Cycling across the Eastlink

Eamonnator

mr spuckler wrote: »

it's on the wrong side in the photo coming from ringsend side but if coming from the point it's on the correct side.

In the unlikely event of a prosecution for cycling south to north, would it be a good defence to say, that sight of the sign was obstructed by an articulated truck?

mr spuckler

Eamonnator wrote: »

In the unlikely event of a prosecution for cycling south to north, would it be a good defence to say, that sight of the sign was obstructed by an articulated truck?

they certainly wouldn't be on solid ground if they had to point out the sign on the wrong side of the road and tell you you're meant to spot that while concentrating on traffic etc!

problem is though...i came that way this evening and they now have the sign on both sides of the road coming frmo south to north. never noticed it on left hand side before tonight so suspect that's a very recent development. thankfully i got away prosecution free

Mercian Pro

Last time I attempted to walk over the EL on the footpath, I met a man pushing a buggy coming the other way. The only way we could pass was for me to step down onto the roadway once there was a gap in the traffic. If all cyclists were to do as requested/required, I expect there will be plenty of complaints from pedestrians and not just those with buggies.

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

Walter2016

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

The prevailing winds are from a west southwest direction - or straight down the Liffey.

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river. In some circumstances you can also have a tunnelling effect. Also you do not have barriers to the winds such as solid walls, buildings etc.

So the signage and the byelaw is for the protection of cyclists, yet many seem not to like it?

If a cyclist does get blown into the path of a vehicle, no blame can be put with the council.

Orion

Walter2016 wrote: »

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river.

You've obviously never been up on Sally gap in a windy day

Wishbone Ash

Walter2016 wrote: »

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

The prevailing winds are from a west southwest direction - or straight down the Liffey.

In my limited knowledge of winds over water, they can be at a higher velocity than over land even when travelling over a river. In some circumstances you can also have a tunnelling effect. Also you do not have barriers to the winds such as solid walls, buildings etc.

So the signage and the byelaw is for the protection of cyclists, yet many seem not to like it?

If a cyclist does get blown into the path of a vehicle, no blame can be put with the council.

What about the many other bridges in Dublin where cycling is not restricted but are subjected to winds of equal measure? Away from the city centre, the bridge bringing the R132 over the M1 can be very dodgy on a windy day but has an official bike route on it and crossing the very popular Featherbeds area can be frightening on a bike at certain times but there is no restriction up there either.

Edit: beaten to it by Orion!

buffalo

Walter2016 wrote: »

Not a cyclist, but i would suspect that this is for the safety of cyclists.

I would suspect this is for the convenience of those driving motor vehicles, particularly trucks, so they don't have to slow down to share the road on a very narrow busy bridge.

Atlantic Dawn

If you are heading south to north getting on to the footpath on the left side is fine but I don't know how you would then safely join the traffic on the other side of the bridge to continue to the direction main port entrance as the nearest lane to the path is for turning left only...

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3464341,-6.2273383,3a,75y,23.11h,81.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ76Q5je18CeYuJjmfEPGAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

P_1

Honestly I find the Beckett Bridge worse for crosswinds. I've yet to have issue (aside from being stuck behind slow moving traffic) crossing the East Link on the bike. Ludicrous decision.

average_runner

What's worst is people cycling on the foot path on the east link bridge and expecting runners and pedestriansee to move outo of their way.

Encountered two people today when out for a lunchtime run.

Wishbone Ash

average_runner wrote: »

What's worst is people cycling on the foot path on the east link bridge and expecting runners and pedestriansee to move outo of their way.

Encountered two people today when out for a lunchtime run.

Nearly as bad as those runners who use dedicated cycle tracks and expect cyclists to move out of their way! :pac:

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Nearly as bad as those runners who use dedicated cycle tracks and expect cyclists to move out of their way! :pac:

I think you find the footpath on that bridge a lot more narrow and forcing people on to the road there is a lot of worst.

Yes on the Quay up to the bridge cyclist and everyone else seem to share footpath and cycle Lane, but plenty of room for all there on both paths.

