has cork city been ruined by bike lanes?

hoodwinked

Bacchus wrote: »

The point I'm making stands though. Cork city and suburbs stands to benefit from a proper cycle lane infrastructure despite the hills. We'll be the fittest city in Ireland

but how is it a benefit to the people of douglas to have more narrow roads, worse junctions and cycle lanes not used by the majority? (or rather not used at all)

in the case of this suburb you are not benefiting the majority only furthering their inconvenience for a tiny tiny minority?


surely that is a waste of money especially when things like better road infrastructure (like new roads to avoid the village..etc) are desperately needed (and to the benefit of the majority) in the area?

Bacchus

hoodwinked wrote: »

but how is it a benefit to the people of douglas to have more narrow roads, worse junctions and cycle lanes not used by the majority? (or rather not used at all)

in the case of this suburb you are not benefiting the majority only furthering their inconvenience for a tiny tiny minority?


surely that is a waste of money especially when things like better road infrastructure (like new roads to avoid the village..etc) are desperately needed (and to the benefit of the majority) in the area?

That's for the city planners to figure out a viable solution. If there isn't one, fair enough. There are already some cycle lanes in Douglas and connecting (some of the way) to the city isn't there? Parts of the Douglas and South Douglas roads are very narrow though so the lanes start and stop along the way.

Off topic, but I've no idea how it would be possible to squeeze in a road to avoid the village (I presume you mean for traffic heading into the city). Douglas is fairly packed in.

Red Nissan

This weekend I twice gave up trying to traverse the city and I turned down a job in the City Centre outright.

Stepping Stone

hoodwinked wrote: »

i agree on the bad descion's the cycle lane on the maryborough hill is case and point, more often than not that lane is empty, or you see cyclists taking the rochestown road instead of it, yet they put the cycle lane on the maryborough hill and not the rochestown road??? never-mind the fact right before the hotel you have cyclists thrown into cars paths right on the steepest and most narrow part of the hill which is always a recipe for disaster.

The cycle lane on Maryborough Hill is eventually supposed to form part of a greenway to Carrigaline. While it doesn't necessarily make sense now, it is part of a bigger, better planned picture (thank you Cork Co Co for at least making an effort).

The real issue with the city centre cycle lanes is that there is no long term plan, no joined up thinking and very definitely no overall plan. While there is a need for improved cycling infrastructure, it would make sense to try to take a long term view of the situation and work from there.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work on getting cars off the island before you squeeze in a cycle lane system that is at times highly illogical? Wouldn't it also make sense to focus on the easy routes like the straight road, access to the Marina (and Rochestown), etc all the while implementing a bigger plan to make cycling safer and easier in the city? I am not talking about doing one or the other, I am talking about continually working on a big plan.

As it stands, would you be happy to use the cycle lane system that they are implementing? I personally wouldn't. I wouldn't be happy for my nearest and dearest to use it. As a driver, I like to know where cyclists are and I like to know where they are going. With these systems, I suspect that instead of the inexperienced cyclist (which I suspect the rent a bike ones may be) sticking to well designed lanes and having a good and safe experience, they will be trying to cross roads, going through pedestrian crossings or red lights (I refer to the contraflow lanes on one way streets where the lights will not be in place to accommodate them) and generally taking risks that should be wholly unnecessary.

I am very much pro decent cycling infrastructure, I am however very much against the hatchet job that they are doing around town. I doubt that these cycle lanes will increase the numbers of cyclists using our roads, that will be down to the Cork Bike Scheme and a general increase in interest I think. That said, the current layout would personally put me off cycling or driving in town (I normally walk in if I go to town).

who_me

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Could people stop accusing the nay sayers on here of being anti cycling and anti cycle lanes.

The vast majority of us are not. We are simply pointing out the incredible poor and ill thought cycle lanes which Cork City Council have recently implemented. In some places they are dangerous. In others they have taken away parking from residents and finally they are causing traffic chaos for the vast majority of motorists who if people have forgotten, also have to be catered for.

