.

But... I don't think your analogy is quite right.

There are many many roads in this country that don't have footpaths. Pedestrians will be found walking on the road - I'm sure they'd prefer to be walking on a footpath.

This doesn't mean it is hypocritical to say that:
(1) Where there are footpaths, they should be for pedestrians - not cyclists or motor vehicles.
(2) Where there are footpaths, pedestrians should be using them and not walking on the road.

buffalo

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is clarity. The pedestrian areas are clearly different from the cycle path. On the portion from Bull Wall to Sutton there is a line separating the two. On the new section they have gone one step further and actually changed the surface.

The problem seems to be that the cyclist doesn't want to have to yield at all.

I don't mind yielding to a defined crossing point, but these are quite a bit larger. To describe them as mini-plazas would be exaggerating, but I would much prefer something akin to a mini-zebra crossing. The pedestrian has priority, but is encourage to travel directly across the cycle path in a straight line.

It would be a much clearer delineation than the present situation, which allows both cyclists and pedestrians to meander about on what should be a high-volume cycling facility.