Wishbone Ash

average_runner wrote: »

I think you find the footpath on that bridge a lot more narrow and forcing people on to the road there is a lot of worst.

Yes on the Quay up to the bridge cyclist and everyone else seem to share footpath and cycle Lane, but plenty of room for all there on both paths.

I'm thinking more of the on-road cycle tracks where there is a separate footpath for those on foot. The R132 between the Airport and Santry has its fair share of runners using the on-road cycle track. It's not so bad when they are running towards the cyclists compared to those going in the same direction as the cyclist and with earphones in situ blissfully unaware of what's happening behind them and unresponsive to any shouts.

beauf

Orion wrote: »

You've obviously never been up on Sally gap in a windy day

You're generally not in heavy traffic with a lot of HGV's in both directions, on Sallys Gap. I dunno when there is discussion about any road, its get derailed into discussions about entirely disparate roads.

I don't think the East Link is a great route for inexperienced cyclists. Its narrow, windy and has heavy traffic with a lot of HGV's. Its not great for walking across. I'm surprised they haven't put a steel walkway for pedestrians on it. Perhaps it would put it over the weight limit.

average_runner

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'm thinking more of the on-road cycle tracks where there is a separate footpath for those on foot. The R132 between the Airport and Santry has its fair share of runners using the on-road cycle track. It's not so bad when they are running towards the cyclists compared to those going in the same direction as the cyclist and with earphones in situ blissfully unaware of what's happening behind them and unresponsive to any shouts.

Totally agree with you there. Some very stupid people out there and they blame everyone else but themselves

Leroy42

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Last time I attempted to walk over the EL on the footpath, I met a man pushing a buggy coming the other way. The only way we could pass was for me to step down onto the roadway once there was a gap in the traffic. If all cyclists were to do as requested/required, I expect there will be plenty of complaints from pedestrians and not just those with buggies.

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

^^Nail on the head.

When did this come into effect?

How many accidents due to crosswinds have there been since the opening of the bridge that required this new rule to be brought in and what is the plan to reopen the road for cyclists?

They have effectively closed off a main bridge crossing for cyclists without any plan on how they will fix the inherently flawed design of the bridge (I am saying this based on the engineer saying that it is unsafe).

Simply sticking a sign up to cover themselves isn't (or at least shouldn't) be the answer.

Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as other road users. Save for motorways, where its not just cyclists that cannot use it, surely you can't simply go around banning in type of road user rather than others.

Deagol

Mercian Pro wrote: »

For the short distance involved, what would be wrong with requiring cars and lorries to stay behind cyclists on the bridge?

For the short distance involved, could you not just do as the sign says and walk across the bridge?

average_runner

Leroy42 wrote: »

^^Nail on the head.

When did this come into effect?

How many accidents due to crosswinds have there been since the opening of the bridge that required this new rule to be brought in and what is the plan to reopen the road for cyclists?

They have effectively closed off a main bridge crossing for cyclists without any plan on how they will fix the inherently flawed design of the bridge (I am saying this based on the engineer saying that it is unsafe).

Simply sticking a sign up to cover themselves isn't (or at least shouldn't) be the answer.

Cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as other road users. Save for motorways, where its not just cyclists that cannot use it, surely you can't simply go around banning in type of road user rather than others.

Well if they build an alternative for cyclists it be pointless as it won't get used. Look at liffey valley, they built an alternative bridge over the m50, but yet cyclists go on the road park where its crazy. But an alternative bridge be great for walkers and runners

Reason for bans on motorways is because of the speed of other vechicles, a cyclist wouldn't survive if hit.

Chuchote

It seems odd that one of the pavements on either side of the bridge isn't made into a two-way cycle lane.

average_runner

Chuchote wrote: »

It seems odd that one of the pavements on either side of the bridge isn't made into a two-way cycle lane.

Those pavements are too narrow to support a bike system and how do they handle the roundabout?

The wind is bad there too! Someone will get kill there, either a walker or cyclist or runner

Leroy42

average_runner wrote: »

Well if they build an alternative for cyclists it be pointless as it won't get used. Look at liffey valley, they built an alternative bridge over the m50, but yet cyclists go on the road park where its crazy. But an alternative bridge be great for walkers and runners

Reason for bans on motorways is because of the speed of other vechicles, a cyclist wouldn't survive if hit.