Very much so. To be fair, I think the planners/council had a very difficult task. It's probably a lot easier if you have wide streets, or streets with wide footpaths, and a grid street layout where you have a wide choice of routes. With Cork's narrow and twisty streets - and the resultant one-way system - it's difficult to see how they could do it much better.

But many people will rarely or never use bicycles around the city - parents with children, anyone doing a lot of shopping in the city centre, anyone who wears a suit to work! Anyone travelling a distance cross-city, or up-hill (almost everywhere in the city).

I'm worried the improvement for cyclists won't be large, but the impact on motorists will be far greater - reduction of lanes, introduction of bottle-necks, increasing tail-backs will just deter people from coming into the city centre.

hoodwinked

Stepping Stone wrote: »

The cycle lane on Maryborough Hill is eventually supposed to form part of a greenway to Carrigaline. While it doesn't necessarily make sense now, it is part of a bigger, better planned picture (thank you Cork Co Co for at least making an effort).

it doesn't make sense at all, if i was to hop on my bike to carrigaline from douglas, i would go the carrigaline road. much flatter, much easier, and i would prefer a cycle lane on that road than the hill and through the back (narrow) Country road to carrigaline????

Loire

enas wrote: »

Thanks for those answers. Let me reply to those points one by one.



Absolutely. So the solution is not fewer cycle lanes, but the radical opposite: build a dense network of high quality infrastructure.



CSO figures for Cork show that a large proportion of trips to work by car is under the very manageable 4km bar. More importantly, a ridiculous proportion of school run by car is under the 2km bar (from memory, something like 80% under 2km, 50% under 1km!). I'm too lazy to give a link, but basically all the data is available on their website. Regarding school run, see below.



The need for showering is actually a symptom of current conditions more than a real need. Mainstream cycling doesn't really depend on showering facilities, rather it makes this argument obsolete. Cycling shouldn't take more effort than walking. You hardly sweat when you leisurely walk do you? Thinking that cycling has to make you sweat is similar to thinking that walking can only be running or jogging.

High quality infrastructure as in the Netherlands means people can cycle in both a relaxed and efficient way. In a nutshell, Dutch infrastructure gives to cyclists the shortest route from A to B, and allows them to cycle at a constant speed for most of their journeys (remember that it's mostly acceleration that takes effort). In fact, figures from the Netherlands show that the average speed of a typical suit wearing cyclist there is a good bit higher than a typical sporty lycra clad cyclist here. Because the infrastructure allows for this.



Easy answer: link1 link2, to give but a few.

Cargo bikes for infants. Child seats for toddlers. Older and they cycle their own bike. Over 8.6 in average, and they cycle alone to school.

Haven't you noticed how streets become empty and congestion disappears when schools are closed? If anything, school-run should be one of the main arguments for developing cycling, not a limit.



Old and tired argument. Simply, Amsterdam gets as many raining days as a typical Irish city, and more rain at a time. That doesn't stop them from cycling. In fact, infrastructure makes rain less of an issue.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/09/how-cyclepaths-make-rain-more-pleasant.html
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/so-dutch-do-have-cycle-gear.html



Again a false excuse. It's hilly except for the parts where it's not, i.e. most of central and southside Cork really. Hills don't deter people near as much as some would like to think. Indeed, infrastructure is even more helpful in hilly conditions (because of the greater speed differential between cycling and motorised traffic). Also, most of the Netherlands is very flat, and therefore very much exposed to strong winds, which are harder and less predictable to fight against. Finally, electric bikes are very much developed now, and really remove a lot of strain off hills.



You're in the 2% minority that does so. Cycle infrastructure is about normalising cycling, making it much more mainstream. Those extra cyclists won't come from nowhere, they will most likely be people who currently drive (remember that Dutch have one of the highest car ownership rates in Europe, and contrarily to common belief, cheap motoring costs, at least outside Amsterdam -- Ireland on the other hand…). So really, even as a motorist, there's no reason to oppose cycling infrastructure. It's part of the overall solution against congestion, and will make driving much more pleasant for those who still be travelling by car (just look at how empty roads are on those Dutch videos at morning rush hour!).

Finally, don't get me wrong, what they're building now in Cork is not what will bring us there. But the case is not to be made against cycling, it's the exact opposite, it should be made for much better infrastructure.

I'm pretty neutral on cycle lanes (probably because I don't drive along a route with them in the mornings / evenings :pac:) however I must say this is an excellent post

I drive to the city centre with my 2 young kids most Sat mornings and I would love to cycle, but it's just too dangerous

Stepping Stone

I don't know why, but I have a feeling that it is going partially cross country, not along existing roads. I know that when a saw a sketch of the route it made sense. Typically, I can't find anything to link.

Bacchus

Stepping Stone wrote: »

...

I'm sorry. There was too much common sense in that post

Speaking of "pedestrian crossings", I've noticed the cycle lanes on Washington street leave the road at the traffic lights and go up onto the footpath... where the lights are... where pedestrians waiting to cross stand...

Am I missing something or is that just stupid? Shouldn't cyclists have to stop at traffic lights, not merge with the footpath and carry on?

j8wk2feszrnpao

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yeah I think we tend to overestimate how wet Ireland is.

I don't think we do.
I haven't lived in another country for an extended length of time, but from travelling, and friends who have also travelled/lived in other countries, the experience is that Ireland is quite a wet place.
That's not to say that other places are dry, but we do get that Atlantic weather first, and it's a big factor if you are trying to move towards a cycling culture.

who_me

enas wrote: »

The need for showering is actually a symptom of current conditions more than a real need. Mainstream cycling doesn't really depend on showering facilities, rather it makes this argument obsolete. Cycling shouldn't take more effort than walking. You hardly sweat when you leisurely walk do you? Thinking that cycling has to make you sweat is similar to thinking that walking can only be running or jogging.

Take a person cycling up a hill, and a person walking up a hill, and see which is sweating. The walker can slow to a relaxing pace on an incline, the cyclist can't because of the need to keep moving or fall off.

enas wrote: »

Cargo bikes for infants. Child seats for toddlers. Older and they cycle their own bike. Over 8.6 in average, and they cycle alone to school.

It's still not going to work for a parent needing to come to town for shopping. They can't bring a push-chair on the bike, they can't cycle into shops, and not many parents are going to walk around from shop to shop carrying their shopping and and one or more babies/infants.

enas wrote: »

Old and tired argument. Simply, Amsterdam gets as many raining days as a typical Irish city, and more rain at a time. That doesn't stop them from cycling. In fact, infrastructure makes rain less of an issue.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/09/how-cyclepaths-make-rain-more-pleasant.html
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/so-dutch-do-have-cycle-gear.html

Old, tired and yet true. People don't like cycling in the rain. Crazy, innit.

enas wrote: »

Again a false excuse. It's hilly except for the parts where it's not, i.e. most of central and southside Cork really. Hills don't deter people near as much as some would like to think. Indeed, infrastructure is even more helpful in hilly conditions (because of the greater speed differential between cycling and motorised traffic). Also, most of the Netherlands is very flat, and therefore very much exposed to strong winds, which are harder and less predictable to fight against. Finally, electric bikes are very much developed now, and really remove a lot of strain off hills.

How is it false? Nearly all of the North side and most of the South side is hilly. I do agree the motorised bikes are a great idea, but in that case there's less case for a need for separate lanes for safety reasons.

In case it's not clear - I'm not in any way anti-biking. I just don't think Cork is a city best suited for cycling, nor do I think cycling is practical for everyone and trying to argue otherwise is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

mire

Much of the debate here is largely about detail, and design, with varying opinions about what should and should not happen in various places. That is good. However, the stuff about climate and topography is has been trotted out time and time again. Just because there are hills and rain doesn't mean Cork should abandon cycling infrastructure, as there are loads of feasible cycle opportunities. If Cork was flat and dry these debates would still be raging.