On the alternative bridge, many of the alternatives take cyclists way off the track on so are less than appealing. Nothing wrong with going on the road, the alternative was not built to remove cyclists from the road but to give cyclists an alternative if they feel the road is too difficult. In the East link, they haven't provided any alternative, just deemed that the road is closed to cyclists from now on.

I understand the thinking behind the ban on motorways, but it applies to many other types of vehicles not just cyclists. Pedestrians are not allowed to walk, learner drivers, less than 50CC motorbikes. Is this the same on the East link? No, just cyclists.

Chuchote

average_runner wrote: »

Those pavements are too narrow to support a bike system and how do they handle the roundabout?

The wind is bad there too! Someone will get kill there, either a walker or cyclist or runner

Good point. The Earth view on Google Maps shows an artic trying to negotiate the roundabout after the end of the Tom Clarke Bridge (the Eastlink); I certainly wouldn't like to be cycling near it.

Seaswimmer

Chuchote wrote: »

Good point. The Earth view on Google Maps shows an artic trying to negotiate the roundabout after the end of the Tom Clarke Bridge (the Eastlink); I certainly wouldn't like to be cycling near it.

I think there are plans to replace that roundabout with a signal controlled junction.

Wishbone Ash

Deagol wrote: »

For the short distance involved, could you not just do as the sign says and walk across the bridge?

I take it that you don't do much walking in cleats?

07Lapierre

Deagol wrote: »

For the short distance involved, could you not just do as the sign says and walk across the bridge?

No

average_runner

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the alternative bridge, many of the alternatives take cyclists way off the track on so are less than appealing. Nothing wrong with going on the road, the alternative was not built to remove cyclists from the road but to give cyclists an alternative if they feel the road is too difficult. In the East link, they haven't provided any alternative, just deemed that the road is closed to cyclists from now on.

I understand the thinking behind the ban on motorways, but it applies to many other types of vehicles not just cyclists. Pedestrians are not allowed to walk, learner drivers, less than 50CC motorbikes. Is this the same on the East link? No, just cyclists.

The alternative bridge doesn't take anyone off their route.

Nothing wrong going on the road there, well maybe put that on your tombstone so your love ones will know at least!

Utdfan20titles

Cyclists don't pay the toll to use the road bridge like other vehicles

Seaswimmer

Deagol wrote: »

For the short distance involved, could you not just do as the sign says and walk across the bridge?

On a serious note I don't think walking across is the safest option for either pedestrians or cyclists. The paths are very narrow so assuming you are wheeling your bike beside you then possibly a pedestrian has to step in to the road to get past. Either that or accidentally get a lump taken out of their shins by a pedal.

I always find going south to north that the traffic is mainly slow or stopped due to the roundabout at the Point end.

going north to south usually has faster moving traffic but the bridge is so short that I don't think its any major inconvenience for traffic to slow slightly for the few seconds it takes a cyclist to cross.

magicbastarder

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

Cyclists don't pay the toll to use the road bridge like other vehicles

this may be true, but it doesn't throw any light on whether cyclists should walk or cycle?

Mercian Pro

average_runner wrote: »

What's worst is people cycling on the foot path on the east link bridge and expecting runners and pedestriansee to move outo of their way.

Encountered two people today when out for a lunchtime run.

A cyclist walking a bike over the bridge on the footpath will generally take up twice the space as someone cycling.

Leroy42 wrote: »

How many accidents due to crosswinds have there been since the opening of the bridge that required this new rule to be brought in and what is the plan to reopen the road for cyclists?

I think it is only here that people are assuming the banning of cycling and the wind conditions are somehow linked. I don't think DCC have given a reason why they consider it unsafe to cycle. IMHO, the anti-cycling bias that exists in many Local Authority Traffic Departments lives on and this exemplifies it. Looking for a solution that separates cyclists from artics and cars is just too much hassle. Placing an order for a few new signs is so much easier.