This is really about change, about a change in mentality - away from just viewing city roads and streets as spaces that belong to car drivers - the negative reaction is partly understandable but it is just noise, and it will all seem a bit embarrassing in 5 years time, just like those who lamented the death of Irish towns when they were bypassed in the 1980s and 1990s. These debates occurred in cities everywhere; people screamed and hollered. And then people came around and got on with life. Those who criticise the implementation of cycle facilities see road space being taken from drivers and being allocated increasingly to other road users; and they don't like it because they are being inconvenienced.

It is well known that the best way to promote alternative transport methods is through a carrot and stick approach. Promote alternatives whilst restricting car use. The best advertisement for bus and cycle use is cars queuing as buses and cyclists pass by. Congestion is a tool for promoting public & alternative transport. This is nothing new.

I also maintain that this is simply how a city grows up, slowly figuring out that it can no longer behave like a country town, and it needs to progress from provincialism to an urban mentality.

j8wk2feszrnpao

mire wrote: »

However, the stuff about climate and topography is has been trotted out time and time again. Just because there are hills and rain doesn't mean Cork should abandon cycling infrastructure, as there are loads of feasible cycle opportunities. If Cork was flat and dry these debates would still be raging.

To dismiss these factors is just ignoring rational reasoning.
And who has been saying that Cork should abandon cycling infrastructure? People just want it done correctly.

mire wrote: »

This is really about change, about a change in mentality

Yes, yes it is. But being condescending, and almost snobbish about it, isn't going to help in any way. Many people cannot, or do not want to be forced into cycling.

mire wrote: »

Those who criticise the implementation of cycle facilities see road space being taken from drivers and being allocated increasingly to other road users; and they don't like it because they are being inconvenienced.

Well, that's a pretty good reason if they are being inconvenienced. Surely they have that right.

mire wrote: »

It is well known that the best way to promote alternative transport methods is through a carrot and stick approach. Promote alternatives whilst restricting car use. The best advertisement for bus and cycle use is cars queuing as buses and cyclists pass by. Congestion is a tool for promoting public & alternative transport. This is nothing new.

It is the way to do it. The only issue I have is that the road infrastructure isn't there, and the costs may be beyond the slim finances that are there.
The streets of Cork are quite narrow. Having bus lanes, cycling lanes, car lanes, and footpaths is very difficult in the city and it's approaching roads. It's been tough to even get the bus lanes done correctly.
I think it could be done over time, and with a good planned process, but that doesn't appear to be happening unfortunately.

enas

Thanks for having the patience to read my message! Although I feel you haven't really all my points, but surely, I can understand that

Just one more reply, regarding the inevitable question of cost.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'm not sure that we can afford that.
Plus, for many of the reasons I described, I don't believe that they would be utilized to warrant the expense.

It's precisely because the finances are tight that money should be spent on what yields the best return for the investment. Dutch have determined that it is cheaper to build the infrastructure rather than not building it: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/487-million-euros-for-cycling.html

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'll try and find the data for this, as I find it very hard to believe that a large proportion is true given the backlogs of traffic that we see on the roads.

Everything is on the CSO website. Finding it is another matter. I will look for them and update back.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

If you've been caught in rain, it's not healthy to be damp for a number of hours at work.

If you're wet after cycling in the rain, it means that you haven't properly protected yourself against rain. Those Dutch cyclists cycling in the rain in their suits are hardly spending the rest of their day in damps clothes are they? And yes, unbelievable as it sounds to some posters here, on a miserable rainy day in the Netherlands, you still see them cycling. I suspect the problem is a bit cultural (I don't see many cyclists like those in Cork: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/12/so-dutch-do-have-cycle-gear.html)

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It certainly can aid motorists,

One more link here: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/04/effect-of-cycle-usage-on-traffic-jams.html

Yes, all my links come from this blog, but it contains pretty much anything you need to know on cycling as a mode of transport.

pwurple

who_me wrote: »

It's still not going to work for a parent needing to come to town for shopping. They can't bring a push-chair on the bike, they can't cycle into shops, and not many parents are going to walk around from shop to shop carrying their shopping and and one or more babies/infants.

I've done this, bring a child into town on my bike, do some shopping and come home. Put Baby in sling, stick bike outside the shop, easy. Twas grand before when i was a bike in with other traffic. Cars never move that fast in city center anyway, we were able to hold our own. Now, i wouldn't go near it. The lanes are crazy. Confusing, contraflow... No-one knows what the funny bicycle shapped traffic lights are for. Too dangerous for me now. I'll stick to the old railway line, and drive or get the bus into the city.

hoodwinked

mire wrote: »

Much of the debate here is largely about detail, and design, with varying opinions about what should and should not happen in various places. That is good. However, the stuff about climate and topography is has been trotted out time and time again. Just because there are hills and rain doesn't mean Cork should abandon cycling infrastructure, as there are loads of feasible cycle opportunities. If Cork was flat and dry these debates would still be raging.

well if cork was flat and dry i wouldn't be here arguing against cycle lanes on hills, i would gladly cycle, but i will NEVER be able to get a bike up the hills to my home, especially after spending the day (or whatever time previous) cycling around cork. so forcing people to cycle will not work, and the hills are a relevant reason for this.

pwurple wrote: »

No-one knows what the funny bicycle shapped traffic lights are for.

i do find this hard to believe, :pac:

i saw them for the first time on Sunday and guessed straight away they were a separate (albeit on the same sequencing as the pedestrian man) traffic light for cyclists. the bike gave it away really.

pwurple

hoodwinked wrote: »

i do find this hard to believe, :pac:

i saw them for the first time on Sunday and guessed straight away they were a separate (albeit on the same sequencing as the pedestrian man) traffic light for cyclists. the bike gave it away really.

Why does a cyclist need to cross from one footpath to another though? I mean, they are already on the road! Is it for u-turns or something?

hoodwinked

pwurple wrote: »

Why does a cyclist need to cross from one footpath to another though? I mean, they are already on the road! Is it for u-turns or something?

i think it's just giving them their own set of lights because they have a different sequencing to the roads traffic lights and in this case were the same as pedestrians so it lets cyclists (in the cycle lane) and pedestrians go when cars can not!

j8wk2feszrnpao

enas wrote: »

Thanks for having the patience to read my message! Although I feel you haven't really all my points, but surely, I can understand that

I read all your posting.

enas wrote: »

It's precisely because the finances are tight that money should be spent on what yields the best return for the investment. Dutch have determined that it is cheaper to build the infrastructure rather than not building it: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/487-million-euros-for-cycling.html

I'm actually talking about thing like special needs funding that's getting cut and patients on trolleys; I'd prefer to see things like that paid for before cycle lanes.
The investment should have been made in the boom, but no point in looking back now; it was a wasted opportunity.

enas wrote: »

If you're wet after cycling in the rain, it means that you haven't properly protected yourself against rain.

I worn full wet gear cycling to college, but the wind/rain still meant that I got damp; and I'd the colds as a result.
The Dutch cyclists don't appear to be battling a downpour and windy conditions.
Plus, some are holding umbrella's in one hand while cycling; and failing to make turn signal's like the ones without umbrella's. Not exactly following rules of the road stuff.

enas wrote: »

Those Dutch cyclists cycling in the rain in their suits are hardly spending the rest of their day in damps clothes are they?

I don't know. It's just people cycling in the rain. I don't know if they are travelling home or going to work.
If they are going to work, and considering some are not wearing rain gear and are getting wet, I can only assume they are either damp for the rest of the day or have showering/changing facilities at work.

enas

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'm actually talking about thing like special needs funding that's getting cut and patients on trolleys; I'd prefer to see things like that paid for before cycle lanes.

Well, not spending money on anything else as long as you still have patients on trolleys is the best way to guarantee things are never going to improve. At some stage, the economy has to start moving again and it will take care of the rest. Allowing people to move efficiently is a huge catalyst for economic recovery. I might be right or wrong regarding cycling, but what is absolutely certain is that without investing for the future, the situation you're describing is not about to change.

No matter how strained finances are, there's still a transport budget, so money is there, it's just a matter of how we chose to spend it. My view is that with little money available, a euro spent on cycling infrastructure will bring more than a euro spent, say, on metro north. My guess is that the government is perfectly aware of this, but unfortunately they are failing in implementing cycling facilities properly.

j8wk2feszrnpao

enas wrote: »

Well, not spending money on anything else as long as you still have patients on trolleys is the best way to guarantee things are never going to improve.

It might not improve for cyclists, but that is second to those who are most in need.
As I said, if they are funds been spend on cycling lanes, then I'd wish they'd do it as part of an overall plan. A huge spend on a cycling infrastructure isn't currently feasible.

enas wrote: »

No matter how strained finances are, there's still a transport budget, so money is there, it's just a matter of how we chose to spend it.

I agree, and cyclists/motorists are probably in agreement that the current use of those finances are been wasted by some of the lanes that have been built. They are underused due to poor layout/quality, and don't appear to encourage people to use a bicycle.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It might not improve for cyclists, but that is second to those who are most in need.
As I said, if they are funds been spend on cycling lanes, then I'd wish they'd do it as part of an overall plan. A huge spend on a cycling infrastructure isn't currently feasible.

The ''overall plan'' is the launch of the Cork bikes scheme which is due to open in the Autumn.

The cost to run this scheme? €1.25m for the 3 provincial cities per year.

The cost of the new bike lanes?

Washington St - €450k

The rest of the new lanes, in tandem with other road improvements for all users - €8.3m

A project costing ~€10m isn't exactly exorbitant, particularly when you compare and contrast with roads spending in both the Celtic Bubble and recessionary times.

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

A project costing ~€10m isn't exactly exorbitant, particularly when you compare and contrast with roads spending in both the Celtic Bubble and recessionary times.

Well the Celtic bubble is long gone, so no point revisiting that lost opportunity.

A large spend on high quality infrastructure isn't something we can currently afford with an expected €2B in taxes/cuts expected in the next budget.

The assigned funding is currently in place for cycle lanes. Most people would approve of these lanes. I only issue I have is that I don't believe that they are been implemented correctly as part of an coordinated plan that will work, and the view of many of the cyclists that use them (or don't use them) appears to show this.

I also have my doubts with the bike rental scheme that's due to come in. My experience of using the schemes in Paris/London was great.
But it was noticeable that on wet days they got a lot less use.
Cork city centre is small (walking distance) and it's mainly hills out of the city. Perhaps they'll get most use in the morning, and users may get public transport home (a friend of mine in Dublin does that). Despite my doubts, it's a scheme worth examining and I hope it's successful.

TINA1984

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Well the Celtic bubble is long gone, so no point revisiting that lost opportunity.

A large spend on high quality infrastructure isn't something we can currently afford with an expected €2B in taxes/cuts expected in the next budget.

I'm aware the bubble is over, hence why I mentioned the state is still committed to spending large amounts on roads & public transport eg nearly €300m on National Roads in 2014, and €250m on regional & local roads in 2013, €260m on public transport in 2013, LUAS BXD, as well as participation in PPP's like the M17/18 & N11/M7 upgrades.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The assigned funding is currently in place for cycle lanes. Most people would approve of these lanes. I only issue I have is that I don't believe that they are been implemented correctly as part of an coordinated plan that will work, and the view of many of the cyclists that use them (or don't use them) appears to show this.

I also have my doubts with the bike rental scheme that's due to come in. My experience of using the schemes in Paris/London was great.
But it was noticeable that on wet days they got a lot less use.
Cork city centre is small (walking distance) and it's mainly hills out of the city. Perhaps they'll get most use in the morning, and users may get public transport home (a friend of mine in Dublin does that). Despite my doubts, it's a scheme worth examining and I hope it's successful.

We shall see, but seeing as we're still months away from the launch of the Cork Bikes I think its a little premature to be writing off both that scheme and the infrastructure that's put in place to facilitate it.

j8wk2feszrnpao

TINA1984 wrote: »

I'm aware the bubble is over, hence why I mentioned the state is still committed to spending large amounts on roads & public transport eg nearly €300m on National Roads in 2014, and €250m on regional & local roads in 2013, €260m on public transport in 2013, LUAS BXD, as well as participation in PPP's like the M17/18 & N11/M7 upgrades.

I'd imagine that those who have to pay for; a car, car tax, car insurance, servicing, NCT, parking discs, petrol/diesel, tolls; would expect some investment on the taxes/vat they have to pay.

TINA1984 wrote: »

We shall see, but seeing as we're still months away from the launch of the Cork Bikes I think its a little premature to be writing off both that scheme and the infrastructure that's put in place to facilitate it.

It's too early to write it off or champion it. I hope my doubts are wrong and that it works very well.

whisky_galore

Hurr durr, dey tuk our roads...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/driver-yelled-at-off-duty-gardai-fing-cyclists-taking-over-the-road-633684.html

j8wk2feszrnpao

whisky_galore wrote: »

Hurr durr, dey tuk our roads...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/driver-yelled-at-off-duty-gardai-fing-cyclists-taking-over-the-road-633684.html

That's brilliant
Couldn't wait a min for them to turn right.

evilivor

munstermagic11 wrote: »

That's brilliant
Couldn't wait a min for them to turn right.

"the cyclists were cycling and chatting to each other two abreast, and that he drove behind them for a while, then beeped to let them know he was behind them"

What a moron.

mire

My points are general rather than design-oriented, and what I detect here is [as well as those constructive critical posts] is a general ambivalence to the idea of cycling, a generally negative reaction to change in this city generally. All I am suggesting is some perspective, some calm - what is a bit disappointing is people claiming that Cork's efforts to introduce cycling have failed - before the scheme has even been completed! - I'd suggest that people look around a bit, think of the bigger picture, wait 5/10 years, and then judge its success of not. All of this is nothing new or revolutionary. Cork is not the only city with physical and climate constraints. In addition, I welcome congestion; it is the best indicator of economic success a city can have. Show me a city centre with fast-moving roads and I'll show you a dying city.

This debate - for me- suggests that Cork has some growing up to do - because the level and tone of debate on this issue is a bit emarrassing to say the least. This is not me being condescending, it's my closely-held view on this.

evilivor

mire wrote: »

My points are general rather than design-oriented, and what I detect here is [as well as those constructive critical posts] is a general ambivalence to the idea of cycling, a generally negative reaction to change in this city generally. All I am suggesting is some perspective, some calm - what is a bit disappointing is people claiming that Cork's efforts to introduce cycling have failed - before the scheme has even been completed! - I'd suggest that people look around a bit, think of the bigger picture, wait 5/10 years, and then judge its success of not. All of this is nothing new or revolutionary. Cork is not the only city with physical and climate constraints. In addition, I welcome congestion; it is the best indicator of economic success a city can have. Show me a city centre with fast-moving roads and I'll show you a dying city.

This debate - for me- suggests that Cork has some growing up to do - because the level and tone of debate on this issue is a bit emarrassing to say the least. This is not me being condescending, it's my closely-held view on this.

It does come across slightly that way. They are having these debates in most cities - and there are very strong feelings on both sides - witness the reaction today to the proposal in Dublin for the North Quays - or have a sconce at the Letters page of today's Irish Times.

The same debates are taking place in car centric cities the world wide over the new lanes in London, Austin, Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, and D.C. I saw a news story recently about San Francisco and people going ape about driving or parking lanes.

It's a very live issue especially now after the Portland State University study The Case for Protected Bike Lanes